1. The Limitations of “Implied Consent” in DUI Cases

    On February 26, 2016, the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District, released its opinion in the case of People v. Arredondo. The chief question in the case was under what circumstances may authorities seize a blood sample from an unconscious person suspected of drunk driving without offending the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. Facts Shortly …Read More

  2. DUI Convictions and the “Watson” Advisement

    In 1981, the California Supreme Court decided the case of People v. Watson. Therein, the Court held that a drunk driver who causes a fatal accident can be found guilty of second degree murder. The Court's decision has since been codified in Vehicle Code section 23593 advisal. Upon being convicted of a DUI offense in San Diego County, the court will read aloud the following statement to the defenda…Read More

  3. Understanding the DMV’s 10-Day Rule

    In 1990, California initiated the administration license suspension program, also known as "Admin Per Se" (APS), in hopes of creating a powerful deterrent to drunk driving. Under the APS program, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is required to suspend/revoke the driving privilege of any person arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or a combination of alcohol and drugs, wh…Read More