DUI for Drugs (VC 23152(f)) Resolved as Wet Reckless, Metro
Our client, age 34, had a rough period in life following the death of her uncle, with whom she was very close. She turned to alcohol and this led to four arrests for DUI in a period of two months. Her first three arrests were within three weeks.
About eleven years earlier, she suffered two DUI convictions, but the dates of her arrests for these events were more than ten years earlier.
In her first case, our client was observed by the CHP Hollywood Division driving northbound on Highland Avenue at about 1:55 a.m. The officers allegedly saw our client then run into the center island and run a red light at the corner of Highland and Pat Moore Way. Law enforcement followed our client and saw her run another red light before pulling her over.
Officers had our client get out of her car and immediately noticed that our client had an unsteady gait and glassy eyes. Our client told officers she had taken morphine and Norco for an ankle injury. Our client also allegedly was slurring her speech as she talked to officers.
Officers then radioed back to the CHP station that they needed a DRE (Drug Recognition Expert) to come to the scene.
A DRE-qualified officer then came to the scene and examined our client, concluding she was under the influence of a controlled substance. She was then arrested and taken to the Hollywood Division CHP office.
Once at the CHP station, she was asked to submit to a breath or blood test and she refused three times. She was thereafter kept at the Hollywood station for several hours to let the effects of the alleged drugs dissipate. Police never applied for a warrant to perform a forced blood draw.
When the client was released, she signed a promise to appear in the Metropolitan Courthouse in about four weeks.
About three weeks later, the client came to our office, explaining that she had suffered the above-described DUI arrest, plus two more arrests for DUI.
Greg met with the client and she explained all three arrests. Greg explained how he expected each case to proceed and what type of plea bargain he expected the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office to offer. As to the first DUI, Greg explained that he expected the case to proceed as a DUI with a refusal allegation under Vehicle Code § 23612. Greg explained what terms the plea bargain would most likely include, which could be severe if the prosecutor was aware of the client sustaining two subsequent DUI arrests.
About a week later, Greg appeared for the arraignment and was pleasantly surprised to see that the case was brought not as a DUI with a refusal, but as a DUI for being under the influence of drugs, Vehicle Code § 23152(f). There was no refusal allegation and the prosecutor was not aware of the client’s two subsequent DUI arrests.
If our client had not admitted to taking morphine and Norco prior to driving and she did not have the later two DUI arrests overshadowing this case, such a charge is a good candidate for trial because DRE “experts” are vulnerable to impeachment on cross-examination because such “expertise” is heavily criticized by other experts in the field.
However, in our client’s situation, Greg realized our client was very fortunate. Nonetheless, he negotiated for a wet reckless (Vehicle Code § 23103 pursuant to Vehicle Code § 23103.5) for our client, which shortened the probation period from three years to one year and allowed our client to avoid the DMV suspension of her license after a conviction for DUI.
The client was ecstatic with this resolution, as the DUI was dismissed and our client otherwise had to take the three-month alcohol awareness program (which she would most likely have to take anyways in one of her other two pending DUI cases) and had to pay a $390 fine, plus penalties and assessments (less credit for one day in custody) and attend the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Victim Impact Panel.
The prosecutor stated that he would have agreed to a dry reckless to our client if she had not had two prior DUI convictions.
Our client was pleased with this resolution.
Client Reviews
★★★★★
"Thank you so much for putting so much effort in this case. We really appreciate it and we are happy that all turned out well." S.A., Torrance
★★★★★
"Greg Hill did an outstanding job on every level. He was efficient, thorough, knowledgeable, courteous, responsive & brilliant. He welcomed my input and my concerns. . . from the first conversation to the last - I always felt 'it mattered' to him." S.C., Rolling Hills Estates
★★★★★
"Thanks again for your hard work. We want you to know that we are very appreciative of all that you have done [on our son's] behalf. With warmest regards." L.H., Torrance
★★★★★
"Dear Greg, Thank you again for all your help. Your professionalism and thoroughness is greatly admired. I will definitely recommend you to my friends if they ever need legal help." V.L., Carson
★★★★★
"Thanks for investing in my case. I talked to other attorneys out there and they had an arms-length of attitude, but not you. Your intensity and interest helped a lot." C.R., Pomona