Blog
CALL US FOR A FREE CONSULTATION
Call Us831-426-5800 Call Us831-566-4357
303 Potrero Street, Suite 30, Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Can you get drunk after eating a plate of beer-battered fish? That is the question that many Los Angeles DUI defense lawyers are asking, after a man in Wisconsin presented that as a defense for his DUI.

The man was pulled over by police officers, who then administered a breathalyzer test. The man registered below the .08 maximum permissible level, but since this wasn't his first DUI, he was charged just the same. The man apparently told police officers that he had eaten beer-battered fish just before he began driving, and that this accounted for the alcohol content in his blood. He denied having consumed any alcohol beverages.

To cook up a plate of beer-battered fish, the seafood is dipped in batter that includes beer, and deep-fried. Cooking removes the alcohol from the food. The alcohol evaporates in the cooking process, and although it leaves behind the flavor of alcohol, it does not leave behind alcohol content that would be sufficient to actually intoxicate a person.

...

An analysis of data from the California Department Of Motor Vehicles from 2012 found that employees at the DMV either suspended or revoked the licenses in at least 135 DUI cases. In all these cases, the persons arrested had never been charged with any DUI-related crime, nor had their criminal cases dismissed because of lack of evidence.

Los Angeles DUI lawyers have found that DMV employees are often allowed to act as a prosecutor and judge, when they decide whether to revoke or suspend licenses. Attorneys have always believed that allowing a single employee to decide on a matter like this amounts to a violation of an individual's constitutional rights. Now, a lawsuit that has been filed by a group of attorneys against the California Department Of Motor Vehicles, targets these arbitrary powers that are granted to employees at the agency.

The lawsuit claims that allowing employees to act as both the prosecutor and judge about which person’s licenses will be suspended or revoked, is a violation of their rights. At the California Department Of Motor Vehicles, a single employee is given the task of advocating for the DMV's interests, and making the decision in administrative proceedings. That makes it a clear conflict of interest, and means the system is tilted against drivers in the state of California who have been arrested for DUI.

...

Under the proposal by New York Democrat Congresswoman Nita M. Lowey, states that fail to enact the law by the deadline of October 1, mandating all DUI offenders to have these devices installed in their vehicles, would suffer a cut in their highway transportation funding.

Motorists in four California counties-Los Angeles, Sacramento, Almeida and Tulare - are already familiar with a program like this. Under the pilot program, which was kicked off in 2010, even an offender who is convicted of a first-time DUI, is required to install certified ignition interlock devices in each vehicle that he owns or operates.

An ignition interlock device is a device that is connected to the ignition of the car. The device takes a breath sample from a person before he begins driving. It detects the alcohol content in the breath, and if it detects alcohol content above a predetermined limit, it will shut down the ignition, and the engine will not start. As the person drives, the device will continue to ask for samples to reduce the risk that the driver will consume alcohol as he is driving.

...

This is a decision that is likely to have many far-reaching effects. The United States Supreme Court decision came in the case Navarette vs California. The case is related to the California Highway Patrol’s decision to pull over a pickup truck based on an anonymous tip.

The California Highway Patrol was alerted to the silver Ford F-150 Pickup via an anonymous tip which informed officers that a truck had just run another car off the road. The officers found the F-150 pickup exactly where the anonymous tip had informed the officers it would be. They followed the truck for some time, but did not notice any illegal or suspicious activity. However, they still pulled the truck over, and searched it. They found a stash of marijuana in the truck, and he was arrested.

The cops say that they smelled marijuana near the truck, and then decided to search the truck. What is disturbing is that this entire search of the truck was based on an anonymous tip. There was nothing that the truck driver did to arouse suspicion in the officers. He was driving at a reasonable speed, and was not driving recklessly or dangerously. He was not veering lanes, and there was no reason to suspect that he was driving in an impaired condition. The officers had pulled him over based on an anonymous tip, claiming that he had run another car off the road.

...

A three judge panel in Fresno County has ruled that the use of the map app on an iPhone is prohibited under California's traffic laws. A 58-year-old man who works at Fresno State University says that he was caught in traffic in early January 2012.

While stuck in bumper to bumper traffic on California 41 in Fresno, he says that he checked his map. But the map was not a paper map, but a map app on his iPhone. A California Highway Patrol motorcycle officer was right there, and pulled the driver over to issue a ticket for unlawful use of a cellphone in a motor vehicle.

The man challenged the traffic ticket in superior court arguing that he was not talking on the hand held cellphone, and further arguing that he was not texting while driving. He reportedly brought a paper map into court to show that use of a paper map is more cumbersome than the smartphone app that he allegedly had been using.

...
Back to Top