New California Drunk Driving Law Tips
Holiday Tips On The New Drunk Driving Law From Lawrence Wolf, Attorney at Law
by Lawrence M. Kohn
A judge Pro-Tem and successful criminal attorney, Lawrence Wolf – a principal in the Century City law office of Lawrence Wolf – is a recognized expert on drunk driving, juvenile justice and consumer fraud. He is a leading television and radio guest and also hosts his own television show called “The Law and You”, which can be seen weekly on West Hollywood’s Continental Cable, Saturday at 9:30 pm, and on Santa Monica’s Century Cable, Friday at 8:30 pm.
Kohn: Larry, the holiday season is upon us, and people will be attending office parties. Can they have a glass of wine two hours before they drive home or is that going to get them into trouble?
Wolf: The reality is that one glass of wine or beer for the averaged-sized person two hours before you’re stopped is legal. Once you have that second drink, however, you’re bordering on being convicted and potentially placing someone else’s life and your life in danger.
But there’s another reality that’s important: if the police officer smells any alcohol on your breath, he is not going to be impressed that it was only one glass of wine two hours ago.
That comment is going to fall on deaf ears and, consequently, even after a legal battle where you’re found “not guilty”, you’re still facing the financial cost of that battle as well as the emotional cost of being arrested, taken to jail, booked and fingerprinted.
There is no up-side to drinking and driving – none. There is no reason to have even that one drink two hours before because even if you are never ultimately convicted of an offense, there’s still a high price to pay.
If someone wants to have a drink at a holiday party, prearranging for a designated driver would be a viable option.
Kohn: What are some of the current issues being debated with the new drunk driving law?
Wolf: No one condones individuals going out and intentionally drinking and then driving and, God forbid, causing injuries to a loved one. But at the same time, with the new laws that have been imposed since July 1, 1990, some individuals who are losing their licenses have not really committed any offense. Let me give you an example.
Let’s say a good citizen, a law abiding man, who is at his daughter’s wedding, has a glass of champagne at the opening toast and then a second glass on the final toast when the bride is leaving. On his way home, he’s stopped by a law enforcement officer and given a breath test an hour later. He blows into the machine which registers a .08. If no voice is raised in the mans defense, 1) he’s going to be convicted of first time drunk driving, 2) he is going to spend $1000 in fines, 3) he’ll go to alcohol school ,and 4) most importantly, he’s going to lose his license for four months.
This could be someone, who for the last forty years, has supported his family, his community, diligently gone to work every day to run his business, and has never even had a traffic ticket.
With the new “Stop and Snatch” law, the DMV will not accept evidence as to the accuracy of that breath test. Due to potential margin of error in that machine, a .08 would really be a .07, in which case, the man would not be violating the law.
Now imagine that this individual has no viable way of getting to work, or if he’s a salesman, doing his work, except by driving. Certainly, he doesn’t need to break the law, but he does need to support his family. Society has now forced him to become a criminal for every day of his four-month tenure.
Kohn: So you think the new law is inappropriate?
Wolf: I have two feelings about it: one, it is being applied by the DMV with a total lack of any due process. The DMV is not even determining whether or not the machines or the tests are accurate. They are not requiring any witnesses to testify or appear at the hearing. All of their decisions are being based on FAXed police reports, from which they are then suspending licenses. This is a total violation of any due process rights.
And secondly, I think that it’s unduly harsh in many cases, such as the father in my example. In this situation, he has not even violated the law, but because of the DMV’s unwillingness and inability to deal with any legal issues, he will be penalized.
The DMV is acting as nothing more than rubber stamp storm troopers and just snatching up individuals licenses, who, in many cases, shouldn’t legally be prosecuted and don’t need this severe treatment in order to understand the dangers of drinking and driving.
Kohn: Do you have tips for people who find themselves in this situation?
Wolf: Yes. They should always demand a hearing, and they should always consult with an attorney as soon as possible after the offense. The reason for that is that the forms that have been drafted are so confusing, that they have the individual unclear as to not only what their rights are, but even what the procedure is to enforce those rights.
The reality is that in order to try and save one’s license in time, a hearing must be requested within 10 days of the arrest. The way the form reads, that 10 day requirement is unclear. It also leads the arrestee to think that he has to appear in Sacramento for the hearing, which precludes many people from even requesting a hearing. So, do contact an attorney as soon as possible.
The best tip, however, is never to drink and drive.
LAWRENCE WOLF
2 Century Plaza, 18th Floor
2049 Century Park East
Century City, CA 90067
(310) 277-1707
