I'm still pissed because the DMV is still refusing to issue and reinstate a driver's license. I've posted on this issue before, but I was reminded again today of how RIDICULOUS the system is, and therefore needed an outlet to vent my renewed frustration over the whole thing....bear with me - and feel free to comment!
The facts: A 2006 arrest and subsequent 2007 DUID conviction as a first offender which did NOT result in probation, but was instead sentenced to the max of 180 days incarceration - for which the time was served. There were no other conditions imposed by the court upon release from custody (i.e. program requirement). The DMV refuses to issue a driver's license, saying an alcohol abuse program is required to be completed before a license can be re-instated.
The argument: I read CVC 22358 to say that a program is only required by those who are subject to probation conditions (if you are a first offender). Feel free to read the original post from eons ago [URL="http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97449"] if you want more info..
The rant: 1) This particular DUI offense was over drugs only, NOT alcohol. Despite the DMV saying that they have the interests of public safety as their reason for requiring this program, the requirement of an alcohol class for a person who wasn't drinking makes it obvious (to me) that all they really want is MONEY. And 2) I still question whether the DMV even has the right to require such a thing since they are allowed administrative powers only - with regards to DUI's that have BAC levels. In DUID cases, they have NO administrative powers other than to suspend the license for 6 months upon conviction.. even the DMV's website and the literature available at the branches state clearly that a COURT-ordered program must be completed before reinstatement. In this particular case, defendant was incarcerated in lieu of a program.
What really gets under my skin is the fact that IT'S BEEN OVER 5 YEARS since the conviction!! And to those of you who are still saying "just do the program!," had the defendant decided to move to another state, the CA DMV would have provided a letter which would have allowed a driver's license to be issued in any other state (once the 6 month suspension expires, that is), and so long as the defendant didn't return to California for 3 years, life can go on as usual. If defendant returned within 3 years, however, the program would still be required before a CA license could be issued (meaning if they returned to California after 4 years - DMV would issue the license as if nothing had ever happened). I would like to know what moving from state to state does that affects a person's ability to drive - because remember the whole reason DMV requires this is because of the whole public safety issue..
And if that doesn't convince you of what a crock of %$^ the DMV is, then I would think this next tidbit should sell my point and hit it home... Take this hypothetical scenario....If the defendant had been the driver of a vehicle that KILLED someone (bad enough by itself), AND if they had fled the scene of the accident (making it a hit-n-run!), the DMV would have revoked their license for 3 years. Once that 3 year period is up, the defendant can have the DMV reinstate the license without any other requirements other than paying the requisite fees!!!! To me, this is almost like the DMV advocating HIT-n-RUN drivers that KILL!! I'm not making this up.. it's all true with regards to the law and DMV's procedures in this situation.
Will someone please explain how this is can be? WTF is really going on here?????