Tuesday, January 12, 2016

The Difference Between DUI, Wet Reckless & Dry Reckless - A Frequently Asked Question

As stated in the accompanying webpage entitled: "Understanding the Differences Between DUI and a Wet Reckless Plea": I’m often asked: what is a “wet reckless”? A wet reckless is an “alcohol-related” reckless driving. Well, that does not really answer the question, does it?

A wet reckless is a plea to another Vehicle Code Section, Vehicle Code Section 23013 per Vehicle Code Section 23103.5. The latter statutory provision permits the government to use a "wet reckless" conviction as a prior driving under the influence conviction for purposes of punishment in the second or subsequent case.

But there are other differences as well. To learn more about "Understanding the Differences Between DUI and a Wet Reckless Plea".

Motion to Suppress - Vehicle Code Section 26708 - View Obstructions

This is Part X of the web series dedicated to Motions to Suppress in the State of California that was previously published only to my Google+ Following; which is now available through my blog on Google Blogger.

Part X of this series focuses on View Obstructions and which types of view obstructions are in fact a violation of law and which are not. 

An object hanging from the rearview mirror of a motor vehicle does not provide sufficient grounds for a detention unless the police officer has an objectively reasonable basis to believe that the object is obstructing or reducing the driver’s clear view through the windshield or side windows. See CVC § 26708(a)(2). 

Friday, January 8, 2016

DUI Reckless Speed Enhancements - Mandatory 60 Days In Jail

This morning there was a story about a Paxton, Illinois teenager who was stopped by the police for driving in excess of 100 mph in a 55-mph speed zone while also driving under the influence of alcohol among other charges according to Paxton Police Chief Bob Bane. Mr. Bane said that Talon C. Yaden, 18, of 210 W. Patton St., was driving a 1994 Ford Mustang west on Illinois 9 around 2 a.m. Wednesday when a Paxton police officer attempted to pull over his car for speeding near the intersection with the Ford County Road 1800 East, on the city's west edge. Yaden then turned south onto County Road 1775 East before finally stopping for the officer about 2 miles south of Paxton, at the intersection with County Road 200 North. 
Yaden is being charged with the speed enhancement in addition to the DUI charge and illegal consumption of alcohol by a minor.
This story demonstrates the issues associated with not only under-aged drinking, but also driving in excess of the speed limit. Where it is pled and proven, or admitted, that a defendant drover 30 m.p.h. over the maximum, prima facie, or posted speed limit on a freeway, or 20 m.p.h. or more over the maximum, prima facie, or posted speed limit on any other street or highway, and that he/she did so in violation of Vehicle Code Section 23013 - the reckless driving statute - while concurrently violation Vehicle Code Sections 23152 or 23153, he/she will be required to serve a mandatory jail sentence of 60-days pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 23582.
Click the link to learn more about Reckless Speed Enhancements.
Click the link to learn more about Speed Violations.

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Some Noteworthy New Laws for California In 2016

Despite some of Governor Brown's efforts to curtail some of these legislative changes, the Legislature managed to pass several laws relating to crime and punishment.

Assembly Bill 1343 created two brand new Penal Code Sections: 1016.2 and 1016.3. These sections direct both defense lawyers and prosecutors to address immigration consequences of a plea to a criminal charge. It also requires that prosecutors consider the avoidance of adverse immigration consequences in plea negotiations in order to reach a just and proper resolution to a criminal charge. Penal Code Section 1016.3 reads as follows:

  • (a) Defense counsel shall provide accurate and affirmative advice about the immigration consequences of a proposed disposition, and when consistent with the goals of and with the informed consent of the defendant, and consistent with professional standards, defend against those consequences.
  • (b) The prosecution, in the interests of justice, and in furtherance of the findings and declarations of Section 1016.2, shall consider the avoidance of adverse immigration consequences in the plea negotiation process as one factor in an effort to reach a just resolution.
  • (c) This code section shall not be interpreted to change the requirements of Section 1016.5, including the requirement that no defendant shall be required to disclose his or her immigration status to the court.

Under Penal Code Sections 148 and 69, every person who deters or prevents an executive officer from performing any of his or her duties, or knowingly resists the officer, is punishable by a fine or imprisonment, or both, as specified. Senate Bill 411 amended those statutes to provide that the fact that a person takes a photograph or makes an audio and/or video recording of an executive officer, while the officer is in a public place or the person taking the photograph or making the recording is in a place he or she has the right to be, is not, in and of itself, a violation of the above-mentioned provision. This is a major change that makes more sense when you consider some of the other legislative changes for 2016 regarding police officers.

Assembly Bill 953 mandates a system for law enforcement to collect information on each traffic stop they make and this data is to be reported to the attorney general each year.

Senate Bill 227 bars the use of grand juries in police shooting investigations.

Senate Bill 178 now requires law enforcement officers to secure a court-ordered search warrant before being able to inspect electronic information stored on electronic devices, such as cell phones, tablets and/or computers.

Senate Bill 491 may provide law enforcement officers with reasonable suspicion to stop and detain motorists who are wearing or using earbuds that cover, rest on or are inserted in both ears. Emergency Responders and those who wear hearing aids are excepted. The law was enacted to ensure that motorists can hear sirens and other safety alerts; but much like the cell phone law that was passed a few years ago, this new law may provide law enforcement officers with a reason to stop and detain you in search of a bigger crime, such as DUI.

Senate Bill 405, which has already taken effect, allows people contesting traffic citations to do so without first paying the fine. After all, you are innocent until proven guilty.

Assembly Bill 1461, known as the “Motor Voter” law registers people to vote when they receive or renew their driver’s licenses unless the person chooses to “opt-out”.

Assembly Bill 1375 increases the amount credited in Penal Code 1205 from $30 to $125 per day, which is a good thing for those who choose to serve time instead of paying any court fines that may be imposed in conjunction with a criminal offense, whether it be a felony or a misdemeanor. At least your time is worth more today than it was last year and years before.

Assembly Bill 8 permits law enforcement agencies to issue what are being called “Yellow Alerts” if a person has been killed or seriously injured in a hit-and-run traffic incident for which law enforcement has information about the suspect and/or the suspect’s vehicle, including a partial license plate number. The law authorizes the California Highway Patrol to use digital message signs when requested by local law enforcement. It also encourages radio, television, and cable and satellite systems to disseminate the identifying information.

Senate Bill 61 granted a one-year extension to the pilot program in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento and Tulare counties that requires all individuals convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) to install an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) in their vehicles. 




http://crime-iq.com - New 2016 Legislation

Thank you to the above-named sources for providing the information contained in this blog post. 

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Fullerton DUI Arrest - Fullerton DUI Attorney

Defending a DUI charge is not easy. It takes time. It also takes knowledge of police procedures and how to use that knowledge to determine whether any legal and/or factual defenses exist and how to use those defenses to obtain a more favorable outcome.

Each agency in Orange County accumulates different types of discovery or evidence that they intend to use against you to convict you of the crime of driving under the influence. Some of those agencies record the entire contact on video, which includes audio. Some agencies use body worn cameras that record the entire contact on video, which also includes audio. 

But there are other types of evidence that need to evaluated, such as the crime lab records relating to the breath and/or blood test that you submitted to after being arrested for DUI - all of this evidence is important to your defense.

None of this evidence is easy to interpret - again, it takes time and it takes knowledge.

The first series of blogs for 2016 deals with the types of DUI Discovery you should expect to obtain or receive in connection with your Orange County DUI Arrest, starting with the City of Fullerton as many of our readers will likely be returning to college and/or graduate schools in that area within a week or two of the date of this post.

The City of Fullerton is patrolled by the Fullerton Police Department. The City of Fullerton did not historically make audio and video recordings of their DUI Investigations; but after some incidents involving allegations against Fullerton Police Department Officers arose, the City decided to begin using Body Worn Camera that capture audio and video of the Fullerton DUI Investigation.

In addition to the Fullerton Police Department there are several campus police organizations, such as the California State University, Fullerton Police Department. These agencies typically do not make any audio and/or video recordings of the DUI Investigation.

Contact Fullerton DUI Attorney Peter F. Iocona to learn more about a Fullerton DUI Arrest and to obtain a Free DUI Consultation and Case Evaluation.