California passed a new tough pilot ingnition interlock device law that would require DUI / Drunk Driving offenders (including first time offenders) to install an ignition interlock device on all vehicles owned or operated by the offender. This pilot project law is limited to Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare counties. The law is to take effect July 1, 2010 and is set to expire January 1, 2016. There are certain requirements before the law actually takes effect such as the California Department of Motor Vehicles will be required to obtain, by January 31, 2010, non-California funding for the costs of the pilot program. The pilot law also requires another California law to go into effect on or before January 1, 2010 that allows for repeat DUI / Drunk Driving offenders to obtain a restricted license provided in part they install an Ignition Interlock Device (IID).

There have been some major changes in California DUI / Drunk Driving laws in 2009. The California DMV is now responsible for administering mandatory ignition interlock devices (IID) that are to be installed in vehicles owned or operated by a driver convicted of driving with a suspended license due to a prior DUI / Drunk Driving conviction. Also, Courts may require first time offenders convicted of DUI / Drunk Driving to install ignition interlock devices (IID) who reportedly have a blood/breath alcohol level of 0.15% at the time of the arrest. Finally, police may impound a vehicle of a driver who is on DUI / Drunk Driving probation and is driving with a blood/breath alcohol level of 0.01% or higher.

According to the most recent year the California Department of Motor Vehicles records are available, LA County had the most DUI / Drunk Driving arrests for 2007 in California with 41,286. This represents 20.3% of all persons arrested in 2007 for DUI / Drunk Driving. Southern California’s 5 counties (Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside) accounted for 48.3% of all persons arrested for DUI / Drunk Driving in California for 2007. The California county with the lowest number of DUI / Drunk Driving arrests in 2007 was Alpine county with 19.

According to the American Beverage Institute, DUI / Drunk Driving checkpoints are costly and ineffective. Citing California statistics, in 2008, out of 1,000,000 motorists stopped at DUI checkpoints, only one-third of one percent were charged with DUI / Drunk Driving. On the other hand, publicizing the locations of DUI / Drunk Driving checkpoints may have a deterrent effect on drinking drivers who are aware of the checkpoints and their locations. I wonder if a study will be done that measures the amount of time each motorist is stopped and use those results in the analysis of whether or not to conduct checkpoints.

Recently, the California Supreme Court held that competent evidence of variations between people’s breath alcohol levels and blood alcohol levels is admissible to show that breath tests results can overstate the actual blood alcohol level of a driver in DUI / Drunk Driving prosecutions. This scientific principal is called “partition ratio variation” which has been well documented in the scientific community for decades. This variation is caused by all breath testing machines being programmed to assume everyone has the same variation formula. In reality, this formula is only based on an average and does not take into account an individual’s own ratio of breath alcohol levels compared to blood alcohol levels. Looks like credible science is making its way back into California courts.

According to the California Department of Motor Vehicles, almost 74% of drivers who were convicted for DUI / Drunk Driving in 2006 (most recent year data available) were first time offenders (drivers who have not been convicted for DUI / Drunk Driving during the previous ten years). Only 6.8% of drivers convicted for DUI / Drunk Driving in 2006 had 3 or more prior convictions during the previous 10 years. Overall, DUI / Drunk Driving arrest in California increased by 3.4% in 2007 following an increase of 9.4% in 2006.

After checking for this 4th of July holiday weekend DUI / Drunk Driving checkpoint locations, I found most of the publicity suprisingly vague as to specific locations. What was also suprising is that many of the checkpoints will stop every driver that drives into a checkpoint in order to check for people who may be DUI, lack valid drivers’ licenses and possibly for possessing fireworks as well. Generally, the police are required to disclose the specific locations and not stop every driver in a DUI checkpoint. However, combining DUI / Drunk Driving checkpoints with fireworks and driver’s license checks, law enforcement may feel it can be less vague in publicizing DUI / Drunk Driving checkpoints and  more aggresive by stopping every vehicle than otherwise just looking for DUI / Drunk Driving suspects at DUI checkpoints.

According to the California Department of Motor Vehicles, there were 203,866 DUI / Drunk Driving arrests in 2007. This breaks down to 197,602 misdemeanor and 6,264 felony DUI / Drunk Driving arrests for 2007.

Also in 2007, there were 192,213 DUI / Drunk Driving DMV Administrative Per Se suspension/revocation actions. An administrative per se suspension/revocation action occurs after a police officer takes a California driver’s license and/or issues a temporary license after the driver has been arrested for DUI / Drunk Drivng and took a breath test with results of a .08 or greater, took a blood test or refuses a breath or blood test, or if someone under 21 either has a breath or blood test with a result of a .01 or greater.

Finally, in 2007, almost 76% of people facing California DUI / Drunk Driving DMV administrative per se suspension/revocation actions were facing their first DUI / Drunk Driving DMV administrative per se suspension/revocation action.

According to a report released on February 18, 2009, by the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, the nation’s crime labs on the federal, state and local levels are rife with serious deficiencies including lacking practitioner and laboratory independence, standards, oversight and certification. The National Research Council called for the establishment of a wholly independent federal agency, the National Institute of Forensic Science to address the problems in the current science and system. As this relates to DUI / Drunk Driving defense, we experience a wide variation of policy, procedures and testimony from the various county crime labs statewide in California. The testimony variation also includes chemists within the same county crime lab who testify differently from each other in DUI / Drunk Driving cases.

Oftentimes I am asked about unusual DUI / Drunk Driving cases we have handled. One case we handled a while ago was a golfer who was arrested for DUI / Drunk Driving while driving a golf cart! The client was finished playing golf and was driving home in the golf cart. Keep in mind that in California, anyone is subject to being arrested for DUI / Drunk Driving in any type of motorized vehicle anywhere in the State. If you know of an unusual DUI / Drunk Driving arrest like this one, please let me know.