By Erin K
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System, California DUI deaths have dropped 9.1% for the third year in a row. In 2007 nearly 1,132 people died in DUI accidents, while in 2008, the number decreased to 1,029.
“With this third year of declines in DUI deaths, we can truly call it a trend, a trend of life saving importance,” said Christopher J. Murphy, Director of the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS).
“Law enforcement, state and local agencies, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and other safety advocates, and the people of California have come together to address this deadly problem and are now seeing the results. As positive as these figures are, though, we can never let up until we achieve our goal of zero deaths.”
The count for 2008 marks a total decrease of nearly 21% from the most recent high statistic in 2005.
California has used many different tactics to address the DUI problem, including increasing youth public awareness programs, as well as hospital and jail based intervention programs.
The state has also expanded prosecution and probation. Police have increased DUI checkpoints, the Avoid DUI Taskforces program and Report Drunk Drivers – Call 911 campaign.
Source: PRNewsWire.com
By Guest Attorney
Lea Anna Cooper suggests, on the American Chronicle Web site, that Kiefer Sutherland may face double jeopardy when tried for his recent DUI charges. Her claim of double jeopardy is simply a misunderstanding of DUI law.
Sutherland, star of the controversial hit show “24,” was arrested in September and charged with driving with a blood alcohol level (BAC) above 0.08 percent and driving under the influence.
Cooper asserts that the two charges against Sutherland would amount to “double jeopardy.” Strangely, Cooper also reprints portions of a California criminal case that explains how she misunderstands DUI law, People v. Cosko, 152 Cal. App. 3d 54, 199 Cal. Rptr. 289 (1984).
As Cosko explains, Sutherland has been charged with two crimes; one is a “lesser included offense” of the other. In other words, the charge of driving with a BAC above 0.08 percent includes the elements of the misdemeanor charge of driving under the influence plus the element of having a blood alcohol level above 0.08 percent.
Cosko points out that a prosecutor has the right to charge a defendant with a crime and lesser included offenses to assure that she gets a conviction. A court cannot, however, actually convict a defendant of both the charged offense and the lesser included offenses.
Sutherland does actually face revocation of his probation stemming from his plea to driving under the influence in 2004. He was sentenced to 60 months probation and could now face up to 18 months in jail for violating his probation. However, it is very unlikely he will see any more than the 96 hours in jail required under California DUI law.
By Guest Attorney
Kiefer Sutherland, star of the controversial hit show ‘24’, faces up to 18 months in prison after being charged with DUI and violating his probation from a 2004 DUI.
The L.A. Times reports that Sutherland was arrested for driving with a blood alcohol level (BAC) over the 0.08 percent legal limit for DUI in California. A Los Angeles City Attorney’s spokesman said prosecutors would seek to revoke Sutherland’s probation stemming from his 2004 plea to DUI.
The actor faces a year in jail if convicted on this new DUI charge plus six months for violating his probation. At the least, if convicted under California DUI law, Sutherland would have to serve a minimum of 96 hours in jail.
By Editor
A mother from Fallbrook, California pled guilty to felony child endangerment for allowing her 6-year-old son to ride with her drunk husband.
According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, Rosa Carachure’s husband rolled their SUV, killing her son. She was seriously injured in the crash.
Shortly after burying her son, Carachure was shocked when police charged her with a felony. Authorities accused her of knowing her husband was too drunk to drive. She could now get a year in jail.
Jose Mendoza, the father, was charged with DUI manslaughter. He could get six years in prison.
Mendoza and his wife were arguing over his drunk driving when he purposefully swerved the vehicle to show her he could drive. The SUV rolled and the child, who was not wearing a seatbelt, was ejected. Two other children were uninjured.
Some prosecutors can certainly be vindictive. Carachure’s attorney said she’s been punished enough.
By Tiffany Sanders, ESQ.
A pending civil case in California may determine whether third parties can be held liable for the consequences of a DUI accident.
The case, filed on behalf of the family of a bicyclist killed by a drunk driver, names the driver’s wife and brother.
The plaintiff’s attorney argues that by protecting the drunk driver’s property, providing him with automobile insurance, purchasing a vehicle for him and serving him alcohol after prior DUI arrests, the driver’s wife and brother took “joint action in support of a wrongful act.”
If the plaintiff prevails, the case will undoubtedly be appealed, but the ultimate outcome could open–or close–the door to a host of claims against those providing aid to drunk drivers.
By Tiffany Sanders, ESQ.
This weekend, California began installing permanent signs asking motorists to call 911 if they witnessed a drunk driver on the road.
However, many concerns have already arisen about the wisdom and safety of the DUI program, which as a practical matter requires motorists to place cell phone calls while driving in the vicinity of an impaired driver.
Pulling off the road to place the call would clearly be safer than having an impaired driver and a distracted driver sharing road space, but early anecdotal evidence suggests that it takes several minutes for police to respond to a 911 call reporting a drunk driver. The offending vehicle will likely be lost if the caller does not continue to follow.