Law & Information

Believe it or not we have good news. The answer is YES, so long as you do not commit a moving violation by doing so. When police agencies decide to set up sobriety checkpoints they must do two things.

First they must send out notifications to the general public telling the public where and when the checkpoints will take place. Second, they must set up the check points in a manner where if a driver sees a checkpoint they can legally avoid going through the check point by driving their vehicle in another direction.

Can Police Stop Me for Turning Around

The answer is NO unless they are stopping you for a violation of the law. This means if you make a legal turning movement to avoid the checkpoint the police cannot stop your vehicle. However, if you have a warrant for your arrest, or expired tags or commit any other traffic violation then the police can stop your vehicle lawfully. If after stopping you they “suspect” that you are under the influence of alcohol they can ask you to perform tests to determine if they believe you are driving under the influence.

If the police stop your vehicle because you intentionally avoided a checkpoint your experienced DUI defense law firm can bring a motion to have your case dismissed. If the judge believes that the only reason the police officers stopped you was because you did not choose to go through the checkpoint procedure then your case will likely be dismissed.

California DUI Lawyer

Wallin & Klarich has over 30 years of experience successfully defending our clients facing DUI charges and helping them avoid jail time. We have the skill and experience to help you win your case. Our offices are located in Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, West Covina, Victorville, Torrance, and Sherman Oaks. Call us today at (877) 4-NO-JAIL or (877) 466-5245. We will be there when you call.

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

According to California Vehicle Code section 23612, if you are arrested for a DUI offense committed in violation of California Vehicle Code section 23140, 23152 or 23153, you are deemed to have given your consent to chemical testing through either a blood or breath test to determine the alcohol content of your blood. If a blood test is unavailable, you may be required to submit to a urine test. This is known as the “Implied Consent Law,” as you do not have to actually give permission at the time for the chemical test to be performed. Instead, the law provides that you already have given consent.

According to California Vehicle Code section 23612, the test must be administered after a lawful arrest, at the direction of a peace officer who had probable cause to believe that you were driving while intoxicated, in violation of California Vehicle Code section 23140, 23152, or 23153.

DUI Offenses affected by California’s Implied Consent Law

California’s implied consent law applies to DUI offenses described under California Vehicle Code section 23140, 23152, and 23153.

California Vehicle Code section 23140 makes it unlawful for you to drive a vehicle if you are under the age of 21 and have a blood alcohol content of 0.05 percent or more.

California Vehicle Code section 23152 states that it is unlawful for you to drive a vehicle while you are under the influence of alcohol or a drug, such that you can no longer drive the vehicle with the ordinary caution and care that a sober person could exercise under similar circumstances.

California Vehicle Code section 23153 applies to DUI’s that cause injury. In order for you to be convicted under section 23153, you must have been driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and failed to perform a legal duty that resulted in bodily injury to another person.

Consequences for Refusal to Submit to Chemical Testing

California Vehicle Code section 23612(a)(1)(D) describes the consequences you face if you do not comply with California’s implied consent law. If you fail to submit to chemical testing after being arrested for a DUI, you will face a fine; and if you are convicted under California Vehicle Code section 23152 or 23153, you will face an additional mandatory jail sentence. In addition, if you fail to submit to chemical testing, you may also face the following consequences:

(1) The suspension of your driving privileges for one year;

(2) Revocation of your driving privileges for two years if:

A. You refused to comply with chemical testing within 10 years of a separate DUI, reckless driving, or vehicular manslaughter conviction; OR
B. Your driving privileges were previously suspended for an offense that occurred on a separate occasion

(3) Revocation of your driving privileges for a period of three years if:

A. You refused to comply with chemical testing within 10 years on two or more separate DUI, reckless driving, or vehicular manslaughter convictions; OR
B. Your driving privileges were previously suspended or revoked two or more times for offenses that occurred on separate occasions

Refusing to take a Preliminary Alcohol Screening Test (PAS)

When you are first stopped by a police officer for a DUI, you do not have to submit to a preliminary alcohol screening test (PAS). The PAS test is different from the chemical test you are required to submit to because the PAS test is requested before you are arrested, whereas the chemical test is requested after your arrest and performed at the police station. Unlike the chemical test, you will not face any penalties for refusing to submit to a PAS test.

California DUI Lawyer

Wallin & Klarich has over 30 years of experience defending clients charged with driving under the influence. The California DUI lawyers at Wallin & Klarich will assist you through the legal process and help you present the best possible defense available to you under the circumstances of your case. Wallin & Klarich understands that a conviction for driving under the influence can result in negative consequences that have a large impact on your life and will fight to prevent those consequences. Our offices are located in Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, West Covina, Victorville, Torrance and Sherman Oaks. Call Wallin & Klarich today at 877-4-NO-JAIL or 877-466-5245. We will get through this together.

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

Generally speaking, your driver’s license will be suspended by the DMV if you are convicted of a DUI. If you are convicted of your first DUI under California Vehicle Code 23152, you have the option of obtaining a restricted driver’s license. However, the requirements to obtain a restricted driver’s license and maintain it are strict. If you fail to meet any one of the requirements, you may be subject to further penalties. If you are facing a DUI charge, a DMV hearing for a DUI arrest, or have already had your license suspended, then you should contact a Southern California DUI defense attorney at Wallin & Klarich to discuss your options.

Prosecution for a DUI

In order to convict you of a DUI under CVC 23152(a), the prosecution must prove that:

1. You drove a vehicle; AND
2. When you drove, you were under the influence of alcohol and/or a drug

In order to convict you of a DUI under CVC 23152(b), the prosecution must prove that:

1. You drove a vehicle; AND
2. When you drove, your blood alcohol content (BAC) was 0.08% or more by weight

It is important to note that if you are charged under CVC 23152(a), then the prosecution does not need to prove your BAC. The prosecutor only needs to prove that you were under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or both, at the time you were driving.

How to Obtain a Restricted Driver’s License

Obtaining a restricted driver’s license is expensive and can be difficult for some people to maintain. The restricted driver’s license enables you to drive to and from work, school, and your alcohol education program. There are several requirements which you must meet to be eligible for a noncommercial restricted driver’s license:

• This is your first DUI offense within 10 years
• You completed a chemical test during your DUI stop
• The results of the chemical test showed a BAC level of 0.04% or more while you were operating a commercial vehicle, or 0.08% or more while operating a noncommercial vehicle
• You were 21 years of age or older at the time of the offense (CVC 13353.7); AND
• Your driving privilege is not suspended or revoked for any other reason

The requirements you must meet before you are granted a restricted driver’s license by the DMV are:

• Obtain proof of financial responsibility (i.e., California Insurance Proof Certificate [SR 22], $35,000 cash deposit, surety bond, or self-insurer certificate under CVC 16430)
• A mandatory period of 30-days has elapsed since your license was suspended
• Payment of a reissuance fee of one hundred and twenty-five dollars ($125)
• Request a restriction that allows you to drive to and from work, during the course of your work, and to and from your alcohol education program; AND
• Enroll in a DUI First Offender program as ordered by the court and notify the program of your intent to apply for a restricted driver’s license

Bear in mind that the restricted driver’s license permits you to drive only to work, school, and alcohol education programs. If you are facing a DMV hearing as a result of a DUI arrest or have already had your license suspended, you should consult with the experienced DUI defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich for more information on how to obtain a restricted driver’s license.

Restricted Driver’s Licenses for your Second or Third DUI Conviction within 10 years

If this is your second DUI conviction within 10 years, then you will lose your driver’s license for two years. You will be able to apply for a restricted driver’s after your complete a 12 month suspension period, or a 90 day suspension period if your DUI conviction did not include the use of drugs. You will also have to complete an 18 month DUI program, provide proof of financial responsibility, and pay all the required DMV fees.

If this is your third DUI conviction within 10 years, then the DMV will revoke your driver’s license for a period of 3 years. In the case of a third DUI, you may be eligible for a restricted driver’s license after completing a 12 month suspension period, or a six month suspension period if your DUI conviction did not include the use of drugs. Also, you will be required to complete an 18 month DUI program, provide proof of financial responsibility, pay all required DMV fees, and install an ignition interlock device on your vehicle.

Other Penalties

These are only a small portion of the penalties you will face if you are convicted of a DUI or DWI under California Vehicle Codes 23152. In addition to the requirements for obtaining a restricted driver’s license, your first DUI conviction is punishable by a sentence of up to one year in county jail, a fine between $390 and $1,000, and a strict probationary sentence.

California DUI Attorney

Being charged with a DUI in California is a serious matter and losing your ability to get to work can have an even more devastating effect on your life. At Wallin & Klarich, we have over 30 years of experience fighting for the rights of our clients in DUI cases. We will assist you through every step of your case.

Call us at (877) 4-NO-JAIL or (877) 466-5245 for a free phone consultation with one of our California DUI attorneys. Our offices are located in Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Victorville, Torrance, Sherman Oaks, and West Covina. We will be there when you call.

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

In many DUI cases, the prosecution will attempt to prove intoxication only by evidence of the defendant’s bad judgment while driving. An expert witness for the prosecution may testify that even small amounts of alcohol combined with a narcotic can impair good judgment. There is some debate about whether there needs to be evidence that the defendant was actually unable to drive safely due to intoxication.

In 1994, two Court of Appeal opinions began a trend toward affirming DUI convictions where driving impairment was proved solely by evidence of bad or impaired judgment affecting the way the defendant drove. No showing was made that the defendant was not capable of driving the car safely, only that he chose not to do so. Though both cases also involved evidence of alcohol impairment, their reliance on evidence of bad judgment as the sole proof of impairment is highly relevant to cases charging drug-based drunk driving.

In the first case, People v. Gallardo (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 489, the court held that evidence of impaired judgment supported the jury’s finding of intoxication based upon a 0.03% BAC test result. The defendant drove extremely recklessly and several people were killed. Though the defendant admitted he felt a bit dizzy, that was not the focus of the decision. In fact, it was barely mentioned. In the second case, People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, convictions for Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated were upheld on the basis that intoxication was due to the combined influence of a low BAC (0.022%) and methamphetamine.

There are many factors that determine the outcome of a criminal case. Having a highly skilled DUI Defense attorney is vital in making sure you get the best possible result in your case. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have been helping those charged with a DUI for over 30 years. You can call us at (877) 4-NO-JAIL or (877) 466-5245. We will be there when you call.

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

The decision by the Defendant to decline to submit to any further chemical test is not a valid waiver of the right to collect evidence unless it is voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made.

In the case of an additional chemical test, a “knowingly and intelligently” made decision requires the Defendant to have knowledge of the breath test result and its potential inaccuracies. To insure such knowledge it must be shown that the Defendant was properly advised of his Trombetta rights.

Absent a showing that Defendant’s decision to decline an additional chemical test was knowing and intelligent, the admission into evidence that the defendant declined to take an additional blood test, by necessity, would call for an explanation by the Defendant, thereby denying the Defendant of his/her right not to be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (See Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 460) “The privilege [against self incrimination] is fulfilled only when the person is guaranteed the right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of her own will.”

Contact An Experienced DUI Attorney

If you were arrested for DUI and it was alleged that you refused to submit to a chemical test, you must immediately contact one of our experienced DUI attorneys from Wallin and Klarich. Wallin & Klarich has been helping individuals charged with a DUI for over 30 years. Wallin & Klarich has the experience to defend our clients and do all we can to prevent their driving privileges from being suspended. Please call us at 1 (877) 4-NO-JAIL or visit our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

In Hoberman-Kelly v. Valverde (2013), the court ruled that suspension of plaintiff’s driver’s license was improper when the officer’s reading of the necessary admonitions was mechanical, and he made no attempt to dispel plaintiff’s confusion as to the right to contact counsel, and when plaintiff stated she would submit to a blood test.

DUI Implied Consent Law

Hoberman-Kelly was arrested on July 30, 2010 by California Highway Patrol Officer M. Perry. At the scene of the DUI investigation, Officer Perry read the preliminary alcohol screen admonition to Hoberman-Kelly and she refused to take a breath test at the scene. Upon being arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, she was placed in officer’s patrol vehicle and she was read her Miranda rights. In addition, she was advised of the consequences under Vehicle Code section 13353 of failing to submit to a chemical test of her blood alcohol content.

While in the patrol vehicle, Hoberman-Kelly observed a sign on the wall which stated she had a right to make a telephone call. Hoberman-Kelly told the officer she wanted to call her attorney and to make the telephone call to which the sign said she was entitled. Although visibly intoxicated, Hoberman-Kelly made clear that she did not understand why she could not make the phone call to which the sign referred.

Officer Perry at no point acknowledged her request to make a call or made any effort to explain that despite her right to speak to an attorney she was not entitled to do so or to make her call before submitting to the chemical test. Instead the officer continued to read the pre-printed admonition.

The admonition did include the statement that “you do not have the right to talk to an attorney or have an attorney present before stating whether you will submit to a test, before deciding which test to take, or during the test.”  However, upon review of the video of the incident, it was evident that Hoberman-Kelly did not hear the admonition and that Officer Perry must have been aware that she did not hear it.

After Perry finished reading the admonition, he asked Hoberman-Kelly whether she would submit to a blood test, to which she responded “all right.”  However, Officer Perry stated “that’s a no” and that he would take her reply as a refusal.  Hoberman-Kelly immediately shouted in response that she would give a blood test and repeated that she would do so several times. The phlebotomist then promptly administered the blood test without incident.

California DMV Hearing

After an administrative hearing, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) suspended Hoberman-Kelly’s driving privilege for one year for refusing the request to submit to the blood-alcohol test. The DMV hearing officer found that Hoberman-Kelly “refused to take a chemical test and kept insisting she wanted her attorney present. Officer Perry advised her he considered it a refusal and she then stated she would take a blood test. [Hoberman-Kelly's] opportunity to change her mind to retract her refusal to complete a chemical test had expired because the officer already notified her he considered her responses and actions as a refusal.”

Petition for A Writ Of Mandate

Hoberman-Kelly filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court seeking to vacate the suspension order. Following a hearing at which the court reviewed the entire administrative record, including the video, the court granted the writ and entered an extensive order reading in part as follows: “The ‘fair meaning’ given to Ms. Hoberman-Kelly’s statements is that she is genuinely exasperated and confused by the conflict between her right to counsel as indicated on the wall of the police station and Officer Perry’s implicit and explicit refusal to permit her to call for an attorney. Officer Perry responds by reading the admonition mechanically and makes no effort to explain that the Miranda right does not apply to the chemical tests. Officer Perry also refused Ms. Hoberman-Kelly’s requests that she be permitted to read the admonition herself.

The court explained that it was questionable whether officer-induced confusion would provide a defense in this case if Hoberman-Kelly had refused to take a blood test. On one hand, if the person manifests confusion, “it is incumbent upon the arresting officer to elaborate upon the warning. The arrested person should be explicitly informed that the constitutional rights previously explained to him are not applicable to the decision he must make concerning the three chemical tests, and that he has no right to consult an attorney before making the decision that he will, or will not, submit to one of them.’ “(Goodman v. Orr (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 845, 885.)

On the other hand, “the rule only requires that the officer erase possible confusion caused the allegedly drunken laymen by the officer’s own statements.’ “(Ibid.) From the video it was apparent that Hoberman-Kelly was confused by the Miranda warning she had received coupled with the sign on the wall advising that she had a right to make a telephone call. While Perry did read the sentence in the form admonition that she had no right to an attorney before deciding whether to take the test or during the test, he did so in what the trial court aptly described as a “mechanical” reading, and what might also be described as purely perfunctory.

It is clear from the video that Perry made no genuine effort to communicate to Hoberman-Kelly “that the constitutional rights previously explained to [her] are not applicable to the decision [she] must make.” Although Hoberman-Kelly repeatedly asked Perry why she could not make a phone call as the sign indicated she could, Perry made no effort to answer her or to explain that she was not entitled to make the call until after she took the blood test.

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

You face a DUI conviction in California if your blood alcohol content is measured lower than the legal limit of 0.08%. Under California Vehicle Code section 23152a it is illegal for you to drive while you are under the influence of any alcohol and/or drug. California Vehicle Code section 23152 does not explicitly state that you need to have a blood alcohol content that is above 0.08%. However, it is more likely that you will face criminal charges for driving under the influence if you had a blood alcohol content of .08% or higher.

Consequences of Driving Under The Influence

You are considered to be driving under the influence if your mental or physical state is impaired by drugs and/or alcohol and you cannot drive a vehicle with the same ordinary care that a sober person would use under the circumstances.

If you are charged with your first DUI you face the possibility of imprisonment in county jail from 96 hours to six months, and a fine that will total close to $2,000 including all court assessments. In addition, your license and driving privileges may be suspended from four to six months. If you are subsequently charged with another DUI, the charges only increase.

Speak To A California DUI Lawyer Today

If you or a loved one has been charged with a DUI it is important that you contact an experienced and knowledgeable DUI defense attorney to help ensure you do not lose your driving privileges or serve jail time. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience successfully defending clients who have been charged with a DUI and are aware of the defenses that you have available to you if you have been charged with a DUI. We have offices in Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Victorville and West Covina. Call us today at 1-888-749-0034. We will be there when you call.

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

When most people think of DUI cases they automatically think of people who get caught drinking and driving. However, over the past several years there has been an increasing number of arrests in Riverside for DUI’s based upon marijuana consumption.

No DMV Suspension

The DMV cannot legally suspend your license for a DUI arrest based entirely on marijuana or other drugs. However, in order to avoid the suspension you should have your Riverside DUI lawyer contact the DMV within ten days of your arrest to demand a DMV hearing.
If you do this then you will NOT have your license suspended through the DMV. This is because the DMV can only suspend your driving privilege for a DUI based upon a blood alcohol reading of .08 or higher.

Since there is no blood alcohol reading in a DUI arrest based upon marijuana you cannot lose your license. However, in order to keep your license you must have your Riverside DUI lawyer call the DMV within ten days to demand the hearing.

Not an Exact Science

Prosecutors have been prosecuting alcohol DUI cases regularly for decades. The science behind alcohol DUI’s is much stronger and most forensic alcohol experts would agree that there will be at least some impairment when driving with a .08 blood alcohol level or higher.

The science behind marijuana DUI cases is newer and far less certain. Many variables can affect the levels of THC in the blood such as whether the defendant smokes marijuana daily or if they smoke less often.

Those who smoke marijuana daily will have a higher baseline of THC in their system and will likely have a higher tolerance as well. Your Riverside DUI lawyer can retain a defense expert who can attack the prosecutors’ theory of guilt and explain to the jury that it is not possible to determine whether someone who smokes marijuana and then drives is legally “impaired”.

If you or a loved one has been arrested for a Marijuana DUI you should immediately consult with the aggressive and experienced DUI attorney from Wallin & Klarich. A DUI conviction can lead to the loss of your driving privilege, employment and your freedom. Call now for a consultation at 888-749-0034 or visit our website www.wklaw.com for more information. We will be there when you call.

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

Having a doctor’s prescription for Vicodin or any other legal drug is not a valid defense to a charge of driving under the influence.  California Vehicle Code section 23152(a) clearly states that it is against the law to operate a motor vehicle when you are under the influence of a drug.  The law does not make any exceptions for those having a valid prescription.  Similarly, having a prescription for marijuana does not permit a person to operate a motor vehicle when they are under the influence of marijuana.

The prosecution must prove two things:

• The defendant drove a vehicle; and
• When the defendant drove, the defendant was under the influence of a drug

Unlike alcohol, where a breath or blood test can determine your blood alcohol content, there is no quick method for law enforcement to determine the specific amount of drug content in your body; other than, whether an individual tested positive or negative for a drug.

As such, it can be difficult for the prosecution to prove you were actually “under the influence of a drug” when driving a vehicle. The strongest defense is that you were not operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of a drug.

For example, you can consume a prescription drug like Vicodin and continue to operate a motor vehicle in a safe manner.  Just because someone consumes a dose of Vicodin does not mean they are “under the influence of a drug.”  Therefore, the prosecution will look at objective factors of the defendant’s driving patterns to determine if the driver was under the influence of a drug.  Specifically, the prosecutor will see if the defendant was speeding, driving erratically, weaving between traffic or driving on the wrong side of the road.

If you or a loved one has been charged with driving under the influence, it is important that you immediately contact an experienced Southern California DUI defense attorney at Wallin and Klarich.  Our attorneys have over 30 years of experience in handling DUI cases and drug related matters.  The experienced attorneys at Wallin and Klarich will answer all your questions and work to achieve the best possible outcome in your case.  To speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney, please call us at 1-888-749-0034 or visit our website at www.wklaw.com.  We will be there when you call.

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

Unfortunately there is rarely a simple answer when it comes to whether a DUI arrest or conviction will lead to termination of employment. Some employer’s are more lenient while others are extremely strict about DUI arrests.  Each and every employer is different and may have preexisting rules and regulations pertaining to an employee’s arrest or conviction record.

It is important to understand that a DUI arrest is not the same as a DUI conviction. When you are initially arrested for a DUI, you will likely be booked and fingerprinted at the police station. This booking process creates what is known as an “arrest record.”

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post