Emerging DUI Laws and Changes in Los Angeles

The driving under the influence law in California is a constantly evolving field, shaped by legislative actions, judicial interpretations, and the integration of new technologies aimed at enhancing public safety. For individuals facing DUI charges, staying abreast of these changes is not merely advisable—it is crucial for navigating the complexities of the legal system and pursuing the most favorable outcome. Understanding the current legal landscape encompasses familiarity with relevant California Vehicle Code sections, the increasing prevalence of mandated technologies, shifts in enforcement practices, and the potential sentencing repercussions following a conviction. A comprehensive grasp of these multifaceted issues forms the bedrock of a robust defense strategy, which is why seeking counsel from an expert DUI defense attorney is crucial for your success.

Ignition Interlock Devices (IIDs have emerged as a cornerstone of California’s efforts to combat drunk driving. These devices, roughly the size of a smartphone, are integrated into a vehicle’s ignition system. Before the engine can be started, the driver must provide a breath sample. The device analyzes this sample for the presence of alcohol. If alcohol is detected above a pre-set limit, the vehicle will not start. Furthermore, many IIDs require rolling retests, where the driver must provide additional breath samples at random intervals during operation to ensure continued sobriety.

California has progressively expanded the mandate for IIDs. Individuals convicted of a DUI offense, including first-time offenders in certain circumstances, may be required to install an IID in their vehicles to reinstate or obtain restricted driving privileges. Even those with multiple DUI convictions may become eligible for a restricted license contingent upon the installation and maintenance of an IID.

The installation of an IID must be performed by a certified service provider approved by the DMV. Any tampering with the device, attempting to circumvent it, or failing to adhere to scheduled maintenance appointments constitutes a violation. Such violations are reported to both the DMV and the court, potentially leading to a probation violation hearing if the driver is on probation, and the suspension or revocation of driving privileges. Vehicle Code Section 23700.5 specifies the consequences of such violations.

From a defense perspective, while the cost and logistical aspects of IID installation may seem burdensome to clients, it is essential to convey the perspective of the courts and law enforcement. These agencies view IIDs as effective tools for preventing repeat offenses. Consequently, strict compliance with IID requirements is closely monitored and can significantly influence the court’s decisions regarding driving privileges and probation terms. Defense counsel often negotiates IID terms as part of plea agreements, emphasizing to clients that diligent adherence to these requirements can expedite the restoration of their full driving privileges and help them avoid further complications within the criminal justice system.

The legal landscape surrounding driving under the influence of marijuana has undergone significant shifts, particularly following the passage of Proposition 64, which legalized recreational marijuana use for adults aged 21 and over in California. However, it is crucial to understand that while the possession and use of marijuana have been decriminalized in many contexts, driving under its influence remains strictly prohibited under California Vehicle Code Section 23152(f). This section explicitly makes it unlawful to operate a vehicle while under the influence of any drug, including cannabis, that impairs the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle with the caution characteristic of a sober person. Vehicle Code Section 23152(a), which prohibits driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, can also be applicable in marijuana DUI cases.

Many jurisdictions that have legalized recreational marijuana have observed an increase in arrests and traffic accidents related to marijuana-impaired driving. California law enforcement agencies anticipated this trend and have implemented various strategies to detect and prosecute such offenses. A significant challenge in these cases lies in the absence of a standardized “breathalyzer” test for marijuana impairment. Unlike alcohol, which has a predictable rate of dissipation and can be readily measured through breath or blood tests, marijuana’s active compound, THC, and its metabolites can remain in the body for extended periods, long after the psychoactive effects have subsided. Consequently, a positive blood or urine test for THC does not necessarily correlate with current impairment.

These limitations in testing technology present critical considerations for defense strategies. Defense attorneys frequently challenge the nexus between a positive THC test and actual impairment at the time of driving. This is particularly relevant when toxicology reports do not specify the time or quantity of marijuana consumed. Furthermore, unlike alcohol, where a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08% or higher constitutes a per se violation for non-commercial drivers, California law does not have a similar per se legal limit for marijuana.

Juries in California DUI marijuana cases are instructed based on patterns derived from the California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM). Specifically, CALCRIM No. 2110, Driving Under the Influence, is often adapted for drug-related DUIs, and CALCRIM No. 2111, Driving Under the Influence of Drug, provides more specific guidance. CALCRIM No. 2111 instructs the jury that to find the defendant guilty, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant drove a vehicle and, at the time of driving, was under the influence of a drug. The instruction further clarifies that a person is under the influence of a drug if, as a result of taking a drug, his or her mental or physical abilities were so impaired that he or she was no longer able to drive a vehicle with the caution characteristic of a sober person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances. Expert testimony from toxicologists and other medical professionals often plays a crucial role in explaining how THC is metabolized, the limitations of current testing methods, and why an individual’s behavior might not align with the results of a toxicology report.

The issue of forced blood draws in DUI investigations has been significantly shaped by recent rulings from the United States Supreme Court, impacting California law enforcement practices. Historically, under California’s implied consent laws, individuals lawfully arrested for DUI who refused to submit to a chemical test (blood, breath, or urine) faced administrative penalties, including driver’s license suspension, and the refusal could be used against them in court. However, landmark Supreme Court cases have refined the scope of permissible nonconsensual blood draws.

In Missouri v. McNeely (2013), the Court held that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not, by itself, constitute an exigency that would justify a warrantless blood draw. This ruling emphasized the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring law enforcement officers to generally obtain a warrant before compelling a blood sample in DUI cases where the suspect refuses. Subsequently, in Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016), the Court further clarified that while breath tests incident to a lawful arrest are permissible without a warrant, blood tests are more intrusive and typically require a warrant unless there are specific exigent circumstances beyond the natural metabolization of alcohol.

Despite these constitutional limitations, California law enforcement agencies have adapted by developing streamlined processes for obtaining expedited warrants for DUI suspects who refuse chemical testing. This often involves officers contacting on-call judges remotely to present probable cause for a DUI arrest and request a warrant to draw blood. Once a warrant is issued, officers can legally compel a blood sample from the suspect.

From a defense perspective, forced blood draws raise numerous legal challenges. These include scrutinizing whether the warrant was supported by sufficient probable cause, whether how the blood sample was obtained was reasonable and medically sound, and whether any undue delay between the arrest and the blood draw could have affected the accuracy of the test results. Defense attorneys may also argue that the initial stop of the vehicle was unlawful, which could lead to the suppression of all evidence obtained subsequently, including the blood test results.

Furthermore, even in cases where a forced blood draw yields a measurable blood alcohol concentration (BAC) above the legal limit, the California DMV often treats the initial refusal to submit to a chemical test as a separate violation under Vehicle Code Section 13353. A first-time DUI offender who refuses to take a chemical test, even if a blood sample is later forcibly taken, may face a one-year driver’s license suspension without the possibility of a restricted license during that period. Additionally, prosecutors can file a refusal allegation in court, which typically results in enhanced penalties upon conviction, such as mandatory jail time and longer DUI education programs, in addition to the penalties associated with the underlying DUI charge itself.

While the majority of DUI offenses in California are prosecuted under the Vehicle Code, the Penal Code becomes highly relevant in cases involving aggravating factors, particularly injury or death.

When a DUI results in injury to another person, prosecutors may file felony charges under California Vehicle Code Section 23153, Driving Under the Influence Causing Injury. To secure a felony conviction under this section, the prosecution must prove that the defendant drove a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs (or with a BAC of 0.08% or higher), committed an unlawful act or neglected a legal duty while driving, and as a proximate result of that unlawful act or neglect of duty, another person was injured. The potential penalties for a felony DUI causing injury include significant jail or prison time, substantial fines, restitution to the injured party, and a lengthy driver’s license suspension.

In the tragic event that a DUI results in the death of another person, the driver can face even more serious felony charges under the Penal Code. Penal Code Section 192(c), Vehicular Manslaughter, applies when a death occurs as a result of driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. If the driver was intoxicated at the time of the unlawful act or act done without due caution, the charge can be elevated.

Penal Code Section 191.5, Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated, carries even more severe penalties. This charge applies when a death results from the defendant’s driving while intoxicated and also committing an act ordinarily lawful that is dangerous to human life, and the defendant commits this act with gross negligence. Gross negligence is defined as conduct that is more than ordinary carelessness, in that it consists of aggravated, reckless, or flagrant disregard for human life or the consequences of an act.

In cases where a driver has a prior DUI conviction and has been explicitly advised of the dangers of driving under the influence (a “Watson advisement,” typically given upon a prior DUI conviction under People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290), and they subsequently commit another DUI that results in death, prosecutors may even pursue a charge of second-degree murder under Penal Code Section 187. To prove murder in this context, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant acted with implied malice, meaning they knew their conduct was dangerous to human life and acted with a conscious disregard for that danger.

These felony-level DUI charges carry the potential for lengthy custodial sentences in state prison, imposing significant fines, and resulting in other life-altering consequences, such as a permanent criminal record and the loss of various rights and privileges. In every DUI case, regardless of whether it is charged as a misdemeanor or a felony, the court has the authority to impose a range of other sentencing terms, including mandatory alcohol education classes, victim impact programs, restitution payments to any victims, mandatory installation of an Ignition Interlock Device, and formal probation with specific conditions. Defense attorneys play a critical role in these cases, often attempting to negotiate plea agreements that may reduce felony charges to misdemeanors where legally and factually possible or working to mitigate the severity of the punishment by highlighting weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence or presenting mitigating factors related to the defendant’s background and circumstances.

Jury instructions are fundamental to the fairness of a DUI trial, as they provide the legal framework that jurors must use to evaluate the evidence presented and reach a verdict. In California, the standard jury instructions for criminal cases, including DUI offenses, are found in the CALCRIM series.

For a standard misdemeanor DUI involving alcohol, CALCRIM No. 2110, Driving Under the Influence, is the primary instruction. This instruction informs the jury that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant drove a vehicle and, at the time of driving, was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. Importantly, the instruction clarifies that a person is under the influence if, as a result of drinking an alcoholic beverage, his or her mental or physical abilities were so impaired that he or she was no longer able to drive a vehicle with the caution characteristic of a sober person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances.

For DUI cases involving drugs, CALCRIM No. 2111, Driving Under the Influence of Drug, or a closely related instruction, is used. As discussed earlier, this instruction specifies that the prosecution must prove the defendant drove a vehicle and, at the time of driving, was under the influence of a drug. It defines being under the influence of a drug as having impaired mental or physical abilities to the extent that the driver could no longer operate a vehicle with the caution of a sober person of ordinary prudence.

These instructions meticulously break down the essential legal elements that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt for a defendant to be found guilty of a DUI offense. The concept of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a cornerstone of the American legal system, meaning the prosecution must present enough credible evidence to convince the jury that there is no other logical explanation for the facts except that the defendant committed the crime.

Defense attorneys carefully scrutinize the jury instructions for any potential ambiguities or opportunities to argue that the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof on one or more of the required elements. For instance, in a DUI marijuana case where there is no per se legal limit, the defense may argue that the mere presence of THC metabolites in the defendant’s blood does not definitively prove that the defendant’s driving was impaired at the time of operation. Similarly, in alcohol-related DUIs, the defense might challenge the reliability of breath or blood test results, question the proper calibration or maintenance of testing devices, or argue that the arresting officer did not follow proper procedures during the traffic stop or the administration of field sobriety tests. Any such challenges aim to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors, potentially leading to an acquittal or a hung jury.

The sentencing phase of a DUI case is a critical stage where the consequences of a conviction are determined. California has a tiered system of penalties for DUI offenses, with the severity of punishment increasing based on the number of prior DUI convictions within a ten-year “lookback” period.

For a first-time misdemeanor DUI conviction under Vehicle Code Sections 23152(a) (driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs) or 23152(b) (driving with a BAC of 0.08% or higher), the typical penalties include fines ranging from several hundred to over a thousand dollars, potential jail time ranging from 48 hours to six months in county jail (though often suspended for first-time offenders), a driver’s license suspension or restriction period, and mandatory participation in a DUI education program, typically lasting three to nine months.

A second DUI conviction within ten years carries significantly harsher penalties, including increased fines, a longer jail sentence (ranging from 96 hours to one year), a longer driver’s license suspension (typically one to two years), mandatory installation of an Ignition Interlock Device for a period, and a longer DUI education program, often lasting 18 to 30 months.

Third and subsequent DUI convictions within ten years can be charged as felonies, leading to potential state prison sentences, even more substantial fines, a driver’s license revocation for multiple years, and extended DUI education and treatment programs.

In addition to these standard penalties, judges in California DUI cases have considerable discretion to impose various probationary terms. These may include mandatory attendance at a Hospital and Morgue (HAM) program, participation in a Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) victim impact panel, performance of community labor, and strict adherence to all court-ordered conditions. Probation can be either formal (supervised by a probation officer) or informal (summary probation). Any violation of probation terms can result in the revocation of probation and potential incarceration.

Beyond the direct penalties imposed by the court, a DUI conviction can also trigger a range of significant collateral consequences. Auto insurance rates typically increasedramatically, and in some cases, insurance policies may be canceled altogether. A criminal record resulting from a DUI can negatively impact employment prospects, particularly for jobs involving driving or those in fields requiring security clearances or public trust. Certain professional licenses issued by the state may be suspended or revoked following a DUI conviction. For non-citizens, a DUI conviction can have serious immigration consequences, potentially leading to deportation proceedings, depending on the specific circumstances and the individual’s immigration status.

Given the dynamic nature of DUI laws and the continuous introduction of new technologies and enforcement strategies, it is imperative for individuals facing DUI charges to remain well-informed. Understanding the implications of Ignition Interlock Devices, the complexities of marijuana testing, the nuances of forced blood draws, and the potential for enhanced sentencing under various circumstances can significantly influence a person’s defense strategy and the outcome of their case. Whether the alleged impairment involves alcohol, marijuana, prescription drugs, or a combination of substances, each situation presents a unique set of facts and legal considerations that require scrutiny. The specific details of the traffic stop, the defendant’s performance on field sobriety tests, and the reliability of any chemical test results are all critical factors that can drastically alter the course of legal proceedings.

Equally crucial is the selection of a defense attorney who is not only experienced in DUI law but also remains current on the latest legislative changes, court rulings, and emerging trends in DUI enforcement and prosecution. An experienced DUI defense lawyer will thoroughly evaluate the circumstances of the arrest and identify any potential constitutional violations, such as an unlawful traffic stop or an interrogation conducted without proper Miranda warnings. They will also critically examine whether the prosecution can meet its burden of proof under the relevant CALCRIM jury instructions, challenge any irregularities in the collection or analysis of evidence, and diligently work to mitigate the potential sentencing consequences.

Engaging a defense attorney who possesses prior experience as a prosecutor can offer a distinct advantage in navigating the complexities of a DUI case. An attorney with a background in the District Attorney’s office has firsthand insight into how DUI cases are investigated, how prosecutors build their cases, and the strategies they employ during plea negotiations and at trial. This unique perspective can be invaluable in identifying potential weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence, anticipating the prosecution’s arguments, suggesting beneficial plea options, and effectively advocating for alternative sentencing outcomes.

In a jurisdiction like Los Angeles, where traffic enforcement is often rigorous and DUI cases are prosecuted aggressively, obtaining swift and effective legal intervention is often paramount. Prompt action by defense counsel may include requesting a DMV hearing to challenge a driver’s license suspension, conducting an independent investigation to gather and preserve crucial evidence, and engaging in negotiations with prosecutors early in the process to seek reduced charges or explore probationary terms that avoid lengthy jail sentences.

If you have been arrested for or charged with a DUI in the Los Angeles area, it is vital to thoroughly discuss your situation with a lawyer who possesses a deep understanding of the constantly evolving landscape of DUI laws and changes. As a former Deputy District Attorney with over 14 years of prosecutorial experience, Michael Kraut has established a strong reputation for providing skilled and strategic defense in DUI cases. He is prepared to offer detailed legal guidance and to vigorously advocate for his clients in negotiations, DMV hearings, and trials.

For more information about the latest developments in DUI law or to schedule a free, confidential consultation, please contact Mr. Kraut at 888-334-6344 or 323-464-6453. A single conversation with an attorney at Kraut LawGroup Criminal & DUI Lawyers can provide clarity regarding your rights, guide you through the intricacies of the legal system, and potentially make a significant positive difference in the outcome of your case.