Arrested For DUI? What You Should Know Right Now.

Being arrested can be the single most terrifying experience a person can go through. Spending time in a jail cell is traumatic to say the least. After release there are things you should and should not do, here they are:

For anyone arrested for DUI the days following the incident can be filled with stress, anxiety and worry.  Knowing what to do and what lies ahead can help alleviate that anxiety and putyou back in control of your future.  Here is some immediate information:u

1. Do not speak to any detective or investigator who may call you to get a follow up statement. It is common, particularly in domestic violence cases, for a detective to contact you to get “your side of the story”. Resist this at all costs. The purpose of this interview is not to vindicate you, rather they are instructed to get a full statement from you by the District Attorney in order to pin you down to a factual scenario that can later be brought up to impeach you in Court.

2. Do not try to contact the alleged victim to “work things out”. In many cases it is a crime to contact an alleged victim, particularly in domestic violence cases if there is a protective order issued. Hiring an attorney is the smarter approach, he can arrange to interview the individual and resolve the case if possible.

3. Do write down in detail the events while they are still fresh in your mind. Document any witnesses, take photographs of any injuries or other evidence that will dissipate over time. Keep this in a safe place and turn it over to your lawyer as soon as possible.

4. Retain a criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. There are certain defenses that require early planning and there are strategies that can be employed to ensure a more favorable resolution to your case. In many instances the case can be resolved by having your attorney reach out to the DA before the case gets into Court.

The bottom line is that there are things that you can and should do instead of burying your head in the sand and hoping the incident will go away.

The Video Trap at the DMV: Why Subpoenaing Body Cam Footage Can Backfire on Your Driver’s License

 By Matthew J. Ruff, Southern California DUI Defense Attorney

When a driver faces a California Administrative Per Se (APS) hearing after a DUI arrest, the immediate instinct is often to fight fire with fire.

Many of my clients ask: "Matt, shouldn't we subpoena the police body cam and dashcam footage for the DMV hearing? It will prove the officer was lying!"

It sounds logical. In a criminal court, video footage can be a powerful tool to create reasonable doubt. But a DMV administrative hearing is a completely different legal battleground. The rules of evidence are different, the standard of proof is lower, and the person deciding your fate isn't a judge—it's a DMV hearing officer.

In over 30 years of defending drivers across Los Angeles, Torrance, and the South Bay, I have seen drivers destroy otherwise winning DMV defenses simply because they rushed to introduce police video footage.

Here is why subpoenaing body camera or dashcam video in a DMV administrative hearing isn't always prudent—and how it can severely prejudice your case (and waste your money).

1. Out-of-Pocket Expenses Fall Entirely on You

Unlike a criminal court case where state discovery laws require prosecutors to provide certain baseline evidence, the DMV does not automatically hand over police video footage for free.

To obtain body cam or dashcam footage for an administrative hearing, the burden is on the driver to formally issue and enforce subpoenas. This means you, as the client, are responsible for paying out of pocket for:

• Government agency processing fees: Law enforcement agencies frequently charge administrative fees to locate, redact, and duplicate video files.
• Service of process fees: Registered process servers must be hired to legally serve the subpoenas on the arresting agency or city clerk.
• Witness and compliance fees: If an officer or custodian of records is required to authenticate the video, expert/witness mileage and appearance fees must be paid upfront.

Throwing money at video production costs before analyzing whether the footage actually helps your legal defense is a costly gamble that often yields zero return.

2. The DMV Standard of Proof Is Dangerously Low

In criminal court, the prosecutor must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. At a DMV hearing, the state only needs to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard—meaning they just have to prove it is more likely than not (51%) that you were driving with a .08% BAC or higher.

  [ Criminal Court Standard ]                [ DMV Hearing Standard ]
  Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (~99%)  vs.  Preponderance of Evidence (51%)

Because the bar is so low, video footage rarely helps you the way you think it will. You might see a video that shows you walking mostly straight. But the DMV hearing officer only needs to point to a single misstep, a slight sway, or a nervous response on camera to rule that the officer had sufficient cause and that you appeared impaired. By paying out of pocket to introduce that video, you are essentially paying to hand the DMV the exact subjective visual "proof" they need to suspend your license.

3. You Might Cure a Defective Police Report

One of the most effective ways to win a DMV hearing is by exposing flaws in the official paperwork—specifically the officer's sworn statement (Form DS 367) and arrest report.

Under California law, the DMV's case relies heavily on documentary hearsay. If the arresting officer writes a vague report, omits the exact time of driving, or fails to state specific, articulable facts justifying the initial traffic stop, we can get the case set aside based on defective evidence.

The Trap: If the DMV's written paperwork is weak or missing critical facts, subpoenaing the body camera footage gives the DMV hearing officer a way to "fix" the report. The video fills in the legal gaps that would have otherwise won us the hearing.  Once the video is requested pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum the hearing officer will have access and can view the videos.  If the video was not requested the hearing officer would not have the ability to view the footage unless they request it themselves, which is rarely done.

4. DMV Hearing Officers Aren't Neutral Judges

Unlike a criminal court judge, a DMV hearing officer acts as both prosecutor and judge. They are employees of the Department of Motor Vehicles whose job is to present the state's evidence and render a ruling.

When you pay to submit a 30-minute body cam video into evidence, you are giving an administrative employee broad discretion to interpret what they see:

• Did you sound annoyed or slur a single syllable while answering questions?
• Did you take two seconds to locate your registration in the glovebox?
• Did you blink repeatedly when the officer shone a flashlight in your eyes?

A defense attorney can argue that these are normal human reactions to a stressful night on the side of the road. A DMV hearing officer, however, will routinely cite those exact micro-behaviors in their written findings to justify upholding the suspension.

Strategy Beats Reflex Every Time

Does this mean we never use video at a DMV hearing? Not at all. If the written police report explicitly lies about a physical fact—such as claiming you ran a red light when video clearly proves the light was green—the footage can be a case-winning silver bullet.

However, spending your hard-earned money to request video should be a calculated legal decision, not an automatic reflex.

Before demanding dashcam or body camera files from the police, an experienced DUI attorney will analyze the DS 367 form, review the chemical test logs, and evaluate whether the written record already gives you a winning hand. In administrative law, sometimes the strongest evidence is the evidence the state failed to provide.

Hermosa Beach DUI Attorney Wins Case

 

In a recent case out of the Torrance Court DUI attorney Matthew Ruff was able to obtain a win of a .11 blood alcohol level breath test by showing His client was in the “absorptive phase” and was rising at the time he was driving. The defense is known as a rising blood alcohol level defense, and Matthew was successful in obtaining a dismissal of all charges and a reinstatement of the client’s drivers license.  Hermosa Beach DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff won the case with the benefit of an expert.

Matthew Ruff, a seasoned DUI attorney with 30 years of experience, expertly employs the 'Rising Blood Alcohol Defense' to challenge DUI charges. This innovative approach guarantees you avoid arrest, license suspension, and SR-22 insurance.

 Reach out to Matt at 310-686-1533 for a free consultation.

DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff New Santa Monica Office

 Just this week Matthew Ruff opened a new office in Santa Monica California.  Located at 100 Wilshire Blvd, Santa Monica CA, the office location is available for meetings with clients by appointment only.  Matthew Ruff has over 30 years experience defending folks in California for driving under the influence charges and driving while intoxicated offenses.  The new Santa Monica DUI Office location will help serve clients out of the Los Angeles airport court  (LAX Court).  The LAX Court serve Santa Monica, Malibu, Pacific Palisades, Marina del Rey, and the city of Venice.

DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff represents people for all drug and alcohol related defenses in all Los Angeles County courts. For more information where to visit Matthew Ruff’s other office locations see the links below:

Office Locations

Matthew J Ruff, Long Beach DUI Attorney

444 W. Ocean Blvd.

Long Beach CA 90802

(562) 473-5390

Matthew J Ruff, DUI Attorney

18411 Crenshaw Blvd.

Torrance CA 90504

(310) 527-4100

Matthew J Ruff, San Pedro DUI Attorney

222 W. 6th St.

San Pedro CA 90731

(310) 514-0877

Matthew J. Ruff, DUI Attorney

333 S. Grand Avenue

Los Angeles CA 90012

(877) 213-4453

Matthew J. Ruff, Huntington Beach DUI Attorney

17011 Beach Blvd.

Huntington Beach CA 92647

(877) 212-2090

Matthew Ruff, DUI Defense Lawyer -Santa Monica Office

100 Wilshire Blvd.

Santa Monica CA 90401

(877) 213-4453

☎️ Call Matt Directly NOW 310-527-4100

(You Will NOT Be “Passed Off” to a Secretary)

ICE Agents Detaining DUI Suspects

Recently, some jurisdictions have reported ICE agents detaining DUI suspects arrested and being held in their local jails. These DUI suspects are non-citizens and face deportation some legal experts say these practices are in violation of the United States Constitution.

The fact that the federal agents are detaining Person suspected of minor offenses after they have been released on those charges me and may infringe upon the fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures.  The charges most of the detainees were facing would be considered misdemeanors. 

Matthew Ruff is a Top Tier DUI Attorney in Torrance California  with over 30 years experience fighting drunk driving charges for clients.

To learn more about this-Click on the link below

 https://thetorranceattorney.com/2025/03/06/ice-detaining-non-citizens-arrested-for-misdemeanor-dui/

DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff Celebrates 30 Year Anniversary

 

This year Matthew celebrates 30 years defending clients charged with DUI and drunk driving in California.  

With offices located throughout California,  Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff, Long Beach, Matthew Ruff DUI Attorney, Los Angeles, San Pedro, Huntington Beach and other locations, Matthew is committed to helping people who need representation after a driving under the influence arrest.

Motion In Support of Elimination of The Permissive Inference Pursuant To VC23152(b)

 

In DUI cases it is important to present evidence to show your client was not driving with a BAC of .08 at the time of driving.  If no evidence is introduced to refute this, the prosecution will ask to have the trier of fact “presume” the BAC reported was the actual blood alcohol level of your client at the time of driving.

California Vehicle Code Section 23152 (b) in relevant part provides: “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.”

“A rebuttable presumption requires the trier of fact, given a showing of the preliminary fact (here, that a chemical test result showed plaintiff had a BAC of 0.08 percent or more within three hours of driving), to assume the existence of the presumed fact (here, that plaintiff had been driving with a prohibited BAC) ‘unless and until evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its nonexistence, in which case the trier of fact shall determine the existence or nonexistence of the presumed fact from the evidence and without regard to the presumption.’ [Citation.] In other words, if evidence sufficient to negate the presumed fact is presented, the presumption disappears and “has no further effect”, although ‘inferences may nevertheless be drawn from the same circumstances that gave rise to the presumption in the first place.’” (Coffey v. Shiomoto (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1198, at pp. 1209–1210.)

In this case the testimony of the expert constituted evidence that, if believed, would support a finding of the nonexistence of the presumed fact—that the driver’s BAC was 0.08 or above at the time of driving. The expert’s testimony was founded on the recency of the driver’s drinking and was clear, direct and credible. Thus, the presumption disappeared and the trier of fact was required to weigh all the evidence and inferences to reach a determination regarding the driver’s BAC at the time of driving.  The prosecution was required to rebut the evidence presented and failed to do so.  Here, there was no evidence presented, no expert evidence contradicting the expert’s opinions and conclusions; the prosecution presented no evidence challenging the factual bases of the expert’s opinions.

Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, including the expert testimony, we submit substantial evidence supports the determination that the driver rebutted the three-hour presumption and the weight of the evidence was in the driver’s favor.

Furthermore, in criminal prosecutions special rules apply:

 "The California Supreme Court has held that a jury

instruction phrased as a rebuttable presumption in a criminal case creates an unconstitutional mandatory presumption.

(People v. Roder (1983) 33 Cal.3d 491, 497-505. In accordance with Roder, the jury instructions have

been written as “permissive inferences."

Why Did I Receive A Notice of Suspension If I Haven’t Had My DMV Hearing?

 Oftentimes the DMV will send out a notice of suspension when a DMV hearing has already been set.  Why is this?  When you were arrested and released the officer filled out Paperwork and sent it to the DMV regarding the details of the incident. This is called the “Officer Statement” and DS367.  Sometimes the officer fails to check the right boxes that he gave you a copy of the notice of suspension and when this happens the DMV will send out a new notice to ensure the driver was actually served with the paperwork.  The problem originates from the fact that there are two different offices handling the case.  One is the local Driver safety office where the arrest took place.  The second is Sacramento Main Office where the paperwork gets sent after the incident.  

When you hired us as your lawyer and we set up the DMV hearing with the local office the suspension was stopped and stayed pending that hearing.  The second notice that you got comes from Sacramento because they don’t bother to check as it is all done electronically.  

What does this mean for me?  You don’t need to do anything.  The new notice is just a duplicate and your driving privileges remain in effect because the attorney already set up a formal hearing.  The whole thing is another example of the government not being efficient and one hand not knowing what the other is doing.  The California Department of Motor Vehicles is a huge bureaucracy and this type of thing is common.  As your attorney we are handling everything and appreciate that you let us know about the correspondence though as sometimes there are legitimate issues that need to be addressed, fortunately this is not one of them.  Thank you again for retaining our Law Firm to defend you in your DUI case.

What Reporting Requirements are there for a Pilot arrested for DUI?

For most folks a DUI can have very severe consequences, however if you are a pilot the ramifications can be devastating.  Top Torrance DUI Lawyer Matthew Ruff has over 30 years defending airmen and commercial pilots on drunk driving charges and DMV suspensions stemming from a DWI arrest.  The arrest can be very worrisome and scary for a pilot due to the stress of the possibility of losing his or her job and career.  Matt understands this and fights the underlying driving under the influence charge in criminal court and at the CA Department of Motor Vehicles.  In order for Matthew to fight both cases effectively, he must be hired early in the case.  If a pilot waits too long to hire an attorney, he or she may prejudice the case and decrease the chances of saving their pilot’s license with the FAA.

Pilots are required to report the incident in a variety of ways.  There are three primary reporting obligations, and something the pilot will need to start in certain cases.

1. A Pilot needs to report any administrative license sanction based on operation of motor vehicle (suspension, revocation, or other deprivation of driver’s license/driving privilege) within 60 days of date of ALS to Civil Aviation Security in Oklahoma City.  If ALS happens on arrest, that starts the clock, even if later stayed by court or licensing agency.
2. The Pilot needs to report DUI conviction within 60 days of date of conviction to Civil Aviation Security in Oklahoma City.
3. The Pilot needs to report the fact of a DUI arrest on AME exam (Airman’s Medical Exam), regardless of whether any thing happened after the DUI arrest (case rejected, diversion granted, no charges filed, tested under legal limit, blood tests returned .00 on everthing).

 

Each report is independent of other reporting obligations.

 

As a practical matter, once FAA (Civil Aviation Security in Oklahoma City or FAA Flight Surgeon/Medical) becomes aware of the DUI arrest, pilot clients typically go into FAA limbo where FAA lets pilot know FAA can’t “establish your eligibility to hold an airman medical certificate at this time” based on the answers to AME questions or reporting of ALS or conviction.  FAA will require a response to determine eligibility to fly.  If, and only if, it is a pilot’s first DUI in his or her lifetime, and airman submits to the chemical test, and chemical test results are below .15, airman’s AME examiner will be able to issue the airman’s medical certificate at time of AME exam so long as airman supplies all the information listed on the attachment to the AME physician.  As such, make sure you have this available.

 

If it is a pilot’s 2nd DUI in their lifetime, and/or if airman tested .15 or above, and/or if airman refused chemical test, airman will “need to submit complete copies of a current Substance Abuse Psychiatric evaluation performed by a Human Intervention Motivation Study (HIMS) psychiatrist, in accordance with the psychiatric portion only of the enclosed specifications. Please note that the evaluation must address your complete alcohol related history of usage and all offenses, and should include copies of all testing performed with a final diagnosis. All materials provided to FAA must also be provided to and commented on by the HIMS psychiatrist.”  This psych evaluation isn’t quick, and if pilot has an ATP license (which requires an AME exam every six months), the pilot needs to start building his or her file and working on the psych evaluation to avoid a lapse in the license.

So what should a Pilot do if he or she has been arrested for DUI in California?  First, understand that your driver’s license will be suspended administratively unless immediate action is taken to stay the suspension through the DMV.  If you ignore the APS and your driving privileges are suspended that triggers a reporting requirement, even before you go to Court.  Call Matthew immediately so he can stop the suspension from going through. 

What about a charge reduced to a “wet reckless” ?  The short answer is a plea to any reduced charge other than DUI or driving above the per se level is going to put the pilot in a better position to defend their pilot’s license with the FAA.  However, even if the DWI is reduced, if the airman loses his or her drivers license at the CA DMV reporting is mandatory.  Therefore, an aggressive two-part strategy is essential in order to put the pilot in the best position to keep flying.  Over the last 25 years Matt has defended drunk driving charges for licensed pilots with great success.

A DUI can be a life changing event for many commercial pilots.  California DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff has over 30 years defending driving under the influence cases for clients.  Matt can be reached on his cell at 310-686-1533.

Getting Your License Back After A DUI Arrest With a Prior

This article will provide information about how to get your license reinstated after a DUI suspension.  This article is intended for people who have multiple DUI convictions on the record if the DMV suspended your driving privilege based on an APS suspension also known as .08 or more you are eligible to obtain a restricted license immediately with the installation of an IID. With this restriction you can drive any time anywhere as long as the vehicle you are driving is equipped with an ignition interlock device (IID). 

  To apply for this reinstatement of your license, you must do the following:

1.    Provide proof of enrollment in a suitable DUI program. This program is called the SB38 program.  The program is for a period of 18 months.
2.    Provide proof of insurance. This is referred to as an SR 22 document that must be filed directly from your insurance provider to the DMV.
3.    Provide proof of in ignition interlock device, this is done using a DL 924 The IID provider will typically file this directly with the DMV however you may need to present it to the DMV along with your other paperwork. 
4.   You must pay a reissue fee of $125, to the DMV.  Lastly, you must have no other holds or suspensions on your driving privileges for child support or any failure to appear.

Click here for a list of approved DUI classes in Los Angeles 

Once you have satisfied the above requirements you should visit the DMV office, and appointment is recommended. Assuming all of the above have been satisfied you will receive a hard license from the DMV that is very similar to the license you had before your arrest. It is important to understand that this restricted drivers license applies only to the APS  suspension.

Can A Search Warrant For Blood in a DUI Be Challenged?

Ever since the US Supreme Court announced that forcibly withdrawing blood from a drunk driver is illegal, police all over the State of California have been obtaining search warrants to draw blood in driving under the influence cases.  What I have seen though is many officers are not putting enough information in the warrant affidavits to satisfy the legal requirements of probable cause.  To understand what I am talking about, let’s go into what the law requires for the issuance of a search warrant.

In order for a warrant authorizing a search to be valid the officer seeking it must convince a judge that “probable cause” exists to believe the place or persons to be searched contain evidence of a crime.  Probable cause is generally defined a a “fair probability” that evidence may be found to support a crime.  Probable cause must be established with facts, not conclusions.  What many officers are doing is providing conclusionary statements in the affidavit such as the person was displaying “symptoms of intoxication” instead of articulating the actual observations to let the judge decide.

A “bare bones” affidavit contains nothing more than conclusive statements which lack the facts and circumstances from which a judge can independently determine probable cause. Most affidavits in DUI cases are pre-printed, check the box type forms and therefore officers get lazy in articulating sufficient facts.

As a general rule, a warrant that is issued on insufficient probable cause is subject to a motion to quash.  However, the District Attorney will try to save the warrant by arguing the officer acted in good faith on the judicially authorized warrant and therefore the evidence should not be suppressed.

In response to that argument Counsel should argue that good faith doesn’t apply when the facts show that no reasonable officer would have believed probable cause existed.  This is where the attorney should get into his training and establish he is taught to articulate his or her’s basis to believe probable cause existed, though facts not conclusions.

Torrance DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff has over 25 years experience fighting and winning suppression motions in drunk driving cases throughout California, including Redondo Beach, Los Angeles, Palos Verdes and Manhattan Beach CA.

Can Police Take Blood From an Unconscious DUI Suspect Without a Warrant?

Yes, according to the United States Supreme Court.  In the case of Mitchell vs. Wisconsin the Justices resolved a long standing issue as to whether law enforcement could perform a warrantless blood draw on a DUI suspect if they are unconscious and unable to give valid consent. 

 The facts of the case are not that uncommon:  Police received a report that Mitchell, who was under the influence of alcohol, climbed into a car and drove away. When found, Mitchell was wandering near a lake, stumbling and slurring his words. A preliminary field breath test revealed a BAC of 0.24% and Mitchell was arrested. On the way to the police station for a more reliable breath test, he lost consciousness and was taken to the hospital instead. His blood was drawn and reflected a BAC of 0.22%. After he was charged with drunk driving offenses, Mitchell moved to suppress the blood test results as obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The State relied on its implied consent law to justify the blood draw. The motion was denied and Mitchell's subsequent convictions were upheld in state court. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. Held: Vacated and remanded. A blood draw is a search of the person. The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and generally requires that a warrant first be obtained. However, the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applies when the compelling need for official action renders a warrantless search reasonable. In drunk driving cases an exigency exists when (1) BAC evidence is dissipating and (2) some other factor creates pressing health, safety, or law enforcement needs which take priority over a warrant application. Both conditions are met when a drunk-driving suspect is unconscious because this creates a medical emergency requiring treatment and will usually involve the drawing of blood anyway. This could delay the application for a warrant which might distort the evidentiary value of a blood draw. There may be an unusual case where a defendant can show that his blood would not have been drawn if police had not been seeking BAC data, and that police could not have reasonably judged that a warrant application would interfere with other pressing duties. Because Mitchell did not have a chance to attempt to make this showing, the case was remanded for this purpose. ( Courtesy of CCAP).

This case will set the tone for state Courts in deciding whether implied consent laws allow for blood draws without a warrant under their individual state statutes.  In California the Supreme Court is currently deciding that issue in the Arredondo Case.

Can You Beat A License Suspension on a DUI?

In California the law requires that a drivers license be suspended for up to three years if a person is arrested for DUI and completes a chemical test that is above the legal limit or refuses to complete a test upon the request of a police officer.  The DMV requires that a person request a formal hearing to challenge the requisite suspension and prove that the Department’s evidence is insufficient to justify the action. Statewide the success rate in winning a DMV hearing is very low.  However, experienced lawyers often prevail much more frequently.
Below is a recent case where Matthew won the hearing on a zero tolerance DUI probation case because of an evidentiary issue he uncovered in the State’s paperwork.

Arrested For DUI or Criminal Charge on Catalina Island?

Top DUI Attorney on Catalina Island 

In search of a criminal defense attorney that can fight charges brought against you on Catalina Island?  Matthew Ruff can help.  Matt has over 30 years experience fighting all types of criminal charges in California.  Matt is a Top Rated Nationally Recognized Lawyer with unparalleled skills and local connections to ensure you get the best results in your case.  The Court in Avalon is part of the Los Angeles Superior Court System and typically only hears cases every other Friday.  If you were released on the Island and given a date to appear in the future to answer to allegations of Public Intoxication, DUI, Theft, Domestic Violence, Drug Possession or any other misdemeanor or Felony charges call Matt for a free case review and assessment of your options and legal defenses.

               Call Matt Direct on His Cell 310-686-1533

Arrested on Catalina Island?  You Need the services of an experienced criminal defense attorney who can appear for you and fight the charges.  As COVID restrictions ease many people are resuming travel to the island and blowing off some steam having been cooped up for a year or more.  When your vacation results in an unexpected arrest you need an advocate to defend your rights, keep your record clean and save your license.  Criminal Lawyer Matthew Ruff has defended dozens of cases on Catalina ranging from public intoxication, DWI, Drug Charges, Assault, resisting arrest, theft, fishing violations, Domestic Violence and many others.  

Every year thousands of people flock to the Island of Catalina for fun in the sun, fishing, boating and nature.  The land is part of the State of California and law enforcement is provided by the Los Angeles Sheriff.  Criminal statutes are strictly enforced and many folks are arrested and cited for various infractions, misdemeanors and felony offenses.  Matthew defends all criminal violations originating on the Island and the Surrounding Pacific Ocean.  If you have questions about the next steps, wondering if driving a golf cart while drunk is a real crime, or other concerns such as how you are going to find the time to show up in Court, Matthew can help.

During their stay on the island many visitors will rent a Golf Cart to tour the local attractions such as Descanso Beach or Chimes Tower or Avalon Canyon.  The vendors do little to verify your level of intoxication before renting the cart and you drive off for a fun ride.  Unfortunately, if an accident happens and the LASD show up they might smell alcohol on your breath and administer field sobriety tests, if you fail they will arrest you and take you to the local station for a breath or blood test.  In California if a driver is arrested for driving under the influence they are required to submit to a chemical test to determine the alcohol content of their blood, if the officer suspects drugs such as marijuana he or she can also require a urine or blood test in addition to a breath test.  If you are an out of state resident you may decide to refuse all testing, however that can present separate issues with regard to your driving privileges.

If you were arrested for DUI in a Golf Cart in Avalon Attorney Matthew Ruff can help.  Is it illegal to drive a golf cart while under the influence?  Yes, the CA Vehicle Code defines a “vehicle” broadly as any device that is propelled by anything other than human power.  In California it is possible to be charged with drunk driving in a golfcart if you are on a public roadway or a location accessible by the public and are driving when you are a .08 or higher BAC or are under the influence of alcohol or any drug.  Fortunately Matt has 30 plus years experience defending good people charged with these offenses.  For example, Matt was hired recently by an out of state resident arrested for DWI in Avalon while on vacation.  The client searched online and found that Matthew was a local attorney who defended cases on the island.  She hired Matt and was able to avoid traveling back to California for the arraignment.  Matt also recently represented a client charged with Public Intoxication after he was found in someone’s backyard in Avalon extremely inebriated.  After some wrangling with the DA Matt got the case dismissed so it wouldn’t affect the client’s criminal record.

Call Top Rated Catalina Island DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff Directly at 310-686-1533

The Island of Catalina has its own Court which handles all criminal cases originating on the Island.  However, all Felony cases are transferred to Long Beach Court on the mainland.   Other charges such as Public Intoxication, assault, Domestic Violence, Fish and Game Violations including poaching and lobster offenses and drug related charges are also prosecuted by the local District Attorney in Avalon.  The Island also sees a fair number of boating under the influence cases, sometimes referred to as BUI, Matt has extensive experience fighting these cases.  The Court is part of the Los Angeles Superior Court system.

California Vehicle Code 23152 is the applicable law for driving under the influence, the crime is a misdemeanor.  If injury was involved the offense is 23153, this offense can be either a felony or a misdemeanor depending on the severity of the alleged injury.  Matthew Ruff has been successful in many cases to have the charges dropped or reduced if the circumstances warrant such relief.  Most cases involve a breath test and Matt is very knowledgeable in challenging the machine used which is a Datamaster Device.

If you were issued a citation to appear in the Catalina Court the law allows for a private attorney to appear for you, thereby saving needless travel expenses.  Matthew has handled countless cases in the Avalon Court and knows the local DA and Judge that will be Hearing your matter.

Call Catalina Island Criminal Defense Attorney Matthew Ruff Direct at 310-686-1533

Top Tier Catalina DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff has the experience defending cases in the Avalon Court before Judge Mirich and Deputy District Attorney Karen Brako.  This experience equates to a better result in your case because he knows the individual proclivities and personalities of the decision makers.  For example, in a case involving possession of drugs the lawyer will take a certain approach that has been effective in the past with that kind of case.  In a public intoxication case a distinctly different approach will be taken in order to try an get charges dismissed or dropped.  Hire the law firm that has the 30 plus years of experience getting results for clients charged with exactly the thing you are facing.

Matthew’s experience handling serious cases recently paid off for a client who hired him on a Felony DUI with Injury case out of Catalina.  The client was from out of state and vacationing in Avalon when an accident occurred with the golf cart, causing the ejection of the passenger on to the street.  A breath test revealed a high BAC above .20.  Matt fought the case, both at the DMV and in Court.  He got the felony charges dropped and beat the case at the DMV license suspension hearing. In another recent case Matt defended a young lady arrested for DWI in a golf cart on the island near downtown.  The client refused to submit to a chemical test and was booked.  Matthew fought the case arguing his client was not driving the vehicle at a time her BAC was at or above the legal limit and was able to get ALL CHARGES DROPPED in June 2022, the best part about it is she never had to come to Court!

 If you or a loved one is facing an upcoming case, call Matt directly at 310-686-1533, in many cases he can appear in Court for you, thereby avoiding expensive travel and time off from work.

Does Submission To An Officer’s Authority Constitute Consent To Draw Blood in a DUI Case?

No, says People vs. Ling (2017) 15 Cal App 5th Supp. 1
The Court held the People bear the burden of proving that a consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given. “This burden cannot be discharged by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority.” (Bumper v. North Carolina (1968) 391 U.S. 543, 548.) To be effective, consent must be voluntary. Voluntariness is to be determined by considering the “totality of the circumstances.” It is also the rule that “assent” alone is not necessarily “consent.” “Consent, in law, means a voluntary agreement by a person in the possession and exercise of sufficient mentality to make an intelligent choice, to do something proposed by another . . . . [Assent] means mere passivity or submission, which does not include consent.” Neither is there consent when all we have is the mere submission to an express or implied assertion of authority. Defendant in this case was told that “(b)ecause you’re under arrest for DUI, you have to submit to a chemical test, which is a test of either your breath or your blood.” Never was he asked if he was willing to summit to such a test. Telling him that he “has to submit” to a chemical test of his blood communicates a reality where the chemical test will be conducted against defendant’s will, if necessary. He was also never given the opportunity of choosing between providing a breath sample or a blood sample.

In Ling, the Court found the defendant’s lack of physical or verbal resistance to submitting to a blood test, by itself, does not mean that he had consented to the procedure. In sum, the Court noted that “(t)he People fail to point to any evidence in the record showing that defendant consented to the blood draw nor could they.” The evidence instead shows that defendant submitted to a blood draw and that this submission was due to the officer's expression of lawful authority. As concluded by the Court; “absent evidence to the contrary, it cannot be presumed that individuals under arrest could reasonably construe a direction from an arresting officer that they must take some action as a mere query as to whether they will voluntarily consent to it. Consequently, the totality of the circumstances shows defendant did not consent to the blood draw.” The blood results, therefore, should have been suppressed.

In most DUI arrests the officer will read the suspect an advisement informing him or her of their obligations and rights to submit to a chemical test in the state of California.  Here, that was not done.

It is clear that the arresting officer in this case was either totally oblivious to, or chose to ignore, the plethora of recent (i.e., post Missouri v. McNeely (Apr. 17, 2013) 569 U.S.__ [133 S.Ct. 1552].) cases discussing the need for a full explanation of the V.C. § 23612 implied consent rules, along with evidence that a DUI arrestee do more than merely acquiesce, and actually consents, to a blood or breath test, in order for the results to be admissible in court. The Court in fact makes some reference to the need for law enforcement officers to stay up on the law if their arrests are going be of any benefit. ( Courtesy of Robert Phillips).

The rule in this case is as follows: The results of a blood test in a DUI case are inadmissible absent evidence that the defendant did in fact consent to the taking of a blood sample. A mere submission to authority is not consent.

I Received A Letter From California Board Of Nursing About My DUI, What Do I Do?

California has some of the toughest laws that allow the state to take away a professional license if you are convicted of DUI.  Matthew Ruff has been fighting for nurses to prevent a DUI conviction and subsequent disciplinary action from the Board Of Nursing.

If you have been arrested for DUI in California and have a nursing license chances are the License Board will be notified of the arrest.  By law when a person holding a professional license is arrested the licensing agency is automatically notified at which time an investigation will commence.  The Board of Nursing will contact you for information about the law enforcement contact, it is always in your best interest to cooperate.

Regulations pertaining to the licensing of nurses in the state of California impose sanctions for a failure of the license to cooperate in a Board Investigation.  For example, California Code Of Regulations Sections 2504.1 and 2518.8(c) provides that licensees are required to provide the Board lawfully required documents and cooperate in any investigations or risk disciplinary action.

The California Board Of Nursing can take action against an RN, LVN or nursing assistant if they have engaged in conduct relating to their duties.  In DUI cases the state will want to see if the person is abusing drugs or alcohol to the extent that it affects their ability to care for their patients.

You may receive a letter requesting information about the incident.  What should you do.  Cooperate.  You are required by law to respond.  You should email, fax or mail a response with 30 days.  If you ignore the letter the Nursing Board will presume you have something bigger to hide and will react more aggressively than if you simply respond and acknowledge the arrest, while at the same time asserting you have not been found guilty or adjudicated by any Court.  At the end of the day an arrest is simply an accusation and in this country you are presumed innocent until the contrary is proven in a Court of law.

Here is a sample letter of the information you should provide:

(Date)
(Your name, address and phone number)

California Board of Nursing

Case No.

To Whom it may concern,

I was arrested on (give the date)  by the (give the law enforcement agency, CHP, Los Angeles Sheriff, etc).  I was given a Court date of (provide the date).  I have hired attorney Matthew Ruff to represent me.  His number is 310-527-4100.

I intend to cooperate fully with your investigation.

Should you require any additional information feel free to contact me.


Sincerely
(Sign your name here)