Los Angeles DUI Attorney Blog

May 2, 2016

More Restrictions on DUI Drivers In Free State

Since the passage of AB 91 in 2010, California has required all drivers convicted of DUI in Los Angeles, Alameda, Sacramento and Tulare Counties to install ignition interlock devices (IIDs) in their vehicles if they want to qualify for a restricted driving license. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has supported this effort and similar policies adopted by other states.

Now Maryland legislators have passed their own version of the IID law. In their 2016 session, which ended in mid-April, Maryland legislators unanimously adopted Noah’s Law, named in honor of a Montgomery County police officer struck and killed by a drunk driver last December. Ironically, Officer Noah Leotta was working at a sobriety checkpoint at the time.

The new law will apply to anyone, including first-time offenders, who have a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or higher. They’ll need to keep the IID for six months or lose their license. Anyone who refuses a breathalyzer test at the time of arrest will have to install the IID for nine months after conviction or give up their driving privileges for that time.

April 29, 2016

Nebraska Supreme Court Reinstates Driver’s DUI Conviction

by Michael Kraut

Drivers who appeal their conviction for DUI in Los Angeles always hope that an appeals court will rule in their favor. A Nebraska driver had that wish come true—only to have the state’s Supreme Court overrule the appeals court, so his conviction still stands.

The Lincoln Journal Star reported on the case of 27-year old Adam Woldt, arrested for DUI in September 2013. A police officer had pulled over a truck that was traveling in front of Woldt’s vehicle, because the officer thought that truck had knocked over some traffic cones. Woldt said that the truck and the police vehicle, with its door open, were blocking the road, so he started backing up in order to drive around the two stopped vehicles.

April 27, 2016

DUIs Hit Your Pocketbook

by Michael Kraut

Ever wondered how much a conviction for a DUI in Los Angeles will really cost you? A recent study from InsuranceQuotes.com provides some insights.

The website took a look at the average increases in vehicle insurance rates after drivers get a ticket for a moving violation. Insurers raised their rates the most for drivers arrested for DUI/DWI; the average premium for the entire country almost doubled, increasing by 94 percent.

Insurers in California, however, are even tougher on their customers. California has the third highest average rate increase after a DUI–a whopping 189.34%! (But Golden State drivers can be glad they don’t live in North Carolina, where the average increase is 333.85%, or in Hawaii, where they’ll pay an average 293.79% more for auto insurance after a DUI.)

Reckless driving will also get you a hefty increase in your auto insurance costs. The average rate increase for California drivers is 189.34%, second only to Hawaii’s 290.68%. Speeding apparently does not cause the same degree of concern for insurers, since the average premiums in California increase by 37.83% for that offense. (California has the eighth highest average premium increase in the U.S.)

April 25, 2016

Interesting Court Decisions in DUI Cases

by Michael Kraut

Prosecutors sometimes use a “relation-back” calculation to determine blood alcohol content when charging someone with a Los Angeles DUI. The theory is that chemists or other experts can look at the results of a blood test taken a few hours after an arrest and calculate what the BAC content would have been at the time the police officer pulled the driver over.

Now a judge in Vermont has ruled that the state can’t use such evidence.

According to WCAX and NECN (New England Cable News), Judge Howard Van Benthuysen of the Orleans County Criminal Court ruled that the “relation-back” calculations are unreliable. He cited scientific evidence that shows alcohol leaves people’s bloodstreams at very different rates.

With his decision, Judge Van Benthuysen threw out the BAC in 25 DUI driving cases before the court. There’s no word yet about whether or not the prosecutor will appeal the ruling to a higher court. In Michigan, meanwhile, the state’s appeals court has ruled that operating your car in a driveway while under the influence does not constitute DUI.

April 20, 2016

Navy Hero [Who Claims He Killed Osama Bin Laden] Gets Nabbed For DUI

by Michael Kraut

Police officers are not selective about who they arrest for DUI in Los Angeles and other cities. Celebrity, political figures—even people who have distinguished themselves for their courageous actions—may find themselves facing these charges.

According to media reports, former Navy SEAL Rob O’Neill faces DUI charges in Montana after police officers in Butte-Silver Bow County found him passed out in a car in the parking lot of a convenience store. O’Neill claimed that he was the person who killed Osama bin Laden when the Navy Seals cornered him in a house in Pakistan.

April 18, 2016

Supreme Court Hears Arguments in DUI Cases

by Michael Kraut

When a police officer suspects someone of DUI in Los Angeles, the officer will usually ask the driver to take a breathalyzer test. Under California Vehicle Code 23612, a driver who refuses could face fines, mandatory jail time and loss of license for a year if the court convicts him/her of DUI.

A case now before the Supreme Court of the United States could force California and 11 other states to change such laws. Judging from the questions posed by the Justices during oral arguments on April 20th, the court appeals skeptical about states’ contentions that public safety issues should outweigh Fourth Amendment concerns.

Both Minnesota and North Dakota have laws similar to California’s “implied consent” statute, making it a crime to refuse chemical testing when officers suspect DUI. The Supreme Court consolidated appeals in three separate cases–one from Minnesota and two from North Dakota–into one case, Birchfield v. North Dakota. The defendants in these cases either served time for refusing a breathalyzer or felt they were pressured into submitting to one, leading to convictions on DUI charges.

April 13, 2016

Will 13th Strike Finally Get DUI Driver Out?

by Michael Kraut

Everyone knows that in baseball the rule is three strikes, and you’re out of the game. But life isn’t always like baseball, and drivers convicted multiple times of DUI in Los Angeles often get behind the wheel and pose threats to others. Of course, California isn’t the only state with this problem, as illustrated by a recent incident in Denham Springs, Louisiana.

Before March 19th, 53-year old Jeffrey Blough had managed to rack up 11 DWI arrests and eight DWI convictions between 1983 and 2016. He had served time in jail and in prison, and he was on probation for one of those DWI offenses, when he crashed his Black Suburban into another vehicle while driving in Denham Springs. Police arrested him for DUI and took him to the station. Somehow, though, they did not pick up the fact that he had a long history of similar offenses and convictions. They let him go after charging him.

April 11, 2016

Deputy Disqualified, 104 DUI Court Cases Thrown Out

by Michael Kraut

Anyone facing trial for a Los Angeles DUI would be well advised to tell the truth when taking the stand. Lying to a judge and jury lead to serious consequences, including perjury charges. But if the truthfulness of a police officer’s statement is in doubt, that can be good news for drivers whose convictions depend on his or her testimony.

To that point, the district attorney of Wake County, North Carolina, recently decided to dismiss charges against 104 drivers accused of DUI after a judge caught a sheriff’s deputy lying during his testimony during one trial. Prosecutors had planned to use Deputy Robert Davis as a witness in those DUI cases and in 71 other traffic cases, which the prosecutor also dismissed.

April 7, 2016

Tough Decision for DUI Driver: Alligator Teeth or Handcuffs?

by Michael Kraut

Drivers arrested for DUI in Los Angeles have usually demonstrated that they don’t make good decisions. Once you’ve made a poor choice, it’s surprisingly easy to make a tough situation worse – often, far worse!

Case in point: Richard Lange faced a decision recently in Montgomery County, Florida. Should he continue to flee from police and risk getting bitten by alligators? Or should he remain on safe ground and wait for rescue (and arrest on charges of DUI, among other things)?

According to The Courier of Montgomery County, Lange hit several cars on I-45 and left the scene of those accidents when deputies spotted the front end damage to his vehicle and saw that he was riding on only three wheels.
But Lange wasn’t ready to surrender. When police pulled him over, he ran and jumped into a nearby lake to avoid capture. Trouble was, the lake was full of alligators. Lange realized his mistake and swam to the island in the center of the water, where he stayed for four hours until police got a boat to rescue him. He still tried to appear innocent and reportedly asked the officers if it was a crime to go swimming.

April 5, 2016

Florida Judge Denies Reduction in 33-Year DUI Sentence

by Michael Kraut

Judges presiding in cases of DUI in Los Angeles may be more inclined to show clemency when defendants express true remorse for their actions and make a sincere effort to turn their lives around. But they’re less likely to be merciful when a defendant demonstrates that he continues to demonstrate the same behaviors that got him trouble in the first place.

Kenneth Jenkins recently learned that lesson in a Florida courtroom. The Palm Beach Post reported that Jenkins, convicted of causing the deaths of three people in a March 2008 DUI-related accident, asked for a reduction in his 33-year sentence. Circuit Judge Charles Burton denied that request.

Three years after his arrest, Jenkins, now age 33, pleaded guilty to DUI and to driving the wrong way on Interstate 95 near Delray Beach. His black Pontiac GTO caused a series of accidents before it eventually slammed into a 2008 Mercedes, killing three of the vehicle’s four occupants. The case dragged on while Jenkins’ original attorneys tried to determine whether the Mercedes’ driver had also been partly at fault for the accident.