DUI FAQ's

A person who had been stopped and arrested for driving under the influence would often wonder whether or not they should hire a DUI defense attorney and whether it would actually be worth it. The short answer is yes, it would absolutely be worth it to hire an attorney. Being arrested for driving under the influence would not be like getting a ticket for speeding or running a stop sign, because it would be a serious misdemeanor charge where the person could face potential jail time even for a first time DUI.
A lot of procedures need to be followed and the case needs to be handled correctly in order to get the very best possible result. Sometimes people try to do it themselves to save money, whereas in reality, it actually ends up costing them more money when they try to do something like this themselves. The court system can have all sorts of unintended consequences for somebody who had been convicted of driving under the influence, and then there are also the Department of Motor Vehicles case that would need to be dealt with.

Someone who tried to do it themselves would have to go to court themselves, which would mean they would have to take off time from work or school and there would be costs associated with that. There would always be a certain level of anxiety or stress involved with a DUI and there would always be fines and fees that would need to be assessed for somebody who had been arrested and convicted of driving under the influence.

An attorney would be able to not only guide their client through the process, but they would also be able to take the steps that would be necessary to minimize the risk and minimize the exposure of possible penalties for a particular case. In many instances, a good attorney would be able to get charges reduced or dismissed which would further save not only money but stress and aggravation, and it would be able to keep the person’s record as clear and clean as possible.
All sorts of unintended consequences could happen for somebody who did not have a lawyer on their side when they are unaware of possible consequences such as community labor issues, how it would affect their insurance, and, of course, the biggest fear would always be potential jail time.

Handling a Department of Motor Vehicle’s case would also come along with a DUI. Many people are unaware of the rules and regulations at the Department of Motor Vehicles and they are unaware of the issues so they do not know what can and cannot, or should or should not be argued at a DMV hearing to make sure they could get the best possible result in their case.

The person should not question whether or not they should hire an attorney, because they most definitely should, just like they would need to make sure they went to a doctor if they had a medical condition so they could get it evaluated. They would not want to go to a doctor who was a general practitioner if they had a specific medical injury; they would want to go to somebody who focused on that injury, on that specialty, and who would be able to get them the best possible outcome.

It would be the same thing if someone needed to get their car repaired or if they needed to get work done on their car, because they would not want to take it to a general shop if they had a specialty car like a BMV, Mercedes, or something like that. They would prefer to take it to a shop that specialized in that type of repair because they would then be able to get the best result possible. It might cost a little bit more to do that, but it would ensure that the end result was a better and longer-lasting result, which would be a very good reason why someone should get an attorney.

In order for someone to know whether they had the right attorney, they would have to look at what an attorney is and then assess how to find the right one. An attorney is someone who has gone to law school, passed the bar exam, and is licensed to practice in a particular state. This does not mean they are a specialist in DUI cases, because the state bar of California does not certify specialists in DUI defense.
There are different types of attorneys. Some attorneys handle personal injuries, like if someone were involved in an auto accident or a slip and fall. There are family law attorneys who handle trusts and estates which would be when someone was making a will, or if someone had passed away and their family needed help going through probate. It would be just like dealing with a doctor, because certain doctors specialize in all sorts of different parts of the body, in the same way different attorneys specialize and focus their practices on different areas.

Of course the person should choose someone who was licensed to practice in the state and knew what they were doing, but who also specialized or focused on driving under the influence cases. The person should choose an attorney who focused on criminal defense work and within the field of criminal defense; they would choose someone who focused on driving under the influence cases.

The law regarding driving under the influence cases is consistently changing every year, and sometimes even throughout the year, so additional laws could be enacted. Fines, fees, programs, ignition interlock requirements and all sorts of things are constantly changing regarding what would need to be done for somebody who had been charged with a DUI.

The client would be able to get the best results by finding an attorney who focused and specialized in handling driving under the influence cases. The easiest way would be for the person to go on the internet and research a particular field of law, such as driving under the influence. They should try to find an attorney who is local to where they were stopped and arrested, and of course the courthouse where the case would be heard. They should try to find someone who is familiar with the judges, the prosecutors and the police officers in that particular community.

Various attorney referral services online such as Yelp or AVVO rate attorneys. Attorneys may also belong to certain associations, which are good places to find an attorney active in handling defense cases. It might be the DUI Defense Lawyers Association, which is a national organization, or the California DUI Lawyers Association which is a state-wide organization, because that would give the person a good sign that the attorney was focusing on a particular type of law such as DUI. The person should consider where the attorney was practicing, because they should try to get someone who was local.

They could also look to a local bar association such as the Los Angeles County Bar Association or Beverley Hills Bar Association, so they could use their referrals to find people who were active in a criminal law section or DUI section of the bar association.

Once the person had done a little bit of research, they would be able to find out what training and experience the attorney had in order for them to properly handle a driving under the influence case. They should find somebody who is trained in DUI investigations, familiar with field sobriety tests, standardized field sobriety tests, and trained as an instructor in field sobriety tests. The attorney should be aware of the current scientific state for chemical testing, breath testing, blood and urine testing, testing for alcohol, and testing for drugs, because these would all be important aspects.

When looking to find the right attorney for a DUI case, the person should find somebody who had the training and knowledge to be able to help get the best possible result and who could explain what was coming, what was realistic, what was not realistic and who could help the person sleep better at night knowing that somebody who knew what was going on was on their side and they would fight for them to get the best possible results in their case.

Often, people may attempt to save money when they have been arrested for driving under the influence, but that would not likely happen if they tried to represent themselves. They may try to save money and handle the case on their own thinking they could just go in and talk to the judge, confess their fault and then beg for mercy and request that the judge be lenient with them, whereas the problem is that this just does not happen. There is no mercy in driving under the influence cases, because it is a political crime as well as a legal crime and judges are looking to clear their calendars, get convictions, and move on with the next case.
Representing oneself is such a bad idea that a judge who was really following the law might not even let the person do it. In order to represent oneself, the person would need to basically sign and acknowledge a four-page form that explained why it would be such a bad idea to represent oneself, what the possible pitfalls would be and why it would be so important for the person to have an attorney represent them.

This form is called a Federal Waiver and it would explain that the person would not be getting any specialized treatment or leniency from the court, and that they would be expected to know all of the law, all of the procedures, and all of the courtroom personnel as if the person actually were an attorney. The judge may ultimately let the person represent themselves if they wanted to sign and acknowledge what a bad idea it is, but usually people who represent themselves end up getting into more trouble and causing more problems and greater penalties for themselves than if they had a private attorney or a public defender representing them.

People say things in court to a judge or a prosecutor, thinking it would be helpful, but it would actually be harmful and in some instances, it could result in them being charged with additional crimes and being convicted of the ones they went in thinking they might be able to have reduced or dismissed. Representing oneself in court would not be something that would be recommended, because it would not be recommended by judges and even prosecutors would agree that it would not be a good idea to do it.

They would ultimately talk to the person, maybe at the end of the day at 3 o’clock in the afternoon if the person was still there, but it would still not be a good idea. The person should have their own attorney to represent them and to hold their hand through the process so that they could fight it if and when necessary to get the best possible result.

Somebody charged with a crime in California would be facing 6 months or more in a county jail. It would be up to 6 months for a first time DUI, and for the second DUI it would be up to a year. Someone who was indigent, meaning they were basically unable to afford an attorney, would have a right to have an attorney appointed to them by the court, and this attorney would typically be known as a public defender.
Public defenders are not free and they are not available to anybody or everybody. They are only available to people who are indigent, homeless or almost homeless and who would not be able to afford a private attorney.

The county may still charge costs which may be relatively low if somebody did get a public defender. Public defenders may or may not be fantastic attorneys, but someone who applied to get a public defender would not really have much choice regarding which public defender they would have for their particular case.

We typically see people go through several different public defenders throughout the process of their DUI case. A person might get a different public defender for each court appearance and then they might get another one if the case went to trial. Public defenders who handle DUI cases are typically young, new or inexperienced attorneys, although that is not always the case. This would not mean they were bad or not smart, because a lot of times, they would actually be very smart but just inexperienced.

The reason for that is that in the bigger picture, misdemeanor cases like a DUI are a relatively minor case in the criminal justice system, as compared to murders, robberies and those types of offenses. This is a good place for new attorneys to cut their teeth and learn how to litigate and try cases, so we tend to get new public defenders in the DUI courtrooms. They do a rotation and work in a courtroom for 3 months or 6 months and learn on DUIs.

They do not learn the science or the intricacies of DUIs because they would not be in the field long enough to do that although they may be able to answer common legal questions associated with the misdemeanor charge or a DUI charge. Public defenders can definitely help in the court system much better than somebody who was trying to handle a DUI case on their own but it would not be the same as having an experienced DUI defense attorney who had a private practice or had been focusing only on handling DUI and driving related cases for 10 or 15 years.

Some other drawbacks that public defenders have other than typically being inexperienced with DUIs is that they would only be able to assist in the courtroom or in criminal matters whereas half of the DUI case would be an administrative hearing that would happen with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The public defender would not be available to help their client with a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) administrative per se hearing, meaning that the person would be left to handle that portion of the case on their own or hire an attorney to represent them for just half of the DUI case. This is a very big drawback compared to a private attorney who would be able to help and guide their client, not only through the criminal justice system but through the Department of Motor Vehicles’ hearing as well.

The general answer to that is that the person should not blow for a DUI. Breath testing devices can vary drastically depending on who is blowing into it and how the machine is being used and when the person was drinking. There can be many inaccuracies in breath testing that can oftentimes be hard to prove or disprove, although the bigger problem with breath testing is that it would tell the police officer right there, at the time of the test, what they believed the blood alcohol level is.
If somebody took a chemical test like a breath test, which gave a result where the officer saw a high number or a low number, then the officer would be able to tailor or justify their investigation in their written reports in accordance with that number which can be very detrimental to a DUI case. Breath testing cannot be reevaluated or retested once the person had blown.

None of the agencies in Los Angeles county preserve a sample of the breath, so the person would blow into the machine, the breath would go through the machine and then it would be destroyed, because it would go out into the air and it would not be saved for future testing, whereas there would be a much more significant paper trail for blood testing, where the potential for error and potential for analysis could be done at a later time.

It could also lead the investigating officers in the dark regarding what the number was and it would force them to write a more honest report as far as the field sobriety tests, driving pattern and what generally happened in the case.

Somebody who failed the roadside field sobriety tests would be arrested and taken into custody. If they displayed impairment and the officer believed the person was impaired for the purposes of driving, then they could be arrested and put into the police car, handcuffed, and ultimately transported to a police station.
People may sometimes be tested on the roadside and released on the site, although that does not normally happen because the person would normally just be taken into custody and taken to the local jail or hospital for chemical tests. They would then be required to remain in custody in a jail cell for a certain period of time, often directly related to a breath test number.

Somebody who was taken into custody would typically be booked with their fingerprints and photographs and they would remain in the jail for a period of time. They would usually ultimately be released on a promise to appear in court and sometimes they would be required to post bail in order to get out and get back to their normal lives.

Every DUI case can be defended, although some cases are stronger than others but defenses would exist or could be uncovered throughout the litigation process in every case as the case went to court. Even if someone said they only had a couple of beers, there would still be ways to defend against that. Firstly, it may be an accurate statement and there might be errors in testing that needed to be uncovered, or it might not be accurate and there might be more to the story that someone only had a couple of drinks.
They might have also had a couple of others earlier on that they were not telling the officer about. Through the defense process, we are often able to show the prosecutors that the statements made by the person who was stopped and arrested for driving under the influence were not accurate, meaning that none of what the person said should be relied upon. The prosecution would then have to prove what was consumed, meaning drugs or alcohol, when it was consumed, and what effect that would have on the person’s ability to drive.

Just because somebody said they had a couple of beers would not have too much impact on how a case was defended. In almost every police report regarding DUI case, the person would have admitted to having consumed alcohol and it would typically be two beers a couple of hours ago, because people think that would be a good answer. We often have to show the prosecution why that statement was not accurate and what information was missing.

The truth is that the best response anyone can give if they were accused of driving under the influence is this: “My attorney has instructed me not to talk to the police officers or make any statements, so I’m invoking my right to remain silent and I would like to talk to my attorney so please let me go if I am not under arrest.” Another good statement would be if the person said they had just left the restaurant and just finished drinking, because recent drinking would make it very hard to tell what the particular blood alcohol level would be.

People often want to hear that their case is dismissed or they got a verdict of not guilty, and the way to do that is for them to be prepared to go the distance to trial. Many people think they might be able to get their case settled or dismissed through negotiations, although that generally does not happen and it is very rare when that does happen. Most verdicts of not guilty do not happen through a settlement process but they are done through a trial process.
In order to go to trial, the person would need to be prepared to go through that process, which can be very time-consuming and expensive. Anyone who wanted to hear a verdict of “Not guilty” or “Case dismissed” would need to be prepared to go to trial, and they would need to hire a trial attorney.

They would need to find an attorney who would not only settle the case or tell their client to take a deal, but also one who is prepared to stand in front of 12 people in the jury box and explain to them why their client was not guilty, why the prosecution could not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and why they should vote not guilty. This process can be time-consuming and expensive and it would always be difficult because no one can make any guarantees regarding what the outcome would ultimately be, although going to trial would be the best way to get that result or that victory.

The top mistake that could jeopardize a DUI case is firstly to not hire an attorney and secondly, to not hire the right attorney. The third mistake would be to not work with the attorney on a constant basis to get the best result possible. People who try to handle DUI cases on their own often create problems that did not exist initially and then they hire an attorney to try to fix it, although at that point, there would already have been damage to the case that could or could not be fixed.
People often harm their own case by making harmful statements during the investigation process, like admitting a degree of impairment to an investigating officer, admitting to feeling the effects of alcohol or admitting they should not have been behind the wheel, because it could be devastating to see that kind of information in a DUI case.

Another mistake people make when handling a DUI case is that they would wait too long to get a good defense attorney involved in a case. When people wait, deadlines come and go and once those deadlines have passed, it becomes impossible to undo what’s been done. Waiting until the case works its way through the court system to bring somebody in does not provide enough time to do the job necessary to get the very best possible result, which are some of the top things that people do incorrectly and that causes problems.

The nature of the crime and the nature of the allegations make a DUI very different from any other kind of case. A DUI is generally very political and very public so there is always news, articles, and television shows on people who have been caught driving under the influence.
It would be very political as far as judges and prosecutors wanting to make sure the people who come before them did not do it again because they might get in an accident where somebody was seriously hurt or killed. This is a constant concern for prosecutors and judges and that is what makes a DUI case political and different from a regular criminal act.

Another thing that makes DUIs different from regular criminal conducts is certain mandatory penalties that get imposed for a DUI as well as something called “prior ability.” A DUI would stay on the person’s record for a minimum of 10 years whereas it used to be 5 or 7. It might even be 15 or 20 years in the future, but a DUI will stay on their record, which would mean that a future DUI would be enhanced by a prior DUI. This is different from many other types of crimes where prior ability or the frequency of when the event happened would not be as important.

Another factor that would make a DUI case different from a general criminal case is that a lot of science would generally be involved in DUIs to see how drugs and alcohol affected the human body and what the life cycle of any given drug would be through the body so it would be very different and scientifically-oriented when compared to other crimes.

DUIs would also be different from regular crimes because it would not just be black or white and it would not be about whether or not someone stole a car. The situation in this case would be that someone had something to drink; it would be a grey area, because the question would be whether the person had so much to drink that they were impaired for the purpose of driving, or whether the chemical test showed their blood alcohol level at 0.08 or above at the time they were driving.

A lot of variability and accuracy issues generally come into breath and blood testing and the delay in time between the driving and the testing, so an expert testimony would often be needed to try to iron out these particular issues, which would be very different from what would happen for a general type of crime.

There are also a lot of differences with DUI cases because the law with DUIs is always changing, and it is another significant field where the penalties are usually being added and sometimes taken away. Most of the time, year after year, DUI laws are still brought before Congress to increase the penalties and punishments on DUIs which is different from what we see for most other criminal allegations.

People are generally not aware of just how many variables there are in a driving under the influence case and how much room for interpretation or error there is by the investigating police officer. The DUI investigation would begin before the police officer ever had personal contact with the driver of the car, because it would start from the first second the officer laid eyes on a moving vehicle or sometimes even a non-moving vehicle.
They would already be observing how the person was driving, how they responded to the emergency light, how they pulled over, how they talked to the officer, how they exchanged information such as driver’s license, registration, or proof of insurance, how they answered questions, and how they got out of the car. All of these things would play into the officer’s investigation and would be a key to defending DUI cases, regarding how the field sobriety tests were performed.

Many people think they know what the officer would be looking for so they complete these field sobriety tests, but they do not know whether the police officer even knew how to properly administer or give the field sobriety tests because there would be no way to properly score or grade it. There would be no way to judge whether or not they passed because they would not be able to tell for themselves so it would be important for them to get somebody who was trained in the field sobriety tests to be able to interpret that.

People do not know just how much room for error there can be in chemical testing, blood testing or breath testing. They generally think that breath or blood testing that was done by the crime lab would be accurate, trustworthy and reliable, and if it was done correctly it very well may be. When it comes to work performed in a crime lab, issues arise with training and experience, equipment malfunctions, incorrectly administered or analyzed tests, and budget concerns. Such issues are not acceptable to the common person.

Someone who went to a doctor and had a blood test for a medical condition so they could decide whether or not they would agree to surgery based on the blood test would want a certain amount of trustworthiness and reliability. We are surprised when we look at the way the breath and blood is analyzed in some of the crime labs, particularly in Los Angeles, because it makes us not want to rely or trust those numbers, especially when it came to trusting those numbers beyond a reasonable doubt.

A myth that people have about DUI cases is that they assume they are guilty just because they blew over the limit. Another myth is that the police officers always perform field sobriety tests correctly and get them right. A third, equally important myth is that DUI cases cannot be won. There are still many ways to beat a DUI case. There could be many ways that the officer’s investigation could be found faulty and chemical testing often has a potential for error or actual error, whether that was breath or blood.

DUI for drugs is a rapidly growing area of DUI prosecution. Prosecutors have been specially trained to handle these cases because they are different from alcohol DUIs because prescription medication or legal medication can create very large problems for prosecution when it comes to DUIs. There are no per se limits, and there is no specific blood level for drugs in California that could indicate whether or not someone was impaired.
Taking a therapeutic dose of prescription medication should not impair the person’s ability to safely operate a vehicle, because they should be able to drive the same as or similar to a sober person. Prescription medication can be abused and it is possible to get a DUI drugs charge for prescription medication because as our population ages and more people are placed on various kinds of medications, we tend to see more and more DUI drug prosecutions.

If handled correctly, DUI drug prosecutions are much more difficult for a prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, because of therapeutic doses and because there is no specific blood level for medication. The officer’s interpretation of the driving and field sobriety tests might be very subjective and open to error and open to cross-examination.

There are also different types of police officers when it comes to DUI drug cases. Certain officers who were trained for DUI alcohol might have no experience with DUI drugs. There may be officers who were trained in a Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE) protocol which is a special course that officers can take for the detection and arrest for somebody who was driving under the influence or allegedly driving under the influence of medication.

A police officer could go to different DRE courses or they may attend only part of the program or the entire program, so they would become certified by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration in the drug recognition evaluation protocol. This is something that would need to be looked into by an experienced attorney to determine whether the investigation would hold up and whether a jury would ultimately be likely to find the person guilty or not guilty of driving under the influence of drugs.

We are seeing more and more cases of prescription medication and there are different types and classifications of drugs, so the prosecution might have a very difficult time proving impairments from this medication versus just regular driving, walking, and talking, depending on the individual.

People usually fail the field sobriety tests because these tests are designed to compromise a person’s balance and coordination, so they are actually designed for failure. The officer would be able to find something that looked like impairment if a person continued to do field sobriety tests for long enough or if they performed enough different tests.
The field sobriety tests were never designed to be used in the way they are being used now and they were never designed with the degree and intensity with which someone would expect a “Scientific Tool” to be used. The rules and procedures around field sobriety tests have evolved over the past 30 years to make it easier for police officers to make arrests, so where something may have disqualified someone from participating in standardized field sobriety tests 20 years ago, that has now become perfectly acceptable.

It is similar to the telephone game, because the more officers use it and teach other officers, the more diluted it becomes. Then, at the end of the day, the message received would have nothing to do with the original scientific research or so-called scientific research because even that is questionable in regards to how it goes along with field sobriety tests.

People are often arrested for subsequent DUIs. The look back period, or how long a DUI would stay on the record, seems to keep getting longer and longer as time goes by, so more and more people are getting caught up in a situation where they would get a second or third DUI, or even more. Having a good defense attorney would be as important on a first time DUI (where the person would be looking at possibly up to 6 months in county jail just for a regular first time DUI) as on the second DUI.
It would be even more important to get a good and experienced defense attorney for a subsequent DUI because there would be mandatory jail time involved. The person will have to go to jail for the second DUI. The exposure of the upper limit on a regular second time DUI would be up to a year. There are significantly enhanced penalties for a second time DUI that would make an even stronger and more compelling argument to have an experienced defense attorney, so that the attorney could do everything possible to minimize the exposure.

It would be possible to get second time charges reduced or dismissed, and it would even be possible to avoid county jail for a second time DUI depending on the particular facts of the case. Having the right attorney could help interpret the facts and the law in a way to get the best possible result. An attorney on a second time DUI would not only help guide through the process but they could actually be instrumental in getting the charge reduced or dismissed if at all possible.

DUIs involving males versus females would be different because there are generally a lot of factors that come into play when representing different genders. The way field sobriety tests are administered and interpreted, and the way the chemical testing, in particular breath testing, is used, can vary between men and women. There are variables such as physiological variables between people regarding how they walk, how they carry their bodies, how they carry their weight, and how they perform on balance and coordination tests, because that can vary between men and women.
Coordination can vary based on age as well. Chemical testing, in particular breath testing, can vary because body temperatures can be different between men and women and the breath testing equipment does not typically accommodate for breath temperature or body temperature. Lung capacity could also be different just based on the amount the person could blow so the amount of sample they could provide into a breath testing machine could also vary.

It would not be unusual to see refusals where someone was unable to complete a breath test, particularly if it was a female and in particular people who have reached the certain age in men or women where they start having diminished lung capacity. That can create problems with breath testing.

Absolutely, yes! Blood cases are often thought to be the gold standard in a DUI case, whereas the reality is that there are many variables in blood cases. The way the blood is analyzed and interpreted leaves a lot of room for error and a lot of room for cross-examination regarding the way the blood was drawn, how the blood was transported from the person to the lab, how long it took to have that blood analyzed and what equipment was used to analyze the blood. All of these aspects would leave room for potential error.
There is potential for tremendous error in blood testing every time the blood sample changed hands, changed machines or changed locations, so while many people think the blood test would be the most accurate, it often is not. It can be accurate if done correctly, but since the blood is often not handled or analyzed in an adequately approved manner, it can therefore result in inaccurate test results. Blood tests generally have an extensive paper trail to back up the argument showing that there were problems with the testing.

Somebody who was stopped and arrested for driving under the influence should not ignore the pink temporary license they were given by the officers or that they should have been given. Almost half of the DUI case would involve the Department of Motor Vehicles and what the Department of Motor Vehicles would do with the person’s DUI arrest.
If someone ignored the Department of Motor Vehicles, then the DMV would in all likelihood suspend the person’s privilege to drive in California. They would cause the person’s insurance rates to go up and they would require that the person take alcohol classes to get their license back. The Department of Motor Vehicles would be able to take very severe action against the person’s privilege to drive. They would be able to stop the person from driving when they needed to drive to get to work or school or do whatever it is that they needed to do.

There would be significant penalties imposed on the person’s driving privilege and there would be significant financial penalties that would follow if someone ignored or delayed when handling the Department of Motor Vehicles case. It would be very important to address not only the court case and the upcoming court date but to handle the Department of Motor Vehicles and move quickly within the first 10 days in order to demand and secure an administrative hearing.

Knowledge is power. You need someone on your side that understands DUI cases inside and out. If you do not understand how the legal system works, and the criminal justice system in particular, you will be at the mercy of the government’s trained advocate.

The Los Angeles District Attorney’s job is to convict you, not to help you. A DUI defense attorney is there to look out for your best interest. Hiring the right attorney will give you peace of mind in knowing that everything possible is being done to protect you and save your reputation.

It depends. DUIs in Los Angeles must be looked at on an individual case by case basis. There are a lot of factual situations where jail time is required by state law, even on a first time driving under the influence case. On a second or third time DUI, the Los Angeles District Attorney always wants a convicted person to do jail time.

Having an experienced and knowledgeable DUI defense attorney on your side will give you the edge and show you your options. Even if you have to take a deal, most of the time with the right arguments, you will be able to find a suitable substitute and stay out of county jail.

Likely. For the most part, the Department of Motor Vehicles handles your driver’s license; and they usually suspend and/or restrict it for some period of time. If you don’t have a DMV hearing scheduled, your license will automatically be suspended.

If you do have a hearing scheduled, you have a fighting chance to hold onto your driving privilege. Having a DMV administrative hearing and making the right objections and arguments can result in the DMV not taking any action against your license.

Usually not. The law allows a lawyer to appear on your behalf. So most of the time you will not have to miss work and wait all day for your case to be heard. However, there are some times when it is in your best interest to be in court to help defend your case.

No. In a DUI case Miranda rights usually do not play a big role. The law only requires that your rights be given to you if you are in custody (arrested) and interrogated (questioned). Since most of a DUI investigation takes place before you are “arrested,” the cops don’t have to read you your rights.

However, there are other technical rules, similar to Miranda, that do apply in DUI cases and they can be used to suppress evidence and win cases.

Agree to do a chemical test. You may not know it, but if you have a driver’s license you have agreed to take a chemical, breath, or blood test. If you do not take a test, you will have BIG problems with the DMV and mandatory jail time from the judge. Other than agreeing to the chemical test keep your mouth closed.

Don’t answer the cops’ questions about where you were coming from or going, what you have or have not been drinking and the like. The cops are trying to get you to incriminate yourself. Don’t take any field sobriety tests. The cops don’t know how to give them correctly, and they are too open to interpretation.

That depends. You could be DUI on something other than alcohol, but most of the time we are looking at the basic legal limit of 0.08%. However, there are a lot of different “legal limits,” such as for minors and commercial drivers, as well as extra punishments for high alcohol levels.

Yes. If there is an injury, then things are much worse than your typical DUI. In Los Angeles County, a DUI with injury will most likely be prosecuted by the District Attorney’s office as a felony. When someone is charged with a felony, they are looking at doing a lot of time in state prison.

Even if there are no injuries, DUIs with traffic collisions are prosecuted harder, and the penalties are higher. The D.A. and the judge will bend over backwards to help the “victim” so you and your attorney should be ready with a complete defense covering the driving, accident, impairment, and restitution (or payment to the victim) aspects of your case.

A hearing must be requested on your behalf within 10 days, but you do not need to personally go to the DMV. Your attorney can handle setting up your Department of Motor Vehicles Administrative Per Se hearing, and they can appear on your behalf. Under some situations, it may be helpful to have you at the hearing, but even then it is possible to have you appear by phone to reduce the stress and impact on your day to day life.

Your attorney can appear at the hearing without you to contest the DMV’s “evidence” and cross examine their witnesses. The defense can also call its own witnesses to the DMV hearing if appropriate.

Yes. By getting a driver’s license you have agreed to take a chemical test if asked to by a cop who believes you were driving under the influence. This is a very strict standard, and if you refuse (or the cops think you are refusing) very harsh penalties can result.

No. Field sobriety tests are an investigation tool used by the cops to decide if you should be arrested. The problem is if they keep you on the side of the road doing these circus tricks long enough, they will find some problems with your performance. Field sobriety tests are seldom given correctly and most of the time are just used to help the prosecutor get a conviction.

Field sobriety tests are open to interpretation by the cops, and they usually do not take into consideration your age, weight, injuries, or even the amount of sleep you got the night or day before. Respectfully decline to take field sobriety tests.

It depends. There are minimum and maximum penalties for DUIs in Los Angeles County. The penalties or exposure also depend on the individual facts of the case, such as whether it is a first, second, or third offense or if there was an accident or high speeds.

Usually, on a normal first offense in L.A. someone is looking at 0-180 days in jail, fines/fees/court costs of $1,500 to over $4,000, an alcohol program from three to nine months, probation for three to five years, a suspended driver’s license, and the new requirement for an ignition interlock device (IID) to be installed on your car. Depending on the facts of the case, things may get a lot worse.

Call me. Each case is unique, and there are so many variables in a DUI case that you cannot know for sure. A skilled L.A. DUI defense attorney can make an educated guess about what your exposure is, but until all of the reports are reviewed and your lawyer has had a chance to talk to the prosecutor, there is no way to know for sure. If any lawyer guarantees an outcome or reduced charge, get it in writing before you hire them. No competent DUI lawyer can make a guarantee in your case.