Vehicle catches fire after high speed chase in Southern San Diego County.

A woman in Bonita was arrested for driving under the influence in San Diego County on February 22, 2015, but not until she had led the police on a pursuit, the end result being that her car caught on fire, leading to the two officers having to pull her from her vehicle.

According to the article on Fox new San Diego, her vehicle had become disabled, but she continued to press on the accelerator, causing friction between the rim and the asphalt, causing sparks to fly,(in more ways than one).

Potential charges in her case are:

— Vehicle Code 23152(a) & (b): DUI, although the only fact we are given in regards to the DUI charge is that she was arrested for it; and

–Vehicle Code 2800.2: Evading an officer;

–Penal Code 148(a)(1) or Penal Code 69 — Resisting Arrest.

The article can be read here: http://fox5sandiego.com/2015/02/23/deputies-rescue-dui-suspect-from-burning-vehicle/

What not to do if you are being arrested for a DUI

OC Police Hit The Bars With Breathalyzers, Uber Vouchers To Raise DUI Awareness

The uber vouchers are a great idea. Great gift idea in general.

New App shows locations of DUI Checkpoints

An Anaheim Hills high school teacher, in conjunction with a San Diego developer, has created an app that can be used to show the locations of sobriety checkpoints. Geno Rose, the teacher created the app after being stuck in a checkpoint with his wife and newborn son crying the backseat.  It is a real time app that allows those who have the app to update info live for the other users.  It can be viewed and purchased here : https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dui-dodger/id429342604?mt=8 

For those who criticize the app, the app serves the purpose of assisting sober drivers, just as well, as drunk drivers, and the evidence that a drunk driver is going to use such an app is entirely speculative. Sobriety checkpoints are illegal in 10 states, per that states Constitution. Those states are: Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.  The United States Supreme Court decided in the case of Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz that sobriety checkpoints, properly conducted, did not violate the United States Constitution. The decision was 6-3.

Justice Stevens dissent in this case was a powerful argument against such checkpoints: “This is a case that is driven by nothing more than symbolic state action — an insufficient justification for an otherwise unreasonable program of random seizures. Unfortunately, the Court is transfixed by the wrong symbol — the illusory prospect of punishing countless intoxicated motorists — when it should keep its eyes on the road plainly marked by the Constitution.”

The Actual Statute

Here is the actual DUI statute for those that are interested. It is found in the California Vehicle Code. Attention should be paid to subsection (a) (b), and (e). 23152(e) is new, it was recently created to single out driving under the influence of drugs, like Marijuana as the earlier posts dealt with.

23152.  (a) It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence
of any alcoholic beverage to drive a vehicle.
   (b) It is unlawful for a person who has 0.08 percent or more, by
weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.
   For purposes of this article and Section 34501.16, percent, by
weight, of alcohol in a person's blood is based upon grams of alcohol
per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of
breath.
   In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable
presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of
alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the
person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her
blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three
hours after the driving.
   (c) It is unlawful for a person who is addicted to the use of any
drug to drive a vehicle. This subdivision shall not apply to a person
who is participating in a narcotic treatment program approved
pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 11875) of Chapter 1 of
Part 3 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
   (d) It is unlawful for a person who has 0.04 percent or more, by
weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a commercial motor
vehicle, as defined in Section 15210.
   In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable
presumption that the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of
alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the
person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her
blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three
hours after the driving.
   (e) It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any
drug to drive a vehicle.
   (f) It is unlawful for a person who is under the combined
influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug to drive a vehicle.
   (g) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2014.



Courtesy of http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=23001-24000&file=23152-23229.1

Marijuana DUI’s: Part Two

As a San Diego DUI Attorney, I have been reflecting on the last post regarding the Marijuana DUI issue and the potential implications for society in general. A couple of quick thoughts I wanted to share:

(1) I am not advocating impaired driving.  This has nothing to do with that. That is a common tactic of those advocating in favor of strict driving under the influence laws; that is, to vilify anyone who starts to question the laws in and of themselves.   You are dismissed and labeled as crazy, someone who doesn’t care about safety. The reality is, I am questioning the evidence. There is no evidence, at least that I have seen, that Marijuana impairs your ability to drive.   It is really that simple.

(2) Speaking of evidence, there is no scientific evidence that can determine what level of impairment is too high, if any. That is a major problem. The fear is that an arbitrary number will be set to silence those advocating strict Marijuana DUI laws.  The problem with Marijuana and many drugs, is that they stay in your system long after any impairment is gone.  Studies have shown, that a regular marijuana smoker will also have the impairment level in his blood, even when not impaired.

(3) The implications of this could be devastating for a well functioning society.  The whole concept of Marijuana DUI’s is shaky enough, and the thought of an individual being arrested, and convicted in court of a DUI, simply for having marijuana in his system is outrageous.  What also is horrifying if you smoke marijuana on a regular or non-regular basis, and you simply have it in your system even though you are not impaired is getting involved in a auto accident.  If this happens, and someone is injured, you are potentially facing a DUI with Injury, which can lead to serious prison time, if not for the rest of your life. Especially, for those individuals previously convicted of a DUI with alcohol, you are facing serious, serious time.

(4) If you can go to prison or jail simply for having Marijuana in your system, which is essentially what the crime is, you are in a police state. There is no other way to look at.   This is not what the founding fathers had in mind.

Marijuana DUI’s: The future? Looks like it.

An interesting article in the Union Tribune recently on what level of marijuana should be legally allowed in your system for the DUI laws. The article is here:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/dec/06/drug-drive-marijuana-law-limit-dui/

This has been an issue for some time now in Criminal courts throughout the country and it is just starting to get mainstream attention. With all the frenzy of those actively embracing the legalization of Marijuana, one little fact has seemed to escape them and that is that law enforcement is now targeting marijuana DUIs. So the issue becomes, as the article put it, how stoned is too stoned?

Lets ask Ron Paul:

That used to be the common thinking. DUI with Marijuana was laughable. Many in the article, and all throughout the courthouses and country advocate for zero tolerance. Currently, in the state of Washington where Marijuana was legalized, it is zero tolerance for this under 21.  Therefore if you are under 21, and you have any marijuana in your system, and you are driving, you are guilty of driving under the influence.  What’s that? You smoked two weeks ago? Too bad.

As the article stated:

“Drugged driving is on the increase. Nearly twice as many California drivers tested positive for drugs than alcohol in a recent study, and 30 percent of drivers in the state’s fatal crashes tested positive for an impairing drug, according to state officials.”

Is drugged driving on the increase? I doubt it. Are they now testing for it? That sounds more like it. Did 30% of the drivers in the states fatal crashes test positive for an impairing drug?  That is certainly possible. It would be nice to know who the state official was though. It would also be nice to know what is classified as an impairing drug? Does that include caffeine? What percentage out of that 30% was the impairing drug marijuana?  Out of that percentage, what percentage was only marijuana? I have a feeling it is a real small number. If it is was a big number, i have another feeling that we would already know what the number is.

Maybe Marijuana DUI’s are a legitimate concern, but we all need to remember that if we are going to throw people in jail, we should really have more information about the harm they are actually causing, or could potentially cause.  Or make sure to have enough money for your kids and grandkids to have a chauffeur.

Welcome!

Welcome to the San Diego DUI Defense wordpress blog. This blog is dedicated to the DUI laws, how they are enforced in San Diego, and the overall effect to the community on the issue of drinking and driving.

This blog will be unbiased, looking at only the facts.