Neither the officer nor Mr. Johnson were injured in the crash. Mr. Johnson was arrested after the accident and booked into the Sonoma County Jail with a blood alcohol test result of .12%, more than the California limit of .08%. Monday's driving under the influence arrest was the second for Mr. Johnson in February 2010. He was arrested for a DUI, assault and battery, car theft, driving on a suspended license and violating his probation on February 6 in Rhonert Park.

Mr. Johnson could be charged with a third DUI as he was convicted of driving under the influence in 2008 and placed on probation. DUI in California is a priorable offense for ten years from the date of arrest. As such, anyone convicted of driving under the influence or driving with a .08% or above can have their sentence enhanced if they are convicted of any subsequent DUI in the next ten years.

A third offense DUI can be punished with probation including a minimum jail term of 120 days, fines of more than $2,000.00, and mandatory attendance at a DUI program of 18 or 30 months. The DMV can also revoke a third offender's driving privilege for 3 years and will require the installation of an ignition interlock device, IID, upon application for a restricted license.

Police checkpoints aimed at stopping people from driving under the influence and getting unlicensed drivers off the roads have become more common in recent years. Police Departments throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and California have been receiving grants from the California Office of Traffic Safety and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to fund such checkpoints. This Friday's DUI checkpoint is being funded by such a grant.

Court cases dealing with the legality of checkpoints mandate that cars entering a checkpoint will stopped based on a predetermined mathematical formula. If a driver who is stopped appears to the police to be driving under the influence they will be asked to pull into a screening area where officers will conduct a DUI investigation. The driver may then be asked to exit the vehicle and submit to field sobriety testing which may include the administration of a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) device. Submission to field sobriety testing and/or a PAS breath testing device is voluntary and not required under California Law. However, if a police officer has cause to arrest a person for DUI they must submit to a chemical test to determine their blood alcohol concentration.

Costa Mesa, Orange County, Police Officers, staked out sixteen offenders and followed them to the parking lot after they were instructed by a judge not to drive. Four of those people got behind the wheel and drove away from the courthouse. Officers stopped all four drivers and issued three citations for driving on a suspended license and one for driving while unlicensed. The sting was funded by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

California drivers are subject to license suspensions for a variety of reasons including failure to appear in court or failure to pay fines, arrest or conviction for DUI, or being deemed a negligent operator for acquiring to many moving violation points. Depending on the reason for a suspension, a conviction can result in jail time, fines, the installation of an ignition interlock device and vehicle impoundment or forfeiture. Drivers may have the right to a DMV administrative hearing to contest their suspension.

Attorney Stanko convinced the court to not allow the prosecution to introduce the testimony of any forensic toxicologist and the breath alcohol results, .08/.09 were excluded due to a lack of foundation. In excluding the testimony and breath results the court ruled that the prosecution had failed to provided the name of their toxicologist to Mr. Stanko in a timely fashion and did not comply with a court order to furnish that information.

The trial proceeded on charges of driving under the influence, vehicle code section 23152(a), and driving with a .08 % or more blood alcohol level, vehicle code section 23152(b). At the conclusion of the prosecution's case in chief, Mr. Stanko made a motion for the entry of a judgment of acquittal on the 23152(b) charge. That motion was granted.

Thus, the jury was asked to decide only whether the defendant was driving under the influence. Unfortunately the jury found the defendant guilty of that charge. According to one juror, the jury believed that the .09/.09 result on a preliminary alcohol screening device (PAS), was sufficient to show that the defendant was at least a .08 and under the influence. Defense motions to exclude the PAS results were denied by the court.

Mr. Hopkins sustained minor injuries in the crash and was treated at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital. The hospital reported that suspected marijuana and/or hashish was found in his belongings.

In addition to suspicion of DUI, CHP officers arrested Mr Hopkins for driving with a suspended license and possession of concentrated cannabis.

The police reports of Mr. Pasdar's case will be sent to local prosecutors for review. Should they elect to file a formal complaint he will likely be charged with violations of Vehicle Code section 23152(a) and (b). A conviction for DUI, 23152(a), or driving with a prohibited blood alcohol level, 23152(b), could result in the imposition of probation, fines, attendance at a DUI school, a driver's license suspension and possible jail time.

The CHP was told by witnesses that the hearse had a flat tire and was driving erratically at speeds up to 65 mph. The blown out tire eventually fell off and Mandel continued to drive on the rim until sparks from the pavement caught the vehicle on fire.

Contra Costa Fire District Firefighters arrived on scene to find the hearse covered in flames. The vehicle was destroyed but the body it was transporting was unharmed. Mr. Mandel was arrested on suspicion of DUI and booked in the Solano County Jail in Fairfield.

Arrests for DUI can be made for the suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, California Vehicle Code 23152(a), or for driving with a blood alcohol level of .08% or more, VC section 23152(b). Drivers contacted by police officers and suspected of DUI or driving with a .08 or more will likely be asked to submit to a series of Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) to determine if there is cause for the officers to a make an arrest. In California drivers are not required to submit to FSTs or road side Preliminary Alcohol Screening breath tests.

However, all California licensed drivers have given their implied consent to submit to a chemical test of their blood or breath if requested by a peace officer on suspicion of DUI. Refusal to submit to a chemical test, blood test or evidentiary breath test, can result in enhanced punishment if the driver is convicted of driving under the influence. Further, a refusal can result in a driver's license suspension or revocation of one year or more depending on whether the driver has prior DUI convictions.

The case went to Court Trial on December 18, 2009 and the Marin County Traffic Court agreed with Attorney John Stanko when he argued that no justification existed for setting the speed limit on the bridge 9 mph under the 85th percentile and that the use of Radar in this case was an illegal speed trap.

California Vehicle Code section 22350 is the Basic Speed Law and states that no person shall drive on a highway at a speed that is greater than reasonable or prudent. Speed traps are defined in Vehicle Codes section 40802. Section 40802 prohibits the enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device unless the speed limit has been justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation. Further, once an engineering survey has been conducted the speed limit must be set at or within 5 miles per hour under the 85th percentile unless a further reduction is can be justified.

The speed limit on the Golden Gate Bridge is 45 mph, the 85th percentile speed of drivers in the most recent engineering and traffic survey was 56 mph and the majority of drivers in the survey exceeded 45 mph. Thus, the 45 mph speed limit was not set at or within 5 mph under the 85th percentile of drivers and the use of radar or lidar/laser to enforce the speed limit amounts to an illegal speed trap.

Police officers are reporting that there have been 7 alcohol related accidents resulting in 8 injuries during the crackdown. The most serious crash resulted in a 23 year old Santa Rosa woman being arrested on suspicion of DUI after her passenger was ejected from her car when it went off of Southbound Highway 101 in Santa Rosa early on Christmas morning.

Officers are conducting DUI saturation patrols and checkpoints during the holiday crackdown which ends on January 3, 2010. One driving under the influence checkpoint was to be conducted in Petaluma last Saturday but was canceled because of rain. The police have announced that another checkpoint is scheduled for next weekend in Santa Rosa.

Police officers conducting checkpoints must follow criteria laid out by the California Supreme Court in 1987 in the case of Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987), 43 Cal.3d 1321. The Ingersoll guidelines cover the following categories: The Ingersoll guidelines fall under the following general headings:

1. Decision Making at the Supervisory Level;
2. Limits on Discretion of Field Officers;
3. Maintenance of Safety Conditions (for officers and the general public):
4. Reasonable Location;
5. Time and Duration of the checkpoint;
6. Indicia of Official Nature of Roadblock (signage, lighting, road cones)
7. Length and Nature of Detention; and
8. Advance Publicity.

When confronted with a DUI checkpoint case your Marin/Sonoma County attorney will evaluate each of the Ingersoll guidelines in comparison to your detention. Many legal challenges can be raised to to the use of checkpoints.

Mr. Rathblott was arrested and booked into the Marin County Jail on felony charges of possession for sale and transportation of marijuana. The police estimate that the pot has a street value of more than $20,000.

Possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $100.00. California Health and Safety Codee section 11357(b). However, a person convicted of possession for sale, section 11359, faces a prison sentence of up to 3 years and someone convicted of transportation, section 11360(a) can receive a state prison sentence of up to 4 years.

Michelle Shirin Alfi, Mr. Levian's cousin, says the voucher program will have done its job if it can keep someone from experiencing the pain her family suffered. The Lev Foundation is providing the taxi vouchers through December on their website.

In Marin County and all places in California a person can be charged with murder if she drives while under the influence or with a prohibited blood alcohol level and causes an accident that kills another person. It is never advisable to drink and drive and partygoers would be wise to find a safe ride home. Taking a cab ride home or using a designated driver is much safer than drinking and driving and far cheaper than facing a DUI prosecution.

The 87 arrests were moderately more than the 83 for the same time period in 2008. Statewide the CHP made 542 DUI arrests compared to 513 in 2008.

A driver arrested during the holiday crackdown must act quickly to protect their rights. You have only ten days from the date of your arrest to request a DMV administrative hearing or your license will automatically be suspended. Further, an arrest in Marin, San Francisco, or elsewhere in the Bay Area will initiate a criminal prosecution by the local district attorney's office. If convicted for DUI you face possible jail time, fines and additional driver's license consequences.

DUI checkpoints are a common sight during the holiday season as more people are out celebrating and attending holiday parties. The courts have found that the use of checkpoints, so long as conducted with a plan and pursuant to guidelines, do not violate our rights to be free from unreasonable searches under the 4th amendment to the Untied States Constitution.

Marin County police departments received funding to conduct driving under the influence checkpoints in an effort to reduce the number of traffic collisions related to intoxicated drivers and hit and run collisions. DUI roadblocks and saturation patrols serve as a reminder to use designated drivers and not drink and drive.

Police checkpoints aimed at stopping people from driving under the influence and getting unlicensed drivers off the roads have become more common in recent years. Police Departments throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and California have been receiving grants from the California Office of Traffic Safety and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to fund such checkpoints. This Friday's DUI checkpoint is being funded by such a grant.

Cars entering a checkpoint will stopped based on a predetermined mathematical formula. If a driver who is stopped appears to the police to be driving under the influence they will be asked to pull into a screening area where officers will conduct a DUI investigation. The driver may then be asked to exit the vehicle and submit to field sobriety testing which may include the administration of a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) device. Submission to field sobriety testing and/or a PAS breath testing device is not required under California Law. However, if a police officer has cause to arrest a person for DUI they must submit to a chemical test to determine their blood alcohol concentration.