From the Court of conviction a convicted first offender in most California counties, where no aggravating or mitigating facts are present, should expect to receive three years of probation, six days of community service, fines and court fees of approximately $2000.00, and participation in a drinking driver program.  From the DMV, a first offender, under the same circumstances, will face a four month license suspension or a thirty day suspension with five months of restricted driving thereafter.

Of particular note in the sentencing equation are those instances where an upward departure is indicated because of particular facts, or even required by statute, because particular facts that have been alleged as sentencing enhancements.  An example of considerations that could  result in enhanced penalties are in instances where an offender was involved in an accident, produced a high blood alcohol content result, engaged in excessively inappropriate driving, was particularly uncooperative with police, was driving without a valid license, or where the police report reveals the existence of other uncharged law violations.

In many instances there are facts presented where the law requires an enhanced penalty for a first time offender.  Pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 23572 a jail sentence of an additional 48 hours is required where a first time offender had a passenger under the age of 14 at the time of arrest.  Pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 23578 an aggravated sentence shall be considered by the Judge where a first offender produced a blood alcohol result of .15% or higher.  The same section also requires that a Judge shall consider a higher sentence where a first offender refused to take a blood alcohol test.  And California Vehicle Code section 23582 requires that an additional jail sentence of 60 days be imposed where a first offender drives 30 miles per hour over the speed limit on a freeway, or 20 miles per hour over the speed limit on any street or highway while under the influence.

If you or a loved one have been arrested for driving under the influence, protect yourself to the fullest extent possible, contact San Jose DUI Lawyer Bernard P. Bray at (408) 292-9700 and learn your options before you go to court.  It can make all the difference in the outcome of your case.

Could the flat statistics be a result of the recession?  In other words, could the decrease in arrests be a reflection of statewide police layoffs and cutbacks?  In Santa Clara County the facts would indicate otherwise.  From Friday August 20, 2010, through Saturday September 4, 2010, DUI patrols and sobriety check points were increased as part of a summer DUI crackdown campaign.  Notwithstanding the added enforcement efforts, there were only 343 driving under the influence arrests compared with 363 arrests for the same period a year ago.

 Although the above statistics may reflect a year over year decrease in California DUI related arrests, penalties for a DUI conviction are still potentially quite severe including license suspension, jail time, probation, fines, court fees, alcohol classes, increased insurance premiums, and a criminal record.

 If you or a loved one have been arrested for driving under the influence or should you have questions regarding California DUI law please call San Jose DUI Attorney Bernard P. Bray: (408) 292-9700.

The reason for this enhancement is justified by statistics.  Most drivers who have consumed alcohol have low blood alcohol concentrations, and few of these drivers are involved in fatal crashes.  On the hand, while only a relatively few number of drivers have blood alcohol concentrations higher than .15%, a much higher proportion of those drivers have fatal crashes.

If you have questions regarding California DUI law, or should you or a loved have had the misfortune of a DUI arrest, protect yourself to the fullest extent possible, call San Jose DUI Lawyer Bernard P. Bray.

An Investigative Reporting Program at the University of California Berkeley recently reported that California DUI check points generated an estimated $40 million in towing costs and administrative fees from seizing cars from unlicensed drivers in 2009, money that was shared by local governments and towing firms.

The law provides that responsibility for paying storage, towing and administrative charges is the responsibility of all registered owners of the cars that are seized as the result of having been driven by unlicensed drivers.  The administrative charges assessed by local governments significantly run up the bill.  And, all Cities, Counties, and the State, are all entitled to access these fees pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 22850.5.

Currently sobriety checkpoints that the California Highway Patrol operates do not result in administrative fees being accessed on seized vehicles that are driven by unlicensed drivers, but it appears only to be a matter of time before the State of California gets on board, and edges in on the extra income generating scheme.

If you have questions regarding California DUI sobriety check points, or should you or a loved have had the misfortune of a DUI arrest, protect yourself to the fullest extent possible, call San Jose DUI Lawyer Bernard P. Bray.

$8,000,000.00 has been allocated by the California Office of Traffic Safety, and it is estimated that this money will fund approximately 2500 DUI checkpoints in 2010, a significant increase over 2009’s approximately 1700 sobriety checkpoints.

A driving under the influence arrest can bring serious consequences in California, including: license suspension, a mandatory jail sentence, probation, stiff fines, court fees, long term alcohol classes, increased insurance premiums, and a criminal record.  The above are all potential standard consequences of a first driving under the influence conviction.  Attorney Bernard P. Bray has extensive experience and an excellent track record of successful results defending drunk driving cases.

If you or a loved one has been arrested for drunk driving contact San Jose DUI Attorney Bernard P. Bray immediately: (408) 292-9700. One must move quickly in securing assistance. An accused only has 10 days in which to request a hearing with the DMV to avoid what otherwise will be an automatic license suspension for an arrestee who produced a .08% or higher blood alcohol test result, or who refused a blood alcohol test.

Now, second time DUI, alcohol only, offenders will be able to apply for a restricted license after ninety days into their otherwise two year license suspension.  Previously, they could only apply after twelve months into their two year suspension.  Third time DUI, alcohol only, offenders will now be able to apply for a restricted license after six months into their three year license suspension.  Previously, they could only apply for a restricted license after twelve months into their three year suspension.

The legislative history surrounding these changes state that their purpose is to encourage drunk drivers to obtain ignition interlock devices by permitting them to obtain restricted licenses sooner if they do.

Should you or a loved one have the misfortune of a DUI arrest and/or have questions concerning California DUI laws contact San Jose DUI lawyer Bernard P. Bray.

Marie Shriver’s husband Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed off in 2008 on the law that requires all California drivers to use hands free mobile phones while driving.

The law is one that many, not just Governor Schwarzenegger’s wife, have more honored in the breach than in the observance.  Is a law that is more often broken than observed really a good law at all?  California drivers can do just about anything else possible, and legally, while driving.

There does not appear to be a ground swell for support for changing the law prohibiting cell phone use while driving.  Governor Schwarzenegger promised swift action in response to his wife’s law violations, and the California First lady has apologized.

If you or someone you know has questions regarding criminal justice issues please contact San Jose DUI Lawyer Bernard P. Bray.

Certainly not many would disagree that openness builds trust.  Recent San Jose controversies (all discussed previously in this blog) stemming from San Jose City Hall resistance to information sharing in the Daniel Pham shooting by San Jose Police case, last year’s DUI alleged injury accident case involving former San Jose police officer Sandra Woodall, and last summer’s scandal concerning alleged bad faith public drunkenness arrests in downtown San Jose, to mention but a few, all support the San Jose City Council supporting the Sunshine Reform Task Force recommendations.

Will the sun shine again in San Jose?

If you or someone you know has questions regarding criminal justice issues please contact the San Jose DUI Lawyers at the Law Offices of Bernard P. Bray.

A responding emergency medical technician latter claimed that Woodall appeared disoriented, smelled of alcohol, and admitted to drinking. The mother of the young woman injured in the accident asked the officers at the hospital to test Woodall for alcohol, and later filed a complaint when tests were not performed. Woodall was ultimately charged with DUI, and pleaded guilty to same.

Sergeant Manion and Officer D’Arrigo were both terminated from the San Jose Police Department by Chief Rob Davis who has recently been through a tumultuous run politically with widespread community discussion about discriminatory arrests, police pension costs, police substation cost overruns, sunshine law issues relating to the public’s access to police records, POA issues, to name but a few.

Was Woodall afforded special treatment because of her connection with Law Enforcement? Were the Sergeant and Officer treated overly harshly, after all a grand jury concluded that the two were not guilty of any criminal conduct? Should emergency medical technicians and citizens be second guessing more qualified police officers when it comes to crime investigation?

The most important issue of all, as far as this writer is concerned, is whether the terminated officers filed false reports with a view toward covering up a possible crime to protect a fellow law enforcement officer. Police reports are relied on by citizens, probation officers, prosecutors, judges, attorneys, insurance companies, and the laundry list goes on and on. Police reports are afforded deference to an extent that there are looked upon in many quarters as the gospel truth. The need for unqualified fidelity and good faith in the preparation of police reports is an unquestioned absolute. Police officer false reporting is a felony offense in the state of California pursuant to California Penal Code section 118.1. However, as above noted, a grand jury exonerated the Officers of any criminal conduct.

While this matter involved city employee personnel issues, the City of San Jose needs to fully address the above issues. Were the Sergeant and Officer made to be political scapegoats to revive a Police Chief’s sagging political reputation, or was there really a double standard, and bad faith exercise of discretion on the Officer’s part, in the investigation and follow up to the March 2008 traffic accident with a view toward covering up a possible crime to protect a fellow law enforcement officer?

If you have questions regarding criminal justice issues contact San Jose Criminal Lawyer Bernard P. Bray.

What test?

There are usually two tests available.  The standard breath test consists of a suspect blowing into a testing device.  Alternatively, one may submit to a blood test which consists of a simple blood draw.

Hands down, this writer recommends the breath test.  Breath testing requires conversion of a breath sample to derive a blood alcohol percentage.  The conversion factor is known as a partition ratio, and issues surrounding such ratios give rise to successful attacks on the reliability of breath test results.  Partition ratios vary widely in the general population and within individuals.  Moreover, patrition ratios in the general population are higher than the standard used in breath test machines, giving suspects taking such tests a potential benefit.

There are other reasons breath test machines lend themselves to an attack on the reliability of their results.  Machines often do not function properly.  Breath testing machines have a margin of error of 0.02%.  Further, breath test results in some machines are truncated.  The third decimal in the result is not included.  Thus, a test result of .099% will read out .09%, giving a suspect an added benefit.  In some situations a suspect may be able to avoid providing enough deep breath to register all of the alcohol present in his system.  Finally, the breath test machine scale in some machines is set .003% below the start line giving the suspect a further added benefit.

Should you or a loved one have the misfortune of a DUI arrest and/or be faced with other issues concerning your driving privilege contact San Jose DUI Lawyer Bernard P. Bray.