Approximatley what percent of DUI's end up in a full DUI conviction??

[JV25]

What is the name of your state?
California

I was wondering if anyone had an idea of what percentage of DUI cases end up in a full DUI conviction? I've heard that most do, but I've heard many stories of DUI's being reduced to Wet reckless, dismissal, etc. So if anyone has an estimation or even just a Random GUESS, can you answer this question to the best of your knowledge? If you took the last 100 DUI cases in California, what percent ended up in a conviction? My guess is 72% What's yours?

Again, I know there's so many factors, but just think if you took 100 random cases out of California in the past 2 months.... what do you THINK would the conviction percentage would be?

 

[CdwJava]

Why do you ask this?

It's akin to asking what the specific temperature and humidity it will be tomorrow morning at 6:05 AM ... one can only give a vague guess, and then only if they know the specific location.

It also depends on how you define a "full conviction". Do you mean FULL = MAXIMUM? What?

I'd say that the last 100 DUI cases in my county have resulted in some 95 convictions (or thereabouts) ... MY DUI cases (career long) are at 100%. Cases that are pled down get a shot at "wet reckless" (CVC 23103.5), cases that go to trial do not get a shot at the reduction.

- Carl

 

[CavemanLawyer]

Every so many years the American Automobile Association and the NHTSA release DUI/DWI conviction rate statistics for each state. They are calculated by taking state DMV records and calculating how many actual DUI's/DWI's were reported and then dividing the total number of DUI/DWI arrests for the state by this number.

California has consistently hovered in the high 60%'s conviction rate but of course with decent variation at the county level. This percentage is for actual dui convictions. Much of that remaining ~30 percent was plead down to a lesser charge. If you look at county reporting of conviction rates they will often boast 90-95% but of course this is for any dui arrest resulting in any conviction...even if they reduced it to a public intoxication ticket. These numbers are misleading and quite frankly pointless. Some states release statewide conviction rate statistics but you really have to take these with a grain of salt. There are tremendous differences in the formulas used to calculate them from state to state.

 

[JV25]

Caveman..

Thanks Caveman Lawyer.. I agree with your 60% maybe a little higher tho, hopefully not. Carl, what do you think the chances are of me posting another topic? Just kidding. Happy New Year by the way!!

JV

 

[deeza]

Not all do!

My husband got a dui and he wasn't even driving. He was sitting in his car at a pond. The officer pulled in and asked him if he was drinking. He blew .08. He was arrested. He got 18 months of court supervision and lost his license for 3 months. At the end of his supervision the dui was dropped..not on his record..but..if he ever gets stopped again and has been drinking they courts will look at it like his second dui. Makes no freakin since to me?

 

[CavemanLawyer]

deeza, DWI means you are in operation of your vehicle, and some states have low requirements for operation. I think the argument(s) in your husband's case was, how did he get there and how was he going to get home? He drove and he was going to drive again.

 

[fagettaboutit]

My husband got a dui and he wasn't even driving. He was sitting in his car at a pond. The officer pulled in and asked him if he was drinking. He blew .08. He was arrested. He got 18 months of court supervision and lost his license for 3 months. At the end of his supervision the dui was dropped..not on his record..but..if he ever gets stopped again and has been drinking they courts will look at it like his second dui. Makes no freakin since to me?

How did your husband fight this DUI? Did he take it to trial?

Cavemanlawyer is right about "operation of your vehicle." DUI (even though it has the word "driving") is not about DRIVING anymore. "Operation" could be stretched to mean many things. As Cavemanlawyer also pointed out: He "could have" driven there while being impaired (even with no evidence of this happening) or he "could have" driven from there. Therefore, it's perfectly acceptable to charge him with the crime before he might commit the crime. It's all part of the DUI MADDness.

I'd suggest your husband never have any car keys in his possession if he plans to drink because if a cop checks your husband's records, s/he will see the first offense. And I think you can guess what the thought process will be from there.

 

[CdwJava]

I'd suggest your husband never have any car keys in his possession if he plans to drink because if a cop checks your husband's records, s/he will see the first offense. And I think you can guess what the thought process will be from there.

But, without the car keys, how would he drive the car to the pond?

- Carl

 

[fagettaboutit]

JV25,

Call MADD. Their big thing is court montioring for the very reason of more convictions. So they may be able to tell you (though I'd be suspect of their numbers) the percentage of DUI cases that end up in a full DUI conviction.

 

[fagettaboutit]

But, without the car keys, how would he drive the car to the pond?

- Carl

Oh don't worry, Carl. I'm sure the DUI MADDness will figure out way to get their DUI arrest. Like, let's say he COULD have pushed the car to the pond. Pushing could be considered to some as operating. Yeah, that's the ticket...pushing is close enough to operating and if he could do that, well he should be arrested by golly.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

As Cavemanlawyer also pointed out: He "could have" driven there while being impaired (even with no evidence of this happening) or he "could have" driven from there. Therefore, it's perfectly acceptable to charge him with the crime before he might commit the crime.

That's not what I meant at all. My point was that the statute might broadly define operation to include just being in your vehicle with the keys, or with the engine on, etc.. BECAUSE of the argument that the person would have had to drive there, and would presumably drive from that point on. The State still has to prove that the person actually operated the vehicle (however operation is defined in that state's laws) while intoxicated. So you absolutely cannot charge someone with the crime before they commit it. The closest thing to that is attempt and so it would have to be a charge of attempted DWI and most states have no such crime.

 

[CdwJava]

Oh don't worry, Carl. I'm sure the DUI MADDness will figure out way to get their DUI arrest. Like, let's say he COULD have pushed the car to the pond. Pushing could be considered to some as operating. Yeah, that's the ticket...pushing is close enough to operating and if he could do that, well he should be arrested by golly.

You are SOOO focused on MADD ... I have been in law enforcement for more than 16 years and I have NEVER seen a MADD representative in court, speak to my agency or any reps from my agency, and have certainly never seen them passing any laws (since they are not part of the government in any way). The MOST they have done is offer pins, medallions, and plaques to encourage or reward officers and agencies that work toward reducing DUI related collisions (yes, this often means encouraging arrests ... but, gee, yeah, I'll risk making a false arrest to get a "23152" pin ).

Unless he pushed the car to the pond, he drove it there and could drive it away. However, none of us were there so we do not know what the situation was. But, some of us would rather not wait for him to get on the road drunk ... I'd rather prevent it.

Each state is different on what they consider to be DUI. This pond arrest likely would not happen in my state unless the keys were in the ignition and the engine was on (with some exceptions).

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

The closest thing to that is attempt and so it would have to be a charge of attempted DWI and most states have no such crime.

Exactly!

- Carl

 

[paguy88]

You are SOOO focused on MADD ... I have been in law enforcement for more than 16 years and I have NEVER seen a MADD representative in court, speak to my agency or any reps from my agency, and have certainly never seen them passing any laws (since they are not part of the government in any way).
- Carl

Ah Carl, You are correct.. they do not PASS law they loby for them slight differance... So in effect they put pressure on law makers to come up with laws that meet there adjenda.

I think madd is a well intentioned group, but skews facts to fit there adjenda(so does every other loby group) and what is part of there adjenda that I 100% do not agree with is DUI check points.


The USA is run by 3 things. Oil, Loby groups and Liabilty

 

[CdwJava]

Ah Carl, You are correct.. they do not PASS law they loby for them slight differance... So in effect they put pressure on law makers to come up with laws that meet there adjenda.

Lobbying is something that thousands of organizations do. They can put pressure on lawmakers, but the laws still must pass Constitutional muster and still must be based on some sense of reason. Many people want many things .. they don't all get them.

There are organizations that actively lobby for lighter sentences for criminals, to legalize drugs, etc., and they don't get the same results (thankfully) largely because they can't produce as compelling a body of evidence to support their positions. Aside from the medical marijuana groups, most these lobbying organizations waffle due to a lack of facts to bolster their contentions.

I think madd is a well intentioned group, but skews facts to fit there adjenda(so does every other loby group) and what is part of there adjenda that I 100% do not agree with is DUI check points.

MADD did not come up with the DUI checkpoint idea. They may support it, but I strongly suspect this idea was a construct of law enforcement, not MADD. A number of agencies that are NOT related to MADD also support them - why focus only on MADD for your ire about this?

As for skewing the facts, they may do that in their press releases and to pad numbers, but no agency or governmental body I know of relies on MADD's statistics and figures as fact.

Note I am not now nor have I EVER been in any way affiliated with MADD yet I support stricter DUI laws (amnd compared to much of the rest of the world, our DUI laws are weak).

The USA is run by 3 things. Oil, Loby groups and Liabilty

Kinda ... but, we ALL need oil, so it makes no sense to bankrupt them ... ANYONE can be a lobby group, so you can't ban them without stifling liberty ... and liability, well that drives prices up everywhere because we - as a society - like to blame someone else for everything so people sue all the time.

Liability is a HUGE consideration in my job ... in fact, scary as it is, the thought going through many cop's heads (and the reason more than one cop has been killed or injured) is because they have hesitated due to the conscious thought ... "Will I be sued or prosecuted for this?" Hesitation kills. And, a court takes months or years to deliberate a decision that unfolded in a fraction of a second.

Liability is the big one to me.

- Carl