A DMV Hearing Attorney Gives An Overview of DMV Hearings in California

If you received a letter notifying you the DMV is suspending or revoking your license you need to act fast.  California law limits the number of days you have to request a hearing to contest a suspension of your driving privileges.  DMV Hearing Attorney Matthew Ruff is a TOP RATED LAWYER who is respected by the DMV for his legal skills and success rate.

 In California the DMV can suspend an individual's drivers license in a varety of ways. Perhaps the most frequent actions commenced are those related to the abuse of alcohol and/or drugs. Statistically, the most common are the Administrative Per Se (APS) suspension hearings, also referred to as DUI hearings which arise out of a drunk driving arrest. This area is discussed more fully in our DMV Information page. These hearings are conducted at Driver Safety offices located throughout the state. In Los Angeles County the hearing locations are as follows: El Segundo, Van Nuys, Downtown Los Angeles, Commerce and Inglewood. In Central CA the DMV hearings are held in Bakersfield, and in San Luis Obispo County the driver safety offices are in Oxnard, and downtown San Luis Obispo.  By statute,  DMV Hearings are very informal and do not involve a trained or elected Judge, rather they are presided over by a DMV employee known as a hearing officer. According to one Torrance DMV Lawyer, the hearing officers are not lawyers but they do have training in the proper procedures and relevant law that dictates how evidence is presented and what standard of proof is necessary to sustain a suspension of an individual's drivers license. The "dual role" of the hearing officer as both an impartial judge of the facts and as a prosecutor for the department has created the appearance of a conflict of interest, but the Courts have held this is acceptable, often to the dismay and disbelief of most lawyers that practice regularly at the DMV.

In addition to APS hearings, some examples of other types of DMV Hearings include: Negligent Operator Hearings that involve cases where a driver has too many points on their driving record; Fraud Hearings involving the misuse of a drivers license to purchase alcohol by those underage; and Medical and Skill Hearings that involve the issue of a person's ability to drive due to age improper use of drugs and various medical conditions. One DMV Hearing Attorney in Torrance relates that  DMV hearings can very often be beyond the scope of the ordinary citizen to handle and therefore the services of a skilled lawyer familiar with the rules and procedures can level the playing field and increase a persons chances of prevailing and saving their license.

In Los Angeles the Driver Safety Offices have a reputation for being very conservative in returning licenses for medical and lack of skill.  A DMV Hearing Attorney can help level the playing field by holding the hearing officers to the law and being fair.

The most important thing to know about DMV Hearings is that there is a time deadline to request a hearing, if that deadline expires you may not have a right to challenge the suspension at all.  If you or a loved one is facing a license suspension or pending DMV hearing, call Attorney Matthew Ruff, he has been defending clients at DMV Hearings for well over 25 years and can give you the legal advantage necessary to win the DMV Hearing. Contact him Toll Free at 1-877-213-4453 today, mention this article and recieve a free consultation.

Manhattan Beach DUI Attorney Explains the Meaning of "Bodily Injury" in Felony DUI Cases

The California Vehicle Codes makes a DUI a felony when "bodily injury" results from any unlawful act caused by the drunk driver. Vehicle Code §23153 only requires proof of “bodily injury,” not proof of “substantial bodily injury” or “great bodily injury.” said the Court in the case of People v Guzman (2000) 77 CA4th 761 where the justices held that the California statute only requires proof of “harm or hurt to the body”. Minor injuries will satisfy the statutory requirement such as abrasions, lacerations, and back and neck pain, also cuts, headache, and stiff neck were sufficient injuries that have been found to satisfy the legal requirement of injury.  The distinction is significant given the greater punishment imposed for these offenses.

However, according to a local Manhattan Beach DUI Attorney  Matthew Ruff, there must be some physical injury; merely being shaken up or frightened is insufficient, at least that is what the Court said in the case of People v Lares (1968) 261 CA2d 657, 662. When the defendant causes “great bodily injury,” the court has authority to increase the punishment by imposing a sentence enhancement under Pen C §12022.7. This enhancement makes the offense not only a felony, but a "strike". In addition, when the defendant causes “great bodily injury” and has four or more separate DUI convictions within ten years of the current conviction, the court must impose a sentence enhancement under Veh C §23566(b). Furthermore, The bodily injury must be sustained by someone other than the defendant (Veh C §23153(a), (b)), for example, the defendant may be convicted of a violation of Veh C §23153 based on injuries sustained by a passenger in the defendant’s vehicle but not for injuries sustained solely by the perpetrator of the offense.

Should you require additional information about this topic or if you or a loved one is facing a felony DUI, attorney Matthew Ruff can be reached directly at 310-527-4100 for a consultation and review of your case.

Torrance Public Intoxication Lawyer Explains Distinction Between DUI and Drunk in Public

In California it is a crime to drive while impaired in any way that affects your mental or physical faculties, the impairment can be slight.  In contrast, the state also criminalizes being drunk in public, however the level of impairment required for a conviction is much greater.  For example, if the suspect in a public intoxication case were to fail the so-called Field Sobriety Tests given to suspected DUI drivers that would not necessarily equate to being impaired to the degree required for an arrest for being drunk in public.  According to Matthew Ruff, a local  Torrance Public Intoxication Lawyer  , the law mandates that the intoxication level be to such a degree where the person can no longer care for the safety of himself or to others around him or her.  In reality this means the suspect is so drunk he can stumble out into the street and kill himself or he is endangering the public.  Such a level of proof is certainly not required in a "drunk driving" case.  The bottom line in 647f cases vs. 23152 arrests, is that the requisite level of intoxication required is exponentially higher for public intoxication than for driving under the influence. 

Attorney Matthew Ruff can be reached at 310-527-4100 if additional information or advice is required.

Faulty Breath Machines Being Investigated

According to the Associated Press, Hundreds of DUI convictions in Ventura County CA could be dismissed after handheld breathalyzer devices were discovered to have given faulty readings. Law Enforcement said some of the breath test readings were so high, they would have meant instant death. The district attorney's office sent memos to attorneys involved in cases that included blood-alcohol tests taken on eight erratic machines between Jan. 20 and March 31. The county, which bought 125 of the Intoximeter Alco-Sensor V devices at $4,800 each, has shipped them back to the manufacturer. "The ones already found guilty by trial or pled guilty, we are going through all the cases whether we would be withdrawing pleas," Chief Deputy Public Defender Monica Cummins said. Cummins, who represents 160 people arrested with the faulty devices, confirmed that many had pleaded guilty in Court after seeing the results. The maker, Intoximeter of St. Louis, is trying to correct the flaw. The Ventura County Sheriff's Department expects to have the retrofitted devices back in three months. All will be tested for 100 percent accuracy before they are used again.

CA DMV Now Allowing Second and Third DUI Offenders an Ability to Get Restricted License

For those convicted of a DUI in california and have one or more priors, there is now an ability to get a restricted license from the DMV. Vehicle Code (VC) §§ 13352(a)(3) and 13352(a)(5) allows a second or third DUI offender to install an IID and receive an IID restricted license after a mandatory  suspension/revocation period, if the most recent violation of VC §23152 occurred on or after July 1, 2010, and did not involve the use of drugs.

Eligible DUI defendants and drivers must provide the following:

Verification of Installation Ignition Interlock (DL920 Form Required).

$45 administrative service fee to the DMV

All other CA DMV established reinstatement requirements and fees.

Second drunk driving Offenders whose violation involved alcohol only may reinstate after a 90-day suspension with proof of enrollment in a DUI program. Third DUI Offenders whose violation involved alcohol only may reinstate after a 6-month revocation with proof of enrollment in an 18 or 30-month DUI program.

Conviction Involving the Use of Drugs—Second or third DUI offenders whose most recent DUI conviction included the use of drugs do not qualify for early reinstatement with the installation of an IID until 12 months of a suspension/revocation has been completed. A DUI Attorney can offer guidance for those in this category.

Term of IID Restriction—The term of IID restrictions remain in effect for the remainder of the original suspension/revocation term. Drivers that fail to comply with the IID requirement will be suspended/revoked for the remainder of the original suspension/revocation term. A DUI Lawyer can help to ensure that all criteria are met in order to qualify for the restriction.

Lawyer Construes the Law of Citizens Arrest for DUI in California

California law pertaining to citizen's arrest can be quite complex.  This article attempts to clarify and summarize when a citizen may arrest a person for DUI. A citizen’s arrest for DUI is proper when based on the citizen’s observation that the defendant was driving under the influence; in so doing, the citizen may delegate to a peace officer the act of taking the defendant into physical custody in accordance with Penal Code §837(1)  in fact, according to a Long Beach Criminal Lawyer,  the Courts have held that a citizen may make arrest for misdemeanor DUI committed in his or her presence in many cases. For example, when a parking lot attendant who, observed defendant trying to exit parking facility by driving wrong way and into facility’s entrance gate, summoned officer and reported his observations to officer who made arrest this was considered legal, moreover, when an inspector of Department of Food and Agriculture who stopped defendant’s vehicle at inspection station, observed defendant was intoxicated and reported observations to highway patrol officer who arrested defendant this was also construed as within the citizen's rights.

Can an Out of State DUI Prior be Used Against Someone in California?

In California, a person who gets a DUI is subject to being charged with a prior offense even if it is one that took place out of state. A conviction of an out-of-state offense that would have been a violation of  CA Vehicle code §23152 or §23153 if committed in California constitutes a conviction of those sections for purposes of the Vehicle Code, including its sentencing provisions. Veh C §23626. For example in tha case of California v Crane (2006) 142 CA4th 425 the Court held that a Colorado conviction for driving while impaired, which requires only that the defendant be affected to the slightest degree, cannot serve as a prior conviction for purposes of enhancing DUI sentence; California violations require an appreciable degree of impairment.

However, in DMV administrative driver’s license suspension proceedings, it is sufficient if the out-of-state offense is “substantially similar” to the California DUI statutes. In the case of McDonald v Department of Motor Vehicles (2000) 77 CA4th 677, 681–689, the court engaged in juxtaposing California and Colorado DUI statutes and finding sufficient similarity even though Colorado statute presumes intoxication at blood-alcohol level of .05 % or more, while Veh C §§23152 and 23153 only presume intoxication at blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or more. This decision is consistent with the Vehicle Code section 13363(b)  which states that an out-of-state conviction must be “substantially the same” in substance, interpretation, and enforcement as the California law pertaining to that conviction in order to be given reciprocal treatment by DMV under Driver’s License Compact.  Many DUI Lawyers however can find loopholes in the laws or utilize innovative strategies in Court to defeat the prior, check with a local attorney about your specific case.

Recently, attorney Ruff represented a client in Torrance Court for a DUI and the person had two prior out of state DWI convictions.  The DA charged her with a third time offense for a Redondo Beach arrest and she was looking at mandatory 120 days in jail if convicted.  Fortunately, Matthew knew how to get around that by compelling the prosecutor to produce certified records of the prior offenses, they could not do it.