*   15 Years of Top Level DUI Experience!
*   I Teach Other Lawyers DUI Defense!
*   Well Known & Respected in the Courts!
 

 I AM APPROVED BY THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA TO TEACH OTHER LAWYERS HOW TO SPOT ISSUES ON A GAS CHROMATOGRAM IN A DUI CASE.


This is why I love what I do.  In fact, I train other DUI lawyers how to defend dui cases. My success is based on hard work, the desire to be the best, and MOST importantly the DETAILS of your case. If you would like a "real" dui lawyer call 909-888-7992  See my ONLINE REVIEWS HERE. 

Inland Empire   909-888-7992                             Riverside 951-779-1362                             Orange County 714-953-1921

effery B. was accused of a .27 BAC on a second time DUI resulting from a traffic accident and hit and run. He was also charged with a violation of probation for the 1st DUI. RESULT: The 2nd time DUI was dismissed based on the 6th Amendment and his probation on the 1st DUI was terminated. Eric V. was charged with a .33 BAC on a 3rd time DUI. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing on a Title 17 violation and saved his license from a minimum suspension of 6 months. Results like these are obtainable with a DUI lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Joe B. was charged with a .29 BAC on a 1st time DUI. We filed and heard a motion to suppress under penal code 1538.5. RESULT: The judge ruled in our favor and dismissed the case Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Hass E. was charged with a 2nd time DUI while he was still on probation for his first. The DA alleged that he had a .28 blood BAC, an accident at over 100 mph, and charged him with a VOP. Before trial the DA wanted Mr. E to do 120 of county jail, 90 days of a SCRAM braclet, and a $2000 fine. TRIAL: We started trial and after we excluded some evidence through the Motion in Limine process the DA re-evaluated their case. RESULT: DUI dismiss, Mr. E pled to a wet/reckless, NO jail time, NO scram, NO VOP, and a $800 fine. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. . Daniel S. was charge with a .20% BAC after he had a solo car crash. Based on my highly regarded skills as a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer I was able to get his case DISMISSED IN COURT AND I WON THE DMV HEARING. This was the result of skill and hard work and of course I found a 4th Amendment violation. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Christopher B. was charged with a 3rd time DUI. His 2 priors were in another state. We filed a "Motion to Strike the Priors" asserting that the out of state dui's did not meet the California equivalency test. RESULT: His out of state of priors were stricken from the record, so instead of facing a 3rd time DUI in California, he is now only facing a 1st time DUI. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Angelina T. was charged with a DUI with an alleged BAC of .17 after she had crashed into a police station. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved her license. The court issues was resolved for a no-jail time plea. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Samuel T. was charged with a DUI with an alleged .14 BAC after he was stopped for swerving while exiting the freeway. RESULT: We subpoenaed the dash cam video which helped up win the DMV hearing and we were able to get the entire court case dismissed based on an illegal stop. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Joe M. was charged with a .079 PAS and a .06 blood BAC after he had a solo accident on the freeway. This was a 2nd time DUI. RESULT: The DUI charges were dismissed after he pled guilty to 2 traffic violations. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Wesley C. was accused of a .19 BAC, having a loaded gun in the car and was pulled over for allegedly weaving. RESULT: We filed a 1538.5 motion to suppress. On the day of the hearing we got the DA to dismiss the DUI and gun charge in exchange to a plea of reckless driving under cvc 23103.5. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Melissa W. was charged with a .23 BAC on a 2nd time DUI. We filed a motion challenging the officer's reason for the stop after he alleged she "straddled" the lanes. RESULT: Case Dismissed. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Joel D. was charged with a .18 blood BAC after he had a car accident on the freeway at 2:00 in the morning. Joel had poor field sobriety test and allegedly a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved his license and his ability to get back and forth to work. We showed that the BAC result was ambiguous as to the date of testing and the date of reporting. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. ~~Dennis H: was charged with a .10 BAC after he allegedly failed the field sobriety tests and had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. RESULT: ALL DUI charges dismissed. Dennis plead guilty to a moving traffic violation. We also overturned his loss at the DMV and got his license back. ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Jacob Q: was charged with a DUI after he had a solo car crash. The police arrived and after investigation they arrested Jacob. RESULT: At the DMV hearing I was able to show that the police officer could NOT establish that Jacob drove a vehicle within 3 hours of the blood test. Thus, I saved his license, the increased cost of auto insurance, and the 10 year mark on his driving record. ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Danielle M: was charged with a .18 blood BAC after she was stopped for weaving. After some considerable time and effort we were able to plead it down to a wet/reckless under 23103.5 ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Diana L: was charged with a .10 blood BAC. During the discovery process we found out that the phlebotomist had done 2 blood draws at once and may have mixed up the vials during the labeling process. What was also odd was that our client blew a .06 at the station after the blood draw on a PAS breath unit. RESULT: case reduced to a dry reckless and the dui charges were dismissed. We were also able to overturn the previous loss at the DMV and reinstate her full license. ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Michael T: was charged with a DUI MARIJUANA: RESULT: We filed a motion to suppress the blood result on a 4th Amendment violation of Michael's constitutional rights, we also did extensive discovery for the Gas Chromatograms on the blood test results. We finally got the DUI charges dismissed in exchange to a plea on a "dry reckless". ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Marcus A. was charged with a .15 blood BAC after he had a 3 car accident on the freeway and after he was alleged by the other drivers to have been the cause of the collision. RESULT: We won the DMV because they could not prove the allegations under vehicle code 23152(b) as having the blood test performed within 3 hours of the time of driving. This saved his license and his job. ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Elke C. was charged with a .25 BAC after she alleged drove her car off a small hill into a river bottom. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved her license after we showed that the officer could not prove her blood test was completed within 3 hours of driving. ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Jeffery B. was accused of a .27 BAC on a second time DUI resulting from a traffic accident and hit and run. He was also charged with a violation of probation for the 1st DUI. RESULT: The 2nd time DUI was dismissed based on the 6th Amendment and his probation on the 1st DUI was terminated. This was accomplished by his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer who knew the DUI facts and drunk driving myths. 1. Eric V. was charged with a .33 BAC on a 3rd time DUI. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing on a Title 17 violation and saved his license from a minimum suspension of 6 months. Joe B. was charged with a .29 BAC on a 1st time DUI. We filed and heard a motion to suppress under penal code 1538.5. RESULT: The judge ruled in our favor and dismissed the case. This only could have happen as a result of the hard work from his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Hass E. was charged with a 2nd time DUI while he was still on probation for his first. The DA alleged that he had a .28 blood BAC, an accident at over 100 mph, and charged him with a VOP. Before trial the DA wanted Mr. E to do 120 of county jail, 90 days of a SCRAM braclet, and a $2000 fine. TRIAL: We started trial and after we excluded some evidence through the Motion in Limine process the DA re-evaluated their case. RESULT: DUI dismiss, Mr. E pled to a wet/reckless, NO jail time, NO scram, NO VOP, and a $800 fine. ~~This only could have happen as a result of the hard work from his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Daniel S. was charge with a .20% BAC after he had a solo car crash. Based on my highly regarded skills as a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer I was able to get his case DISMISSED IN COURT AND I WON THE DMV HEARING. This was the result of skill and hard work and of course I found a 4th Amendment violation. Christopher B. was charged with a 3rd time DUI. His 2 priors were in another state. As his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we filed a "Motion to Strike the Priors" asserting that the out of state dui's did not meet the California equivalency test. RESULT: His out of state of priors were stricken from the record, so instead of facing a 3rd time DUI in California, he is now only facing a 1st time DUI. This only could have happen as a result of the hard work from his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer Angelina T. was charged with a DUI with an alleged BAC of .17 after she had crashed into a police station. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved her license. The court issues was resolved for a no-jail time plea. This only could have happen as a result of the hard work from his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer Samuel T. was charged with a DUI with an alleged .14 BAC after he was stopped for swerving while exiting the freeway. RESULT: We subpoenaed the dash cam video which helped up win the DMV hearing and we were able to get the entire court case dismissed based on an illegal stop. Again the results of his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Joe M. was charged with a .079 PAS and a .06 blood BAC after he had a solo accident on the freeway. This was a 2nd time DUI. RESULT: The DUI charges were dismissed after he pled guilty to 2 traffic violations. Another win for the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Wesley C. was accused of a .19 BAC, having a loaded gun in the car and was pulled over for allegedly weaving. RESULT: His San Bernardino DUI Lawyers filed a 1538.5 motion to suppress. On the day of the hearing we got the DA to dismiss the DUI and gun charge in exchange to a plea of reckless driving under cvc 23103.5. One more win from the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Melissa W. was charged with a .23 BAC on a 2nd time DUI. As her San Bernardino DUI Lawyers we filed a motion challenging the officer's reason for the stop after he alleged she "straddled" the lanes. RESULT: Case Dismissed. Another happy client from the hard work of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer Joel D. was charged with a .18 blood BAC after he had a car accident on the freeway at 2:00 in the morning. Joel had poor field sobriety test and allegedly a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. RESULT: As his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we won the DMV hearing and saved his license and his ability to get back and forth to work. We showed that the BAC result was ambiguous as to the date of testing and the date of reporting. San Bernardino DUI Lawyers saved his DMV drivers license. Dennis H: was charged with a .10 BAC after he allegedly failed the field sobriety tests and had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. RESULT: ALL DUI charges dismissed. Dennis plead guilty to a moving traffic violation. We also overturned his loss at the DMV and got his license back. Only the experience from the best dui law firm and the best San Bernardino DUI Lawyers in could have achieved a dismissal like this and to overturn the DMV loss. Jacob Q: was charged with a DUI after he had a solo car crash. The police arrived and after investigation they arrested Jacob. RESULT: At the DMV hearing I was able to show that the police officer could NOT establish that Jacob drove a vehicle within 3 hours of the blood test. Thus, I saved his license, the increased cost of auto insurance, and the 10 year mark on his driving record. More work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Danielle M: was charged with a .18 blood BAC after she was stopped for weaving. After some considerable time and effort San Bernardino DUI Lawyers were able to plead it down to a wet/reckless under 23103.5 Diana L: was charged with a .10 blood BAC. During the discovery process her San Bernardino DUI Lawyers found out that the phlebotomist had done 2 blood draws at once and may have mixed up the vials during the labeling process. What was also odd was that our client blew a .06 at the station after the blood draw on a PAS breath unit. RESULT: case reduced to a dry reckless and the dui charges were dismissed. San Bernardino DUI Lawyers were also able to overturn the previous loss at the DMV and reinstate her full license. Michael T: was charged with a DUI MARIJUANA: RESULT: We filed a motion to suppress the blood result on a 4th Amendment violation of Michael's constitutional rights, we also did extensive discovery for the Gas Chromatograms on the blood test results. We finally got the DUI charges dismissed in exchange to a plea on a "dry reckless". More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Marcus A. was charged with a .15 blood BAC after he had a 3 car accident on the freeway and after he was alleged by the other drivers to have been the cause of the collision. RESULT: We won the DMV because they could not prove the allegations under vehicle code 23152(b) as having the blood test performed within 3 hours of the time of driving. This saved his license and his job. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Elke C. was charged with a .25 BAC after she alleged drove her car off a small hill into a river bottom. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved her license after we showed that the officer could not prove her blood test was completed within 3 hours of driving. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Moises K. was charged with a .10 BAC after he allegedly REFUSED to give a breath sample. The DMV instituted actions to suspend his license for 1 year. RESULT: At the hearing we proved that he did not refuse and we saved him his license and his job. At the hearing we showed that the FST were not done correctly by the officer and put on our own proof as to our client's medical issues. COURT RESULT: All DUI charges were dismissed in exchange for a plea to a dry-reckless. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Mauricio C. was charged with a .12 BAC after a person called 911 to report that the thought he was DUI. We did a motion to suppress under penal code 1538.5 challenging the officer's reason for the stop under the case law of People v. Wells. RESULT: DUI charges dismissed, client plead to guilty to a 23103.5, and we are currently appealing the denial of the motion to suppress. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Eric H. was accused of refusing to take a blood test, several officers had to tie him down in order to draw blood, a .18 BAC. RESULT: We won the DMV Refusal hearing which saved him a year of suspension and got him no jail time on his court case. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Tricia J. was accused of a .13 BAC. At the DMV Hearing we challenged the validity of the probable cause. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved her license. David R. was accused of a .12 BAC. At the DMV Hearing we challenged the lawfulness of the arrest. RESULT: We won the DMV Hearing and saved his license. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Arnel B. Was charge with DUI after the police stopped him for allegedly speeding. We filed a motion to suppress under PC 1538.5 challenging the officer's alleged reason for the stop was not satisfied by the use of his LIDAR Gun. RESULT: Both DUI charges dismissed,client pled to a speeding infraction and no turn signal infraction. Both were no point counts with the DMV. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Amalik A. was charged with a 2nd time DUI while he was still on probation for the 1st offense. He had an auto accident, a BAC of .17, and a high level of Marijuana in his system. RESULT: All DUI counts dismissed, he pled to a reckless driving under cvc 23103. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Bart D. was charged with a DUI after having a BAC of .20. It was alleged that Bart had been swerving and almost hitting a police officer head on, running into the curb, and vomited all over himself. We filed a 6th Amendment motion challenging the violation of his rights to a speedy trial. RESULT: After hearing the motion in open court the case was Dismissed. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Marvin M. was charged with a Drug DUI, allegedly being under the influence of 4 types of pain medication after he was observed swerving across several lanes of travel. RESULT: DUI dismiss/reduced to 2 driving infractions. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Cyerra R. was charged with a DUI as a minor since she was only 18 years old. Her BAC was alledged to be a .14. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved her license from 12 months of suspension. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Eric S. was charged with DUI after having a .10 BAC. It was alledged that he was speeding, doing 65mph in a 35 mph zone, that he made a wide right turn almost hitting a curb, almost lost control, and did not respond the the officer's loud speaker to pull over. RESULT: WE TOOK THIS TO TRIAL AND GOT 12 PEOPLE TO VOTE NOT GUILTY ON BOTH COUNTS. Richard P. was charged with a DUI after having a BAC of .13 and a PAS machine reading of .14. RESULT: Richard pled to a wet-reckless under cvc 23103.5, this was achieved after an extensive cross examination of the officer at the DMV hearing in which he admitted that Richard did not show any signs of mental or physical impairment. Richard elected to take this plea instead of proceeding to a jury trial. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Romney N. : was accused of a DUI with a blood alcohol of .22. We fought the case on the officer's inability to prove that he had been driving within 3 hours of his blood test. RESULT: We beat the DMV hearing and saved his license. Monica S. : was accused of a DUI with a blood alcohol of .20. The issue in her case was that she was not the driver. RESULT: After the conclusions of 3 DMV hearings in which we crossed examined the officer and we presented our own independent witness, we Won the DMV hearing and saved her license. Daniel R. was charged with a DUI with an alleged BAC of .10. The issue in his case was they could not prove his driving was within 3 hours of his blood test. RESULT: based on the facts the DUI was dismissed and he pled to a misdemeanor vandalism. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Ricardo F. was charged with a 2nd DUI and an alleged BAC of .15. We challenged the stop with a 1538.5 motion to suppress. At the hearing we showed that the officer had lied in contrast to what he previously told the DDA. RESULT: case reduced to a reckless driving cvc 23103.5 Deborah P. was charged with a DUI and a high BAC of .23 allegedly picking up her children from school drunk. RESULT: No jail time. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Nicholas P. was 18 years old and charged with an alleged .07 BAC on a first time DUI. He was stopped for allegedly doing 90 mph on the freeway. As an underage driver his legal limit was zero tolerance, a .01. RESULT: Case dismissed after he pled to a DRY reckless. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Mario R. was charged with a DUI with an allegation that he had Marijuana in his system. RESULT: Case Dismissed after he pled to 2 traffic violations. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Bobby A. was charged with a DUI and a BAC of .07 after the officer allegedly followed Bobby out of a bar in Fontana. RESULT: DUI dismissed reduced to running a stop sign. ROSALIO R. was charged with a DUI and a BAC of .07. RESULT: Case dismissed. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Ray R. was charged with a .07 DUI as a minor. We proceeded to court and the matter was heard as a bench trial. RESULT: Client acquitted of all charges. David M. was charged with a DUI. RESULT: Case reduced to reckless driving under cvc 23103.5 Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Gary A. was charged with a 2nd time DUI and an alleged BAC of .11. It was alleged that he did not immediately stop for the officers and he had very poor Field Sobriety Test. We took the case to trial. RESULT: After nearly 3 days of jury deliberations they were deadlocked. However, they ultimately convicted my client. The good news is that he only had to do 4 days of community service in contract to the 40 days of jail time the DDA wanted prior to trial. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Hailey L. was charge with a DUI with an allegation that she was a .14 BAC. The problem was that she was a minor and her legal limit is .01. We filed a 1538.5 motion to suppress because under the community caretaker exception to 4th Amendment could not be satisfied by the officer under the controlling case of People v. Madrid. RESULT: The prosecution stipulated to a finding of NOT GUILTY on the 23152(b) count and 23136(a) count, dismiss 23152(a), that her blood was not over .01, and she pled to 23103.5. This allowed us to send a certified copy of the docket up to mandatory action in Sacramento and have her 1 year suspension lifted from her driver's license. David M. : DUI RESULT: Reduced to wet/reckless. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. J. Castro. was charged with a .08, alleged to have been weaving. RESULT: Dismissed. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. * This is not a guarantee or indication of the outcome to your case.

VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 23592-23597
23592. (a) (1) Whenever a person is convicted of any of the following offenses committed while driving a motor vehicle of which he or she is the owner, the court, at the time sentence is imposed on the person, may order the motor vehicle impounded for a period of not more than six months for a first conviction, and not more than 12 months for a second or subsequent conviction: (A) Driving with a suspended or revoked driver's license. (B) A violation of Section 2800.2 resulting in an accident or Section 2800.3, if either violation occurred within seven years of one or more separate convictions for a violation of any of the following: (i) Section 23103, if the vehicle involved in the violation was driven at a speed of 100 or more miles per hour. (ii) Section 23152. (iii) Section 23153. (iv) Subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 191.5 of the Penal Code. (v) Subdivision (c) of Section 192 of the Penal Code. (vi) Subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code. (2) The cost of keeping the vehicle is a lien on the vehicle pursuant to Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 3067) of Title 14 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a motor vehicle impounded pursuant to this section that is subject to a chattel mortgage, conditional sale contract, or lease contract shall be released by the court to the legal owner upon the filing of an affidavit by the legal owner that the chattel mortgage, conditional sale contract, or lease contract is in default and shall be delivered to the legal owner upon payment of the accrued cost of keeping the vehicle. 23593. (a) The court shall advise a person convicted of a violation of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, or a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, as follows: "You are hereby advised that being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, impairs your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. Therefore, it is extremely dangerous to human life to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both. If you continue to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, and, as a result of that driving, someone is killed, you can be charged with murder." (b) The advisory statement may be included in a plea form, if used, or the fact that the advice was given may be specified on the record. (c) The court shall include on the abstract of the conviction or violation submitted to the department under Section 1803 or 1816, the fact that the person has been advised as required under subdivision (a). 23594. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the interest of any registered owner of a motor vehicle that has been used in the commission of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 for which the owner was convicted, is subject to impoundment as provided in this section. Upon conviction, the court may order the vehicle impounded at the registered owner's expense for not less than one nor more than 30 days. If the offense occurred within five years of a prior offense which resulted in conviction of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, the prior conviction shall also be charged in the accusatory pleading and if admitted or found to be true by the jury upon a jury trial or by the court upon a court trial, the court shall, except in an unusual case where the interests of justice would best be served by not ordering impoundment, order the vehicle impounded at the registered owner's expense for not less than one nor more than 30 days. If the offense occurred within five years of two or more prior offenses which resulted in convictions of violations of Section 23152 or 23153, the prior convictions shall also be charged in the accusatory pleading and if admitted or found to be true by the jury upon a jury trial or by the court upon a court trial, the court shall, except in an unusual case where the interests of justice would best be served by not ordering impoundment, order the vehicle impounded at the registered owner's expense for not less than one nor more than 90 days. For the purposes of this section, the court may consider in the interests of justice factors such as whether impoundment of the vehicle would result in a loss of employment of the offender or the offender's family, impair the ability of the offender or the offender' s family to attend school or obtain medical care, result in the loss of the vehicle because of inability to pay impoundment fees, or unfairly infringe upon community property rights or any other facts the court finds relevant. When no impoundment is ordered in an unusual case pursuant to this section, the court shall specify on the record and shall enter in the minutes the circumstances indicating that the interests of justice would best be served by that disposition. (b) No vehicle which may be lawfully driven on the highway with a class C or class M driver's license, as specified in Section 12804.9, is subject to impoundment under this section if there is a community property interest in the vehicle owned by a person other than the defendant and the vehicle is the sole vehicle available to the defendant's immediate family which may be operated on the highway with a class C or class M driver's license. 23596. (a) (1) Upon its own motion or upon motion of the prosecutor in a criminal action for a violation of any of the following offenses, the court with jurisdiction over the offense, notwithstanding Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure and any other provision of law otherwise prescribing the jurisdiction of the court based upon the value of the property involved, may declare the motor vehicle driven by the defendant to be a nuisance if the defendant is the registered owner of the vehicle: (A) A violation of Section 191.5 of, or subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of, the Penal Code. (B) A violation of Section 23152 that occurred within seven years of two or more separate offenses of Section 191.5 of, or subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of, the Penal Code, or Section 23152 or 23153, or any combination thereof, that resulted in convictions. (C) A violation of Section 23153 that occurred within seven years of one or more separate offenses of Section 191.5 of, or subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of, the Penal Code, or Section 23152 or 23153, that resulted in convictions. (2) The court or the prosecutor shall give notice of the motion to the defendant, and the court shall hold a hearing before a motor vehicle may be declared a nuisance under this section. (b) Except as provided in subdivision (g), upon the conviction of the defendant and at the time of pronouncement of sentence, the court with jurisdiction over the offense shall order a vehicle declared to be a nuisance pursuant to subdivision (a) to be sold. A vehicle ordered to be sold pursuant to this subdivision shall be surrendered to the sheriff of the county or the chief of police of the city in which the violation occurred. The officer to whom the vehicle is surrendered shall promptly ascertain from the department the names and addresses of all legal and registered owners of the vehicle and, within five days of receiving that information, shall send by certified mail a notice to all legal and registered owners of the vehicle other than the defendant, at the addresses obtained from the department, informing them that the vehicle has been declared a nuisance and will be sold or otherwise disposed of pursuant to this section and of the approximate date and location of the sale or other disposition. The notice shall also inform a legal owner of its right to conduct the sale pursuant to subdivision (c). (c) The legal owner who is a motor vehicle dealer, bank, credit union, acceptance corporation, or other licensed finance institution legally operating in this state, or the agent of that legal owner, may take possession and conduct the sale of the vehicle declared to be a nuisance if it notifies the officer to whom the vehicle is surrendered of its intent to conduct the sale within 15 days of the mailing of the notice pursuant to subdivision (b). Sale of the vehicle pursuant to this subdivision may be conducted at the time, in the manner, and on the notice usually given for the sale of repossessed or surrendered vehicles. The proceeds of a sale conducted by the legal owner shall be disposed of as provided in subdivision (e). A notice pursuant to this subdivision may be presented in person, by certified mail, by facsimile transmission, or by electronic mail. The agent of a legal owner acting pursuant to this subdivision shall be licensed, or exempt from licensure, pursuant to Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 7500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code. (d) If the legal owner or the agent of the legal owner does not notify the officer to whom the vehicle is surrendered of its intent to conduct the sale as provided in subdivision (c), the officer shall offer the vehicle for sale at public auction within 60 days of receiving the vehicle. At least 10 days but not more than 20 days prior to the sale, not counting the day of the sale, the officer shall give notice of the sale by advertising once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the city or county, as the case may be, in which the vehicle is located, that notice shall contain a description of the make, year, model, identification number, and license number of the vehicle and the date, time, and location of the sale. For motorcycles, the engine number shall also be included. If there is no newspaper of general circulation published in the county, notice shall be given by posting a notice of sale containing the information required by this subdivision in three of the most public places in the city or county in which the vehicle is located, and at the place where the vehicle is to be sold, for 10 consecutive days prior to and including the day of the sale. (e) The proceeds of a sale conducted pursuant to this section shall be disposed of in the following priority: (1) To satisfy the costs of the sale, including costs incurred with respect to the taking and keeping of the vehicle pending sale. (2) To the legal owner in an amount to satisfy the indebtedness owed to the legal owner remaining as of the date of the sale, including accrued interest or finance charges and delinquency charges. (3) To the holder of a subordinate lien or encumbrance on the vehicle to satisfy any indebtedness so secured if written notification of demand is received before distribution of the proceeds is completed. The holder of a subordinate lien or encumbrance, if requested, shall reasonably furnish reasonable proof of its interest and, unless it does so on request, is not entitled to distribution pursuant to this paragraph. (4) To any other person who can establish an interest in the vehicle, including a community property interest, to the extent of his or her provable interest. (5) If the vehicle was forfeited as a result of a felony violation of subdivision (a) of Section 191.5 of, or subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of, the Penal Code, or of Section 23153 that resulted in serious bodily injury to a person other than the defendant, the balance, if any, to the city or county in which the violation occurred, to be deposited in its general fund. (6) Except as provided in paragraph (5), the balance, if any, to the city or county in which the violation occurred, to be expended for community-based adolescent substance abuse treatment services. The person conducting the sale shall disburse the proceeds of the sale as provided in this subdivision, and provide a written accounting regarding the disposition to all persons entitled to or claiming a share of the proceeds, within 15 days after the sale is conducted. (f) If the vehicle to be sold under this section is not of the type that can readily be sold to the public generally, the vehicle shall be destroyed or donated to an eleemosynary institution. (g) No vehicle shall be sold pursuant to this section in either of the following circumstances: (1) The vehicle is stolen, unless the identity of the legal and registered owners of the vehicle cannot be reasonably ascertained. (2) The vehicle is owned by another, or there is a community property interest in the vehicle owned by a person other than the defendant and the vehicle is the only vehicle available to the defendant's immediate family that may be operated on the highway with a class 3 or class 4 driver's license. (h) The Legislature finds and declares it to be the public policy of this state that no policy of insurance shall afford benefits that would alleviate the financial detriment suffered by a person as a direct or indirect result of a confiscation of a vehicle pursuant to this section. 23597. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 13202.5, 13203, and 13352, a court may order a 10-year revocation of the driver's license of a person who has been convicted of three or more separate violations of Section 23152 or 23153, the last of which is punishable under Section 23546, 23550, 23550.5, or 23566. When making this order, the court shall consider all of the following: (1) The person's level of remorse for the acts. (2) The period of time that has elapsed since the person's previous convictions. (3) The person's blood-alcohol level at the time of the violation. (4) The person's participation in an alcohol treatment program. (5) The person's risk to traffic or public safety. (6) The person's ability to install a certified ignition interlock device in each motor vehicle that he or she owns or operates. (b) Upon receipt of a duly certified abstract of the record of the court showing the court has ordered a 10-year revocation of a driver' s license pursuant to this section, the department shall revoke the person's driver's license for 10 years, except as provided in subdivision (c). (c) (1) Five years from the date of the last conviction of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, a person whose license was revoked pursuant to subdivision (a) may apply to the department to have his or her privilege to operate a motor vehicle reinstated, subject to the condition that the person submits the "Verification of Installation" form described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 13386 and agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device as required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575. Notwithstanding Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 23700) or subdivision (f) of Section 23575, the ignition interlock device shall remain on the person's motor vehicle for two years following the reinstatement of the person's driving privilege pursuant to this section. (2) The department shall reinstate the person's license pursuant to paragraph (1), if the person satisfies all of the following conditions: (A) The person was not convicted of any drug- or alcohol-related offenses, under state law, during the driver's license revocation period. (B) The person successfully completed a driving-under-the-influence program, licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, following the date of the last conviction of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153. (C) The person was not convicted of violating Section 14601, 14601.1, 14601.2, 14601.4, or 14601.5 during the driver's license revocation period. (3) The department shall immediately terminate the restriction issued pursuant to this section and shall immediately revoke the privilege to operate a motor vehicle of a person who attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, who has the device removed prior to the termination date of the restriction, or who fails three or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the ignition interlock device. The privilege shall remain revoked for the remaining period of the original revocation and until all reinstatement requirements are met. (d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2012.





VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 23572-23573
23572. (a) If any person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 and a minor under 14 years of age was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the offense, the court shall impose the following penalties in addition to any other penalty prescribed: (1) If the person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section 23536, the punishment shall be enhanced by an imprisonment of 48 continuous hours in the county jail, whether or not probation is granted, no part of which shall be stayed. (2) If a person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section 23540, the punishment shall be enhanced by an imprisonment of 10 days in the county jail, whether or not probation is granted, no part of which may be stayed. (3) If a person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section 23546, the punishment shall be enhanced by an imprisonment of 30 days in the county jail, whether or not probation is granted, no part of which may be stayed. (4) If a person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 which is punished as a misdemeanor under Section 23550, the punishment shall be enhanced by an imprisonment of 90 days in the county jail, whether or not probation is granted, no part of which may be stayed. (b) The driving of a vehicle in which a minor under 14 years of age was a passenger shall be pled and proven. (c) No punishment enhancement shall be imposed pursuant to this section if the person is also convicted of a violation of Section 273a of the Penal Code arising out of the same facts and incident. 23573. (a) The Department of Motor Vehicles, upon receipt of the court's abstract of conviction for a violation listed in subdivision (j), shall inform the convicted person of the requirements of this section and the term for which the person is required to have a certified ignition interlock device installed. The records of the department shall reflect the mandatory use of the device for the term required and the time when the device is required to be installed pursuant to this code. (b) The department shall advise the person that installation of an ignition interlock device on a vehicle does not allow the person to drive without a valid driver's license. (c) A person who is notified by the department pursuant to subdivision (a) shall, within 30 days of notification, complete all of the following: (1) Arrange for each vehicle owned or operated by the person to be fitted with an ignition interlock device by a certified ignition interlock device provider under Section 13386. (2) Notify the department and provide to the department proof of installation by submitting the "Verification of Installation" form described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386. (3) Pay to the department a fee sufficient to cover the costs of administration of this section, including startup costs, as determined by the department. (d) The department shall place a restriction on the driver's license record of the convicted person that states the driver is restricted to driving only vehicles equipped with a certified ignition interlock device. (e) (1) A person who is notified by the department pursuant to subdivision (a) shall arrange for each vehicle with an ignition interlock device to be serviced by the installer at least once every 60 days in order for the installer to recalibrate and monitor the operation of the device. (2) The installer shall notify the department if the device is removed or indicates that the person has attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, or if the person fails three or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the ignition interlock device. (f) The department shall monitor the installation and maintenance of the ignition interlock device installed pursuant to subdivision (a). (g) (1) A person who is notified by the department, pursuant to subdivision (a), is exempt from the requirements of subdivision (c) if all of the following circumstances occur: (A) Within 30 days of the notification, the person certifies to the department all of the following: (i) The person does not own a vehicle. (ii) The person does not have access to a vehicle at his or her residence. (iii) The person no longer has access to the vehicle being driven by the person when he or she was arrested for a violation that subsequently resulted in a conviction for a violation listed in subdivision (j). (iv) The person acknowledges that he or she is only allowed to drive a vehicle that is fitted with an operating ignition interlock device and that he or she is required to have a valid driver's license before he or she can drive. (v) The person is subject to the requirements of this section when he or she purchases or has access to a vehicle. (B) The person's driver's license record has been restricted pursuant to subdivision (d). (C) The person complies with this section immediately upon commencing ownership or operation of a vehicle subject to the required installation of an ignition interlock device. (2) A person who has been granted an exemption pursuant to this subdivision and who subsequently drives a vehicle in violation of the exemption is subject to the penalties of subdivision (i) in addition to any other applicable penalties in law. (h) This section does not permit a person to drive without a valid driver's license. (i) A person who is required under subdivision (c) to install an ignition interlock device who willfully fails to install the ignition interlock device within the time period required under subdivision (c) is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. (j) In addition to all other requirements of this code, a person convicted of any of the following violations shall be punished as follows: (1) Upon a conviction of a violation of Section 14601.2, 14601.4, or 14601.5 subsequent to one prior conviction of a violation of Section 23103.5, 23152, or 23153, within a 10-year period, the person shall immediately install a certified ignition interlock device, pursuant to this section, in all vehicles owned or operated by that person for a term of one year. (2) Upon a conviction of a violation of Section 14601.2, 14601.4, or 14601.5 subsequent to two prior convictions of a violation of Section 23103.5, 23152, or 23153, within a 10-year period, or one prior conviction of Section 14601.2, 14601.4, or 14601.5, within a 10-year period, the person shall immediately install a certified ignition interlock device, pursuant to this section, in all vehicles owned or operated by that person for a term of two years. (3) Upon a conviction of a violation of Section 14601.2, 14601.4, or 14601.5 subsequent to three or more prior convictions of a violation of Section 23103.5, 23152, or 23153, within a 10-year period, or two or more prior convictions of Section 14601.2, 14601.4, or 14601.5, within a 10-year period, the person shall immediately install a certified ignition interlock device, pursuant to this section, in all vehicles owned or operated by that person for a term of three years. (k) The department shall notify the court if a person subject to this section has failed to show proof of installation within 30 days of the department informing the person he or she is required to install a certified ignition interlock device. (l) Subdivisions (j), (k), (m), (n), and (o) of Section 23575 apply to this section. (m) The requirements of this section are in addition to any other requirements of law. (n) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2009.





VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 23572-23573
23572. (a) If any person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 and a minor under 14 years of age was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the offense, the court shall impose the following penalties in addition to any other penalty prescribed: (1) If the person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section 23536, the punishment shall be enhanced by an imprisonment of 48 continuous hours in the county jail, whether or not probation is granted, no part of which shall be stayed. (2) If a person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section 23540, the punishment shall be enhanced by an imprisonment of 10 days in the county jail, whether or not probation is granted, no part of which may be stayed. (3) If a person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section 23546, the punishment shall be enhanced by an imprisonment of 30 days in the county jail, whether or not probation is granted, no part of which may be stayed. (4) If a person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 which is punished as a misdemeanor under Section 23550, the punishment shall be enhanced by an imprisonment of 90 days in the county jail, whether or not probation is granted, no part of which may be stayed. (b) The driving of a vehicle in which a minor under 14 years of age was a passenger shall be pled and proven. (c) No punishment enhancement shall be imposed pursuant to this section if the person is also convicted of a violation of Section 273a of the Penal Code arising out of the same facts and incident. 23573. (a) The Department of Motor Vehicles, upon receipt of the court's abstract of conviction for a violation listed in subdivision (j), shall inform the convicted person of the requirements of this section and the term for which the person is required to have a certified ignition interlock device installed. The records of the department shall reflect the mandatory use of the device for the term required and the time when the device is required to be installed pursuant to this code. (b) The department shall advise the person that installation of an ignition interlock device on a vehicle does not allow the person to drive without a valid driver's license. (c) A person who is notified by the department pursuant to subdivision (a) shall, within 30 days of notification, complete all of the following: (1) Arrange for each vehicle owned or operated by the person to be fitted with an ignition interlock device by a certified ignition interlock device provider under Section 13386. (2) Notify the department and provide to the department proof of installation by submitting the "Verification of Installation" form described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386. (3) Pay to the department a fee sufficient to cover the costs of administration of this section, including startup costs, as determined by the department. (d) The department shall place a restriction on the driver's license record of the convicted person that states the driver is restricted to driving only vehicles equipped with a certified ignition interlock device. (e) (1) A person who is notified by the department pursuant to subdivision (a) shall arrange for each vehicle with an ignition interlock device to be serviced by the installer at least once every 60 days in order for the installer to recalibrate and monitor the operation of the device. (2) The installer shall notify the department if the device is removed or indicates that the person has attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, or if the person fails three or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the ignition interlock device. (f) The department shall monitor the installation and maintenance of the ignition interlock device installed pursuant to subdivision (a). (g) (1) A person who is notified by the department, pursuant to subdivision (a), is exempt from the requirements of subdivision (c) if all of the following circumstances occur: (A) Within 30 days of the notification, the person certifies to the department all of the following: (i) The person does not own a vehicle. (ii) The person does not have access to a vehicle at his or her residence. (iii) The person no longer has access to the vehicle being driven by the person when he or she was arrested for a violation that subsequently resulted in a conviction for a violation listed in subdivision (j). (iv) The person acknowledges that he or she is only allowed to drive a vehicle that is fitted with an operating ignition interlock device and that he or she is required to have a valid driver's license before he or she can drive. (v) The person is subject to the requirements of this section when he or she purchases or has access to a vehicle. (B) The person's driver's license record has been restricted pursuant to subdivision (d). (C) The person complies with this section immediately upon commencing ownership or operation of a vehicle subject to the required installation of an ignition interlock device. (2) A person who has been granted an exemption pursuant to this subdivision and who subsequently drives a vehicle in violation of the exemption is subject to the penalties of subdivision (i) in addition to any other applicable penalties in law. (h) This section does not permit a person to drive without a valid driver's license. (i) A person who is required under subdivision (c) to install an ignition interlock device who willfully fails to install the ignition interlock device within the time period required under subdivision (c) is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. (j) In addition to all other requirements of this code, a person convicted of any of the following violations shall be punished as follows: (1) Upon a conviction of a violation of Section 14601.2, 14601.4, or 14601.5 subsequent to one prior conviction of a violation of Section 23103.5, 23152, or 23153, within a 10-year period, the person shall immediately install a certified ignition interlock device, pursuant to this section, in all vehicles owned or operated by that person for a term of one year. (2) Upon a conviction of a violation of Section 14601.2, 14601.4, or 14601.5 subsequent to two prior convictions of a violation of Section 23103.5, 23152, or 23153, within a 10-year period, or one prior conviction of Section 14601.2, 14601.4, or 14601.5, within a 10-year period, the person shall immediately install a certified ignition interlock device, pursuant to this section, in all vehicles owned or operated by that person for a term of two years. (3) Upon a conviction of a violation of Section 14601.2, 14601.4, or 14601.5 subsequent to three or more prior convictions of a violation of Section 23103.5, 23152, or 23153, within a 10-year period, or two or more prior convictions of Section 14601.2, 14601.4, or 14601.5, within a 10-year period, the person shall immediately install a certified ignition interlock device, pursuant to this section, in all vehicles owned or operated by that person for a term of three years. (k) The department shall notify the court if a person subject to this section has failed to show proof of installation within 30 days of the department informing the person he or she is required to install a certified ignition interlock device. (l) Subdivisions (j), (k), (m), (n), and (o) of Section 23575 apply to this section. (m) The requirements of this section are in addition to any other requirements of law. (n) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2009.

We are top DUI Lawyers who are well recognized in the Pomona Courts for our specialized knowledge of scientific DUI Defenses.  We can separate the DUI Facts from the Drunk Driving Myths. I am a leading DUI defense lawyer in the Inland Empire and surrounding counties.  In the past other DUI lawyers have referred me their "tougher" dui cases which required an "expert" to handle.