Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    100

    Default California Assembly Bill 91

    Just thought I'd bring this to your attention. I posted awhile back asking about whether DUI classes were required for a first time offender convicted of VC23152(a) - DUI of drugs - if they were not told to do so by the court. Everyone seemed to think "YES". To those of you saying "YES," I pose this question... If in fact that is the case, then why is there a need to change the law to stipulate a requirement effective this July 1, 2010?

    AB 91 SUMMARY

    This bill requires DMV to establish a five-county pilot program,
    in Alameda, Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento and San Diego
    counties effective July 1, 2010 until January 1, 2015, to
    require a person convicted of driving under the influence (DUI)
    to (a) install an ignition interlock device (IID), as specified,
    on all vehicles he or she owns, and (b) participate in a county
    alcohol and drug problem assessment program.


    9) Requires a county alcohol and drug treatment assessment
    program for any person convicted of DUI and requires payment
    of a $120 fee to pay the cost of the program, based on a
    specified sliding ability-to-pay scale. (Current law
    authorizes the court to make such an order and requires the
    order for a DUI within 10 years of a prior DUI.)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: California Assembly Bill 91

    Maybe because the law does not currently mandate the installation of an interlock device for a first time DUI. Currently the interlock device is at the discretion of the court.

    And current law (CVC 22358) requires that in those counties with an appropriate it must be required as a condition of probation for 23152. The length of the counseling can vary by the BAC. So, current law allows someone to be exempt from counseling if they (a) serve all their time in jail, or, (b) their county does not have such a program (and I believe every county does).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    100

    Default Re: California Assembly Bill 91

    So does this mean you are in agreement with me in that - a person convicted of DUID only CVC23152(a) who was sentenced and served a 180 day sentence is NOT required to attend a DUI class before getting their license reinstated? So long as the 6 months mandatory suspension time has elapsed?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: California Assembly Bill 91

    Quote Quoting Halfajap
    View Post
    So does this mean you are in agreement with me in that - a person convicted of DUID only CVC23152(a) who was sentenced and served a 180 day sentence is NOT required to attend a DUI class before getting their license reinstated? So long as the 6 months mandatory suspension time has elapsed?
    There is a little more to it than that ... it depends on BAC as well as the issue of probation.

    Here's what the code section says:

    23538. (a) (1) If the court grants probation to person punished
    under Section 23536, in addition to the provisions of Section 23600
    and any other terms and conditions imposed by the court, the court
    shall impose as a condition of probation that the person pay a fine
    of at least three hundred ninety dollars ($390), but not more than
    one thousand dollars ($1,000). The court may also impose, as a
    condition of probation, that the person be confined in a county jail
    for at least 48 hours, but not more than six months.
    (2) The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be
    suspended by the department under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
    Section 13352 or Section 13352.1. The court shall require the person
    to surrender the driver's license to the court in accordance with
    Section 13550.
    (3) Whenever, when considering the circumstances taken as a whole,
    the court determines that the person punished under this section
    would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if authorized to
    operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension imposed
    under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section
    13352.1, the court may disallow the issuance of a restricted driver's
    license required under Section 13352.4.
    (b) In any county where the board of supervisors has approved, and
    the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs has licensed, a
    program or programs described in Section 11837.3 of the Health and
    Safety Code, the court shall also impose as a condition of probation
    that the driver shall enroll and participate in, and successfully
    complete a driving-under-the-influence program, licensed pursuant to
    Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, in the driver's county
    of residence or employment, as designated by the court. For the
    purposes of this subdivision, enrollment in, participation in, and
    completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the date of
    the current violation. Credit may not be given for any program
    activities completed prior to the date of the current violation.

    (1) The court shall refer a first offender whose blood-alcohol
    concentration was less than 0.20 percent, by weight, to participate
    for at least three months or longer, as ordered by the court, in a
    licensed program that consists of at least 30 hours of program
    activities, including those education, group counseling, and
    individual interview sessions described in Chapter 9 (commencing with
    Section 11836) of Part 2 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety
    Code.

    (2) The court shall refer a first offender whose blood-alcohol
    concentration was 0.20 percent or more, by weight, or who refused to
    take a chemical test, to participate for at least nine months or
    longer, as ordered by the court, in a licensed program that consists
    of at least 60 hours of program activities, including those
    education, group counseling, and individual interview sessions
    described in Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 11836) of Part 2 of
    Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

    (3) The court shall advise the person at the time of sentencing
    that the driving privilege shall not be restored until proof
    satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a
    driving-under-the-influence program of the length required under this
    code that is licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and
    Safety Code has been received in the department's headquarters.
    (c) (1) The court shall revoke the person's probation pursuant to
    Section 23602, except for good cause shown, for the failure to enroll
    in, participate in, or complete a program specified in subdivision
    (b).
    (2) The court, in establishing reporting requirements, shall
    consult with the county alcohol program administrator. The county
    alcohol program administrator shall coordinate the reporting
    requirements with the department and with the State Department of
    Alcohol and Drug Programs. That reporting shall ensure that all
    persons who, after being ordered to attend and complete a program,
    may be identified for either (A) failure to enroll in, or failure to
    successfully complete, the program, or (B) successful completion of
    the program as ordered.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    100

    Default Re: California Assembly Bill 91

    Let me try and clarify my point..and thanks for the feedback, btw. It's been difficult finding anyone to hear me out.

    I've read the Vehicle Code frontwards and backwards and am quite familiar with that particular section. However, in a DUID case, there are no BAC levels to add to the equation. That said, it is my belief that the DMV cannot administratively suspend a person's license following their arrest for DUI (Admin per Se) if it were for drugs only (no alcohol at all). A conviction, however, will bring about the suspension of a license from the court, and if granted probation, will also kick in the requirement of DUI class attendance as a condition. I stress that it's the court that has jurisdiction since it's in accordance with 13550.

    A first offender convicted of 23152(a) of drugs only with no BAC levels tested, who was sentenced to 180 days of custody and denied probation - having no other conditions upon release, should NOT have to attend a DUI program before being reissued a driver's license. Yes?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: California Assembly Bill 91

    If you choose to serve your entire time and get out without probation, then you may well be right that counseling is not required. I have never seen anyone do that, but if they want to spend 6 months in jail so as to avoid any probation or counseling, they are certainly welcome. I have known thieves who have done that, but no one for DUI drugs.

    But why? Do you think someone would be so desperate to continue driving on drugs that they would prefer to be in custody for all that time?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    100

    Default Re: California Assembly Bill 91

    As I said, thanks for hearing me out... There were other misdemeanor charges that the defendant was found guilty of as well. With the way the system works, although they were sentenced to 180, the actual time served equated to about 2 or 3 months - which I'm guessing was preferable to being on probation with all sorts of freedom restricting conditions - for another 3 -5 years. As for the comment on being desperate to drive on drugs.. maybe? The desire to NOT attend the DUI classes could be attested to that as well. Personally, I think it's a matter of standing up for our rights when dissecting the law. People shouldn't be bullied into having to do things (like the DUI class) by certain agencies just because they are ignorant of the law. I can understand what 'the norm' is in this situation, but 'the norm' isn't 'the law', and it doesn't excuse the agency for misapplying the law. Sorry if that sounded like a rant, but I guess, it kinda was.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Debt Collectors: Right to an Itemized Bill in California
    By California2010 in forum Debts and Collections
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-12-2010, 09:21 PM
  2. Registered Scooter in California but Was Never Given Signed Bill of Sale
    By mattrodomus in forum Vehicle Registration and Title
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-21-2009, 08:47 AM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-19-2008, 08:40 PM
  4. Debt Collectors: Medical Bill Collection in California
    By krhenson in forum Debts and Collections
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-18-2006, 11:55 AM
  5. Sentencing: California Senate Bill 1642
    By foreeverprecious in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-21-2006, 06:25 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources