Inglewood Car Accident, DUI, Client Age 76, 0.19% BAC

Our client, age 76, was driving southbound on South Prairie Avenue in Inglewood at about 6:00 p.m. It was March and the sun had just set. Our client had worked as a delivery man for many years and had worked a full day this particular day. As he drove home in his 2000 Toyota Camry, he drank vodka from a Gatorade bottle in his car.

With no time for our client to react even if sober, a Toyota Tacoma ran the stop sign on Buckthorn, placing itself right in front of our client’s car. The two cars collided. Our client’s car then ran into a parked Toyota Highlander parked along South Prairie. No one was injured.

A 911 call was made and the report was that no one was injured, but that “an old man driving the Camry is drunk.”

The CHP responded to the location and observed our client moving his car away from the intersection to the curbside, to prevent it from obstructing through traffic on South Prairie. Officers then began talking to our client, who commented, “Yes, I’m drunk.” He added that he had drank a half a pint of vodka.

Our client was cooperative with the CHP and agreed to submit to various field sobriety tests. Curiously, his pupils did not display any nystagmus and his words were not slurred. He otherwise had difficulty with balance, but he was 76 years old and had just been involved in a rather significant car accident, so attributing poor balance to only alcohol impairment would have been to ignore his age and car accident.

Nonetheless, the CHP arrested our client and took him to the Inglewood Police Station, where he was booked and submitted to a breath test. Our client’s blood alcohol content (BAC), as measured through his breath, was 0.19%.

The client was then held at the Inglewood City Jail into the next day until he was sober enough to be released. When he was released, he signed a promise to appear in the Inglewood Superior Court in about three months.

Upon being released, the client explained what had happened to his family, who were worried about where he had been. The client, who was born in Ethiopia, also discussed his case with a few friends he trusted from Ethiopia. One recommended that the client call Greg Hill & Associates, as Greg had represented several people from Ethiopia recently in a variety of cases.

The client then called Greg Hill & Associates and spoke with Greg Hill. The client explained where he was from in Ethiopia and Greg discussed the terrible civil war then raging in Ethiopia, as well as the country’s rich history in track and field. The client was a fanatical track and field fan and had met Abebe Bikila (double Olympic gold medalist in the marathon) when he was a young man, so Greg and the client discussed track and field at length, finally turning to the criminal case after about ten or fifteen minutes.

The client explained what had happened and was unaware of how a DUI was handled by our courts and the DMV. He had no prior criminal history, but he had heard anecdotally from others about getting a DUI.

Greg explained how the process worked and discussed several defenses that might apply in his case, as a car accident presents several unique defenses. First, Greg assured the client that his attempting to move his car out of the intersection would not “count” as driving. In People v. Kelley (1937) 27 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 771, the Los Angeles County Superior Court Appellate Division of the held that driving a car a short distance out of traffic after a car accident or stop was not DUI because it is driving to prevent a further accident and to enhance safety, which is distinguishable from driving a car into traffic while drunk.

Greg then explained that the “no driving” defense would be a big issue. In Mercer v. DMV (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 753, the California Supreme Court held that “driving” for purposes of DUI requires evidence that defendant caused “volitional movement” of the car, i.e., turning the steering wheel, accelerating or braking the car. Here, there would be no such evidence because the officer arrived at the scene well after the cars stopped.

The client hired Greg Hill & Associates and Greg was able to successfully argue the “no driving” defense at the DMV. This resulted in a “set aside” of the suspension of our client’s driver’s license, but it did not guarantee a dismissal of the DUI case in court.

Meanwhile, our client checked himself into a 90-day residential alcohol treatment facility to overcome his alcoholism, or at least alcohol abuse.

Greg also appeared in the Inglewood Courthouse and negotiated with the Inglewood City Attorney on this case.

Very luckily, Greg was able to eventually resolve the case for minimal DUI terms: 36 months of informal probation on the following terms: payment of a court fine of $140 dollars ($390 minus $250 (for two days in custody credit) and attendance at the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) victim impact panel. The judge waived the requirement that the client enroll in and complete the AB 541 program based on our client’s completion of the 90-day residential alcohol treatment program.

The client was very happy with this outcome.