Driving Under the Influence of Drugs in Orange County

Everyone knows that it's illegal to drive a car while you are impaired by alcohol.  The legal blood-alcohol limit, 0.08%, is one of those numbers we can all cite off the top of our heads, like 3.14 or 867-5309.  Unfortunately for a lot of my clients, though, the rules about driving under the influence of drugs are still a mystery.  I'll do my best to break it all down in today's blog post.

There's a lot of overlap in the way that courts handle "driving under the influence of alcohol" cases and cases where defendants are accused of driving under the influence of drugs.  There are also enough differences, though, that I thought the subject deserved a post.

Drunk Driving (DUI)

Section 23152 of the California Vehicle Code defines various "DUI" crimes.  VC 23152(a), for instance, says that it is illegal for anyone to operate a vehicle while he or she is "under the influence of alcohol", regardless of the person's actual blood-alcohol concentration.  To be convicted under this section, the DA does NOT need to prove that your blood-alcohol concentration was above the legal limit of 0.08%.  Prosecutors only need to prove that you were "impaired" due to alcohol, and that you could not operate a vehicle with the skill and care of an ordinary, sober person (whatever that means).  To make their case against you, the DA will introduce evidence that you had been observed driving badly, you "appeared disoriented" after the traffic stop, and you performed poorly on field sobriety tests, etc.

VC 23152(b), on the other hand, specifically prohibits anyone from driving a motor vehicle while his or her BAC is greater than 0.08%, regardless of whether or not that person is actually "impaired" by alcohol.  Even if you can "hold your liquor" and you perfectly nail all of the field sobriety tests like a champion, you can still be convicted of violating VC 23152(b) if a chemical test determines that your blood alcohol concentration is above the legal limit of 0.08%.

Starting on July 1, 2018, it will become illegal for anyone who has a BAC of 0.04% or greater to drive a car while a "passenger for hire" is present in the vehicle.  VC 23152(e) includes a definition of "passenger for hire" that makes it clear that this section applies to Uber and Lyft drivers who have a few pops on the clock, but who might still be below the legal limit of 0.08% that applies to other motorists.

Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID)

This is where is gets really interesting. VC 23152(f) makes it illegal for anyone to drive a car while he or she is "under the influence of ANY drug".  "Any drug" means exactly that.  If the DA can prove that you were dangerously impaired by some substance, it is not a defense to argue that the drug was prescribed by your doctor (like Ambien), or that the drug is legal in California (like marijuana).

DUID cases, then, usually turn on a couple of obvious questions: how impaired is too impaired to drive?  And how convincingly can prosecutors prove this driver's exact degree of impairment?  Typically, police officers will testify about their objective observations (swerving, speeding, driving too slowly, etc.).  A certified "Drug Recognition Expert" ("DRE") will also tell the jury that he observed your pupils, your heart rate, your performance on cognitive test, etc., and that he formed the opinion that you were under the influence of some drug or combination of drugs.  A toxicologist from the crime lab will explain how your blood was drawn, stored and tested.  The toxicologist's reports will outline the substances that were found in your blood.  Based on the totality of all these observations from state-appointed "experts", the DA will attempt to convince a jury that you were dangerously impaired by drugs at the time of driving.

Even if the DA can prove that you were on drugs, that's not the end of the story -- and it doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of a crime.  In addition to proving that you had consumed drugs before driving, the DA must also prove that those drugs actually made you unsafe behind the wheel.  Of course, some prescription drugs might have the effect of making a driver more attentive or capable behind the wheel when those drugs are used in therapeutic doses under a doctor's supervision.  Some of those same substances might make a driver completely unsafe if they are abused, mixed with other drugs, or if a patient has an adverse reaction.  Adderall, for instance, is essentially an amphetamine.  When used properly, the drug performs wonders for individuals who suffer from ADD.  When abused, though, Adderall is addictive and dangerous.  If a defendant is accused of driving under the influence of Adderall (or Xanax, or Vicodin, etc.), his defense attorney might demonstrate to the jury that the levels of the drug found in his blood stream are within a "therapeutic range", where the driver is actually safer than if he would have been if he hadn't taken his meds that morning.

Allegations of driving under the influence of marijuana are even more complicated, since the drug may affect individual users differently.  Marijuana toxicology reports are especially strange.  Marijuana blood tests typically identify levels of both active delta-9 THC (the chemical that is currently causing impairment in the user, and THC metabolites, sometimes called "carboxy THC", or "COOH-THC". COOH-THC is a chemical that is produced within the body after the user has already metabolized whatever he or she previously smoked.  COOH-THC is not psychoactive.  It remains detectable in the user's blood stream for weeks after his or her most recent use, but it does not indicate that user's current level of impairment.  Delta-9 THC and COOH-THC should not be confused with each other.  Even high levels of COOH-THC are absolutely irrelevant in determining whether or not a suspect is too high to drive.  High levels of COOH-THC may be relevant, however, to prove that the defendant is a regular user and, thus, has a high tolerance to the drug.

In most of the cases I've handled where my clients are accused of driving under the influence of drugs, the DA's strongest piece of evidence is my client's own statement to police.  They admit that they "smoke a little", or a that they took some prescription drugs.  Statements like those can turn a minor traffic stop into a major arrest.  Without a confession, police might not have even suspected drug use.  Even if the officer had believed that the suspect was under the influence of drugs, there might not have been enough evidence to make an arrest or to sustain a conviction.  By talking to cops, though, suspects can make the DA's job very easy.

The Orange County District Attorney's Office has decided to make a priority out of aggressively prosecuting DUID cases.  Their agency actually receives grants from various highway safety groups to specifically target these offenses.  Those grants are used to hire teams of prosecutors who exclusively handle DUID charges.  The Orange Bubble is a bad place to be arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs.  Local prosecutors like to play hardball with these cases, but that doesn't mean that they have an advantage in court.  In fact, their aggressive attitude toward DUID often means that they choose to pursue weak cases, where the evidence just doesn't support a conviction.

Fullerton is especially a DUI / DUID enforcement hot spot.  The crowds of out-of-towners and college students who fill the bars and clubs between Commonwealth and Wilshire fuel a steady stream of DUI arrests every weekend.  All Fullerton Police officers are actually instructed to swarm the downtown area around closing time, unless they are responding to some other pressing matter.  They are also specifically trained to watch for drivers who are impaired by drugs and / or alcohol.  Fullerton police have reportedly been using a controversial new saliva test that can instantly test drivers for the presence of marijuana.  And just like the OCDA, the Fullerton Police Department receives grant money for traffic safety, which they use for DUI enforcement (which generates more money...).

If you or a loved one has questions about driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, call us for a free attorney consultation.  714 449 3335. Ask for John.  Our local staff has extensive experience defending against all types of DUI / DUID charges in Orange County.

Thanks for reading.

Fullerton DUI / DUID Lawyer

What to Do if You've Been Served With a Restraining Order

If you've been served with a restraining order, you must immediately begin the process of preparing your defense.  That process should start by consulting with a qualified, local attorney to discuss your options and to coordinate your strategy.  A competent attorney will understand the types of arguments that are likely to be effective, and how to present admissible evidence to support your position.

If you possess firearms, you must surrender them to the local police or to a licensed gun dealer within 48 hours.  You may not simply sell them to a friend or ask a family member to hold them for you.  The police or the gun dealer will prepare some paperwork that you must file with the court.  Before your hearing, the judge will confirm that any firearms registered in your name have been accounted for.

Most importantly, though, you must resist the impulse to make matters worse.  Do not contact the petitioner in any way.  Do not ask someone else to contact the petitioner or to pass along a message on your behalf.  Do not try to "fix" the situation yourself by apologizing or by attempting to "smooth things out".  Remember, a temporary restraining order IS a restraining order.  If you violate it, you will be arrested and prosecuted.  Your violation will also be used against you at your hearing.  If the judge finds that you have violated the temporary order, he or she will almost certainly grant a permanent restraining order against you, even if the original petition was weak or deficient.  As the court sees it, your violation of the temporary order demonstrates that you are impulsive, you don't respect the law, and you are probably dangerous.

Even if the petitioner attempts to contact you while the temporary restraining order is in effect, you may not respond.  This seems unfair, and it is, but remember that the temporary restraining order prohibits you from contacting the petitioner, not vice versa.  If a judge has ordered you not to contact the petitioner, the petitioner cannot simply grant you permission to disobey the judge.

If you have some valid reason why you NEED to contact the petitioner before your hearing (e.g. you need to pick up your medication from her house, etc.), or you want to negotiate a dismissal outside of court, that communication must be done through your attorney.  Your lawyer is the ONLY person who may contact the petitioner or pass along messages to her on your behalf.

If you or a loved one has been served with a temporary restraining order in Southern California, call us for a free attorney consultation. 714 449 3335. Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

Orange County Restraining Order Lawyer

How to Fight a Restraining Order When the Facts are BAD

I've previously written on this blog about the process of getting or fighting a restraining order in California.  If you haven't already, take a moment to read some of the basics here.  In these introductory articles, I explain the legal procedures and the issues you should be prepared to discuss at your hearing.

I've also previously written on this blog about a common situation -- fighting a restraining order when the petitioner is crazy.  Defending yourself against a crazy person requires a special strategy, and that's not the focus of this article.

Today's post is specifically about fighting a restraining order when the facts against you are BAD.  Maybe you've said or done things that you're not proud of, and maybe the petitioner has proof (emails, text messages, surveillance videos, reliable witnesses, etc.).  Even if you've behaved badly, and even if we all agree on what happened, it's not necessarily a slam dunk that the petitioner will walk out of court with a restraining order in hand.  There are several effective strategies for fighting restraining orders, even if the facts appear bad at first glance.

There are situations where it may be futile to deny your bad behavior.  If the petitioner has reliable proof, you will harm your own case by disingenuously trying to deny the facts.  You will look like a liar, you will lose your credibility, and you will lose your case.  Of course, that's not to say that you should admit to things you haven't done or confess when the evidence is weak.  I'm speaking specifically about situations where you behaved badly and the petitioner can prove it.

Bad facts must be justified, excused or explained.  A justification is a defense where you essentially argue that you did the RIGHT thing under the circumstances.  Your behavior might have been illegal or improper in other situations, but perfectly proper in that particular place and time.  "Self defense" or "defense of others" are common justifications.  In most situations, for example, it is illegal to threaten someone with a weapon.  If you threaten your neighbor with a bat to make him stop beating his wife, though, you've done a GOOD thing.  If your neighbor then files a restraining order against you for threatening him with a bat, you should admit that you engaged in that conduct (you DID threaten him with a bat), and you should explain to the judge why your actions were justified under the circumstances.

If you can't justify your actions, maybe you can excuse them. An excuse is a defense where you acknowledge that your behavior wasn't "good", but you argue that you don't deserve to accept the blame.  If, for example, you were involuntarily drugged, you might not deserve to be punished for your behavior while you were under the influence.

If your behavior can't be justified or excused, maybe it can at least be explained.  An explanation is a defense where you admit that you did the wrong thing, but you argue that your blame is mitigated or reduced under the circumstances.  For example, maybe you were provoked with offensive insults and you responded with violence.  We don't agree that your violent reaction was appropriate, but maybe we understand why you reacted the way you did.  Your outburst was out-of-character and it won't happen again.

That last part is important -- it won't happen again.  As I've previously explained on this blog, a restraining order is an "injunction".  An injunction is a court order that is intended to prevent some future harm that has not yet happened, not to punish you for some past wrongdoing.  This is tricky.  The issue that the judge must decide at the restraining order hearing is: has the petitioner proven that the respondent has harassed him or her?  Sometimes -- and this is risky -- we must acknowledge that the respondent has committed some act of violence, threats or harassment against the petitioner, but we establish that the harm is not likely to reoccur in the future.  Since we're talking about an injunction and not a criminal violation, the analysis doesn't stop with, "did this happen?".  A restraining order is not appropriate unless the harm is likely to happen in the future.  If the harm has already passed and is not likely to happen again, then a restraining order is not appropriate.  There is valid case law to support this defense, but the proper citations and legal argument must be presented effectively by an experienced, competent lawyer.  Don't try this at home.

If you or a loved one has questions about a restraining order in California, call us for a free attorney consultation.  (714) 449-3335.  Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

Orange County Restraining Order Lawyer

What We're Working On Now

It's been a busy couple of months here in the office, and I realize that I haven't posted any updates about some of our recent success stories.  If you've been anxiously holding your breath, good news!  Here's a quick rundown of some of the great cases that we've been working on:

• Driving Without a License / False Info to a Police Officer -- Rancho Cucamonga (San Bernardino County):  Our client had been stopped several years ago for driving without a valid license.  To make matters worse, he gave a false name to the officer.  A month later, police discovered that the name was incorrect and our client was accused of 2 separate misdemeanors. Our client failed to appear in court and he had 2 outstanding warrants for several years. Eventually, the warrants caught up to him and he was going to lose his job. This morning, I met with the DA and they agreed to dismiss both matters entirely. Our client can finally get back to work without being afraid that police would show up at any minute and take him into custody on some ticky tacky old warrants. Greats news for him and his family. 
• Elder Abuse Restraining Order -- Santa Ana (Orange County):  Our client was an elderly man who had been the victim of harassment and financial abuse by his adult daughter. He was seeking a restraining order against her to keep her away from his home and bank accounts. We were able to negotiate an out-of-court stipulation to help both parties achieve what they wanted without going to a full hearing before a judge. As I've written on this blog in the past, stipulations can be a great way for parties to negotiate their disputes in restraining order matters without involving taxpayers and judges. Out-of-court negotiations often allow both parties to achieve 100% of their goals without the risk that a judge will impose some "solution" where neither party is satisfied. 
• Attempted Rape --  Fullerton (Orange County):  Our client is a young alcoholic. He was extremely intoxicated and acting belligerently, including some aggressive behavior toward a female stranger. We all agreed that his behavior was inappropriate, but I did not believe that he intended or attempted to "rape" anyone. After a thorough investigation, the District Attorney agreed that my client was not guilty of attempted rape. He was potentially facing several years in prison, followed by lifetime sex offender registration. Instead, he received the appropriate resolution: mandatory alcohol counseling and NO sex offender registration.  
• Trespassing / Theft -- Fullerton (Orange County):  Our client was a "porch pirate". She was actually captured on camera stealing packages from the victim's doorstep. Package theft is rampant in North Orange County, so police and prosecutors are often eager to make an example when offenders are caught red-handed. Luckily, our client was sympathetic and apologetic. She had no serious criminal history. Most importantly, she had a great defense attorney! In the end, she agreed to a "diversion deal" -- she took a 6-hour class one Saturday and the DA agreed to dismiss the case entirely.  
• Child Abuse -- West Covina (Los Angeles County):  Our client was accused of abusing her boyfriend's child. My client insisted that she had merely used some reasonable methods of discipline to correct behavior in an obstinate child. The defendant was a tough disciplinarian, but I did not believe that the punishments she imposed on the child were excessive or unwarranted. After some further investigation, the DA agreed to dismiss the charges.

These are just a few of the cases where we've recently achieved some great results for our clients. Obviously, the facts of every case are different, so these success stories are not guarantees or predictions of future performance.  

I have a lot more interesting cases that I'll be free to discuss soon. Check back for updates as they become available.  

If you or a loved one is accused of a crime in Orange County, call us for a free attorney consultation. (714) 449-3335. 

Fullerton Criminal Defense Attorney

Catalina Island Special Appearance Attorney

Our office handles more criminal cases on Catalina Island than any other private firm.  If you're scheduled to appear in the Avalon courthouse, save yourself the time and hassle of the trip and allow us to make a special appearance.

Our appearance fee is usually less than the cost of the trip, especially if you factor in the value of your time.  An appearance on Catalina Island takes most of the day.  The Catalina Express leaves from Long Beach at 6:00 AM.  If your case goes smoothly and you can catch the 11:45 boat back, you'll arrive back on the mainland around 1:00 PM.  If the court staff is delayed by inclement weather, cases are often heard in the afternoon, or not at all.  There is nothing quick or simple about a "quick and simple appearance" on the island.

We have extensive experience in defending against the most common charges that arise on Catalina, including fishing violations (undersized lobster, fishing in a protected area, commercial fishing without the necessary permits and endorsements, etc.) and other misdemeanors (drunk in public, golf cart DUI, possession of drugs and domestic violence).

If you need an appearance covered on Catalina Island, or if you have questions about what to expect, call us for a free consultation.  (714) 449 3335.  Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

Catalina Island Lawyer

What is the Statute of Limitations for Sex Crimes in California?

The "statute of limitations" ("SoL") describes the time limit within which prosecutors must bring criminal charges.  If the DA waits too long before filing a case, they may be "time barred" from doing so.  Like everything else in the law, though, this is often more complicated than it sounds.

Before we get started, it's important to remember that the "statute of limitations" refers to the time within which the case must be filed.  Often, prosecutors do file a case within the proscribed time period, but the defendant never appears in court for his arraignment.  When this happens, a bench warrant is issued.  The warrant may remain outstanding forever, or until the defendant is eventually arrested and brought to court.  A warrant will never simply go away on its own.  If an old warrant has been outstanding for several years, the defendant may have a valid argument that his constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, but this is different from a "statute of limitations" argument if the case was filed before the SoL expired.

The length of the statute of limitations depends on the maximum sentence for the specific underlying crime.  For most misdemeanors, the SoL is one  year.  That means prosecutors have one year from the date that the crime was discovered (not necessarily the date that the crime was committed) to file charges.  If the crime is a "wobbler" (one that can be filed as either a misdemeanor or a felony at the discretion of the DA), then a longer statute of limitations may apply, even if the case is only filed as a misdemeanor.

If the crime is a felony and the maximum penalty is less than 8 years in prison, the statute of limitations is usually 3 years.  If the maximum sentence is more than 8 years in prison, then the SoL is usually 6 years.  If the crime is potentially punishable by death or by life in prison, or if the crime involves embezzlement of public money, then there is no statute of limitations -- the DA can file charges at any time.

There are many, many exceptions and caveats to the rule that prosecutions must generally commence with within the 1-, 3- or 6-year statute of limitations.  If, for example, a defendant is out of the state when the crime is committed, the SoL can be extended by up to 3 additional years.

Arguments about the statute of limitations get especially complicated in cases involving allegations of child molestation, or "lewd acts with a minor" (PC 288).  Under section 803(f) of the California Penal Code, the SoL may be extended even longer under certain circumstances. The  district attorney can file criminal charges at any time (for up to one year after a report is made) if ALL of the following criteria are met:

• The crime involved child rape, oral copulation, penetration, or other "substantial sexual conduct" with a minor (the victim was under 18 at the time),
• The crime had never been previously reported to police, AND
• There is some independent evidence to support the allegations.  If the victim is over 21 at the time that the crime is reported, that "independent evidence" must be "clear and convincing".

The argument in these cases tends to revolve around the 3rd prong -- that the allegation be supported by "independent evidence" that is "clear and convincing".  Appellate courts have dealt with these issues extensively, and the nuances are intricate.

As I warned in the opening paragraph, issues regarding the statute of limitations can get complicated.  You may have a valid defense based on a filing delay, but the argument must be properly presented and supported by up-to-date citations or it will not be effective.

If you or a loved one is fighting an old sex case, call us for a free attorney consultation. 714 449 3335.  Ask for John. 

Thanks for reading.

Fullerton Criminal Defense Attorney