DUI BLOG

As you’ve seen in the previous post, it may not be too much longer before we see roadside oral swabs to test for the presence of marijuana and other drugs in addition to the current breathalyzer which tests for alcohol. The push for legislation targeting driving under the influence of marijuana comes at a time when recreation marijuana use in California may be legal in the near future.

Whether that day comes or not, law enforcement agencies throughout California are already on the lookout for DUI of marijuana. And when people get stopped and arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of marijuana, one of the most common questions is: What are the penalties for a California marijuana DUI?

The mandatory punishment for a California marijuana DUI is the same to that of a DUI of alcohol. In fact, both are covered under section 23536 of California Vehicle Code which states, “If a person is convicted of a first violation of Section 23152 (DUI law for alcohol and marijuana), that person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 96 hours, at least 48 hours of which shall be continuous, not more than six months, and by a fine of not less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390), nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).”

In addition to the jail and fines mentioned above, the court will also place the person on informal probation for a period of at least 3 years, require a three, six, or nine month DUI education program and the DMV will suspend a person’s driving privileges for a period of six months for a first-time conviction. Second-time or more convictions will may bring an 18 month program and a longer DUI education program.

While these penalties are mandatory, there are other penalties which a judge may impose on a person who has been convicted of a DUI of marijuana. These penalties are the same as the discretionary terms of a DUI of alcohol sentence.

The judge may impose a Mothers Against Drunk Driving Victim Impact Panel which is a one-day lecture hosted by MADD where victims of DUI-related accidents speak about how driving under the influence has affected their lives.

A person might be ordered to complete a Hospital and Morgue Program. I think the name of this punishment speaks for itself.

A judge might order a person to complete a number of Narcotics Anonymous meetings as a condition or probation.

The penalties mentioned above apply even if the marijuana they had consumed was medical marijuana. The law against driving while under the influence of drugs, which is California Vehicle Code section 23152(3), prohibits driving while under the influence of illegal drugs as well as prescription drugs and medical marijuana.  

Lastly, it should be noted that it is also illegal to possess marijuana on your person or in your car under California’s Health and Safety Code and illegal to possess marijuana while driving under the California Vehicle Code. A conviction of either will add to any penalties received for a DUI of marijuana conviction. How much punishment, however, will depend on how much marijuana was in the person’s possession.

Breathalyzers only test for the presence of alcohol.  And until relatively recently that was sufficient.  But with the increased use of marijuana and drugs — both illegal and prescribed — it was inevitable that new tests would be needed.  And as I wrote in a post here one year ago, the California legislature had been working with a bill to authorize new tests of breath and oral fluids.  See California Proposes New Law to Allow Roadside Marijuana Testing.  That bill apparently was put on the back burner and died.

Now it appears that a new bill is being proposed that would permit law enforcement to take swabs from the mouths of drivers and test them with new devices — all at the scene of the roadside investigation.

Driving While High?  California Lawmakers Want to Use New Test to Check

Sacramento, CA.  April 6 - With medical marijuana in widespread use and a ballot measure planned to legalize recreational pot in California, state officials Tuesday proposed using new technology to catch the increasing number of motorists who are driving while high.

Legislation would allow law enforcement officers to use oral swab tests to strengthen cases when there is probable cause that a driver is impaired and the driver has failed sobriety field tests.

A hand-held electronic device would test for the presence of marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines and pain medications, including opiates, on the swab, according to Republican Sen. Bob Huff of San Dimas, who authored the bill.

“Sadly, we’ve become a nation of self-medicating, careless people,” Huff said. “The public is naïve in understanding how dangerous our roads are made by people who are abusing opiates, meth and cannabis.”

The use of small, handheld breath testing devices have proven to be less than accurate and reliable.  And even laboratory drawing and testing of blood for marijuana and a wide variety of drugs in blood samples is considered inconclusive more often than not.  Somehow, I question whether cops will now be capable of obtaining uncontaminated samples of saliva on the side of a busy and dirty highway and then testing those fluids with a small, "hand-held device" — and getting anything even remotely reliable and accurate.

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt"….DUI version.  (See my post, Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?)
 

A couple of posts ago, I wrote about whether a person who has been convicted of a California DUI will be required to install and maintain an ignition interlock device. 

Currently, ignition interlock devices are only required by the DMV for people convicted of a California DUI in four counties as part of a pilot program: Alameda, Los Angeles, Tulare and Sacramento. Otherwise, the requirement that a person install an ignition interlock device is dependent upon whether a judge orders it as a condition of probation.

Last year, Senate Bill 61 extended the pilot program, which was set to end January 1, 2016, to July 1, 2017.

July 1, 2017, however, was too long for Senator Jerry Hill.

Hill authored Senate Bill 1046 which, if passed, would require people convicted of a DUI to install an ignition interlock device in their vehicle throughout California.

The bill took a big step into becoming law this past week when the California Senate Public Safety Committee voted 7-0 in favor of passing the bill. Now that the California Senate Committee has unanimously voted for the bill, it will be sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Not surprisingly Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) fully backed the proposed bill.

“Senator Hill has shown extraordinary leadership on drunk driving prevention, and we are extremely grateful to the committee for agreeing that ignition interlocks do save lives,” said Mary Klotzbach, a MADD National Board member and whose 22-year-old son, Matt, was killed by a drunk driver.

This past February, MADD released its own Ignition Interlock Report, which reportedly showed the deterrent effect that ignition interlock devices had on repeat drunk driving. According to their report, ignition interlock devices prevented 1.77 million drunk driving attempts where the would-be driver’s blood alcohol content was 0.08 percent or more. The report also alleges that ignition interlock devices prevented more than 124,000 drunk driving attempts.

“Today, the Senate Public Safety Committee voted to protect all Californians from the completely preventable, violent crime of drunk driving,” said Klotzbach. When I buried Matt, I buried a piece of my heart. Now I want make sure no other parent, child, brother, or sister ever has to endure this kind of heartache.”

The mandatory installation of ignition interlock devices will add to an already long list of mandatory conditions that a person convicted of a California DUI must complete. What’s more, in addition to the other thousands of dollars associated with a California DUI conviction, people required to install the ignition interlock device will have to pay between $50 and $100 per month to have the device installed and maintained.

This week the California Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of a man who was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 30 years in prison for a DUI accident that killed two men in Lancaster.

In 2009, Tommie Lee Cole was arrested and convicted for a California DUI. At the time of his conviction, Cole signed what is commonly referred to as the “Watson Advisement.” The advisement is a formal acknowledgement that the person convicted of a California DUI knows that it is dangerous to drive drunk and if they drive drunk again and, as a result, kill someone, they can be charged with murder.

In 2012, Cole was once again driving under the influence in Lancaster when he attempted to beat a yellow intersection light and his vehicle broadsided Beau Josh Owen Fluker, 26, and Jeffrey Daniel Gilstrap, 23, who were on their way home from work. The collision killed both Fluker and Gilstrap.

Cole was convicted in February 2014 for the second degree murder of Fluker and Gilstrap in addition to two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and one count of driving under the influence and driving with a 0.08 percent blood alcohol content. The conviction landed Cole 30 years behind bars.

Cole appealed, but in January, a three-justice panel from California’s 2^nd District Court of Appeal ruled against Cole holding that there was sufficient evidence to support Cole’s conviction.

“Defendant’s prior drunk driving offense, his blood-alcohol level and decision to drive while intoxicated, and his highly dangerous acts of speeding and attempting to ‘beat’ a yellow light are substantial evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that the subjective standard for implied malice was satisfied,” said the appellate court judges.

Cole once again appealed, this time to the California Supreme Court. On Wednesday, however, the California Supreme Court announced that it would not hear Cole’s appeal. In doing so, the California Court of Appeal’s decision stood.

The fact that Cole signed the Watson Advisement allowed the California Court of Appeal to conclude that implied malice was present, thus allowing the murder conviction to stand.

Prior to the land mark case of People v. Watson in 1981, a person had to intend to kill someone else to be charged and convicted of murder. However, the California Supreme Court in People v. Watson said that only implied malice needed to be present for someone to be charged and convicted of murder.

As a result of the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Watson, trial courts throughout California began expressly advising people convicted of DUIs on the dangers of driving drunk and that if a future DUI caused a death, the person would be charged with murder.

Of course Cole did not intend to kill Fluker and Gilstrap. However, he did engage in an act, the natural consequences of which was dangerous to life, and was deliberately performed by a Cole who knew that his conduct endangered the life of others and acted with conscious disregard for life. This is implied malice.

In other words, because Cole signed the Watson Advisement, he knew that it was dangerous to the lives of others to drive under the influence, yet he deliberately decided to drive under the influence again notwithstanding that knowledge.

The responsibilities associated with a California DUI conviction can be rather daunting. One the more feared tasks is the requirement of having to install the ignition interlock device. The ignition interlock device, however, is not required after all California DUI convictions. Whether a person will be required to install an ignition interlock device depends on several things.

Before we talk about when an ignition interlock device is required, let’s first talk about what the ignition interlock device is. In short, the ignition interlock device is a breathalyzer that is installed into the dash of a vehicle and connected to the ignition. The driver of the vehicle must provide a breath sample with a blood alcohol content reading under 0.08 percent before the device allows the vehicle to be started. Once the vehicle is started, the driver must provide breath samples at random times to while the vehicle is operational.

Following a California DUI conviction, there are a number of things that a judge may have a person do or complete as a condition of probation. I use the word “may” because some conditions are mandatory and some conditions are discretionary. One of the discretionary terms of probation that a judge may impose on a person following a California DUI conviction is the installation of an ignition interlock device.

As a discretionary term, judges sometimes require the ignition interlock device for a person convicted of a California DUI who has also suffered prior DUI convictions, someone who had a high blood alcohol content, or someone who refused a chemical test following the DUI arrest.

However, in January of 2010 Assembly Bill 91 became law and made the installation of an ignition interlock device mandatory in four counties as part of a new pilot program aimed at reducing drunk driving repeat offenses. The counties affected by the law were Los Angeles, Alameda, Tulare, and Sacramento.

The law requiring the ignition interlock device in the abovementioned counties, California Vehicle Code section 23700, in part reads:

"Before a driver’s license may be issued, reissued, or returned to a person after a suspension…of that person’s driving privilege that requires the installation of an ignition interlock device…"

The length of time that a person must have the ignition interlock device installed for depends on how many prior DUI convictions the person has had. A first time offense carries a 5-month installation period. A second time offense carries a 12-month installation period. A third time offense carries a 24-month installation period. A fourth time offense carries a 36-month installation period.

The law provides for an exception to the pilot program for those who do not own a car or otherwise have access to one. If that is the case, a person must complete and submit an “exemption form” to the California DMV. A person can then completely avoid the ignition interlock device by waiting out their suspension plus the period during which they would have had the ignition interlock device installed. If, however, the person obtains a vehicle in that time, they must have the ignition interlock device installed.

The pilot program was set to end as of January 1, 2016, at which time the California DMV was to report to the legislature on the effectiveness of the pilot program in reducing repeat drunk driving offenses in those counties. However, late last year Senate Bill 61 extended the pilot program until July 1, 2017.

Depending of the data collected as a result of the pilot program, it may not be long before we see the installation of ignition interlock devices as a mandatory condition of probation for all California DUI convictions.