Arraignment in 1 month - 2nd DUI in 10 years, CA

[x_x_x]

What is the name of your state? CA
Charge 1: 20002(a) hit and run misdemeanor.
Charge 2: California Vehicle Code [CVC] section 23152(a)

Coming to congestion in a left hand turn lane at a stop light, tapped the car in front of me at 2 MPH. (other driver says 5 MPH). Driver said that he wanted to pull over, but I kept going. I kept driving and minding about my own business, thinking nothing of the event.

Apparently the guy called in the plate. Police car pulls over at house. Questioned. Cuffed and booked outside my house for suspicion of DUI AND Hit and Run.

Police report says no FST conducted, although there were, and perhaps the reason for custody and detainment. BAC reportedly refused, while 'officer induced confusion' transpired.

I am 30 years old trying to establish a career. I am a failed entrepreneur who still lives at the home he was brought up in.

I still have a nagging background check that is from 8 years ago. It is haunting; you always feel shameful sending resumes or even trying to make business connections to potential employers. Feels like someone is always looking over your back.
I thought my alcohol issues were over, and they were for some time. (About 6 years) After 2 years of counseling and being on antidepressant medication, I stopped going because it was too costly.

Commuted to college from home (17 mile commute) and had a prior at age 19 and 22. I was very boisterous in college and have calmed down since.
This would be the 2nd DUI within 10 years.

The damage was minor. I was not wearing glasses on at the time, and didn’t see any damage to the other vehicle. As I got the police photo, I saw the indentation of the license plate screw into the back bumper of the car. Upon obtaining Police Report, immediately sent apology-letter to the man who called in. I provided Insurance/information/etc.

I am absolutely going to plea not guilty to the H&R, because I reasonably didn't see damage to vehicle. Defense: "mistake of fact" and also I was not wearing my eye glasses that I wear 99.9% of the time.

Requesting Dry Reckless in lieu of DUI. Reasonable doubt as to being intoxicated. I believe that not having on my glasses was the main reason for the nudging of the car in front of me. I am nearsighted and almost ALWAYS wear my glasses. This must have been the first time in 5 years that I did not have my glasses with me. They were found 3 days later in my backyard.

I’ve never been in accident in lifetime (14 years of driving). Currently trying to expunge record for past (10years) but I have yet to make the final touches to the documents before sending them in.

While I still believe that the State has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that I was intoxicated, I would be willing to plea to a non-DUI charge.

There are some issues with false information that could be on the police report (a video could prove that, but also there is evidence that would work against me if video was introduced). A FST was conducted and failed, the one-legged stand on a hill with no shoes on (right in front of my house). It is believed that after this FST failure, that detainment happened right after, yet it is not noted on the police report.

Also there were some issues with the interrogation procedure by police, with methods that are not constitutional but would be hard to prove, unless there was a whole Internal Affair Investigation conducted.

So the prosecution should have 1) officer testimony and observation of "objective symptoms" 2) no FSTs marked or claimed 3) no BAC level 4) no comment about driving. They did claim that the car I drove "backed" into the patrol car's steel enforced front plow fender. (A MVS video would clear that up if it is true or not.)

I feel that getting a DUI at such a young age a long time ago really had some major ill social and economic consequences. I gradually conditioned myself to be less and less social or outgoing over the years. Until recently I would use my car just to go to bookstores or libraries, rarely even driving at all. I have been pretty much a social recluse that spends most of his time on the internet, doing reading, researching etc. Now all of these are apparently not going to even be available if I am suspended for driving for 2 years. I am a failed entrepreneur, who now needs to look toward the other established public or private sector for a career. None of these potential careers or jobs will see a recent DUI as a positive. Even the stuff 10 years ago, still HAUNTS me to this very day- I’ve been paying the penalty on those things socially, economically, mentally, financially, physically, etc. They will never go away.

At this point, this is ALL I am focusing on right now are these charges. I have been working on my defense for about a month now, and have over 105 pages of a WORD document that includes my perception, reasonable doubt, mitigating factors, inaccuracies, explanations, laws, DMV proceedings, objections, lawyers that I contacted, costs, motions, attorney website snippets that pertain to case

I have also visited the department and the courthouse of the court I will be arraigned in on multiple occasions. I have taken notes on other plea bargains and proceedings, the characters: the judge, deputy D.A., city prosecutor, P.D., prominent lawyers whom are familiar from internet and solicitation material sent to immediately after. Wondering if getting some "face time" and experience with the proceedings could be beneficial. The day-to-day activity in the court room is an interesting little microcosm.

I have attended a few AA meetings, in hopes that I can somehow use it as leverage that I realize any error that I may have done in the past and want to move forward. I also attend online meetings via the internet. My main objective is to achieve gainful employment and become a productive citizen and rejoin society. I have gained 2 part-time jobs since the incident, one a weekend job that has to do with catering private parties, and another part time job with my friend's internet company that requires me to send e-mails and make phone calls to various publishing suppliers.

Innocent until proven guilty. Would like any insights or advice if possible.
Wondering what the best possible strategy would be, considering the arraignment date is approaching. My initial plan is to bring with me all of the 105+ pages of documentation and explanation of the events as I see them, and possible resolutions to this situation. I would not hand over all of my writings, as some may be not relevant or needed, but I would show that I am serious to put this event past me.

When talking to the Deputy DA (I have already seen her in action while doing some research at the court room) or P.D. , I plan to tell her my situation, a brief history, my attempt to contact the other party in the 20002(a) and letter, and maybe even some of the points or reasons as to the reasonable doubt or evidence that the state has for these charges. My initial stance would be that I have a tall order to ask, and that I hope that the state can drop all criminal charges. I will explain to her that the police report may look bad, and the factors that there is a prior, there is an alleged refusal, and there is minor damage to another car, but these variables do have reasonable explanations, and my willingness to put this incident behind me and produce a net positive result for myself as an individual as well as a net positive for society, the people, and the state.

In other matters, from the research I have done on the DMV hearing, which will take place prior to the criminal arraignment, I hope to prove that the alleged refusal was false, there was officer induced confusion, inadequate admonition by the transporting officers (different from arresting officer), and that I have prepared the proper objections so that they can appear in the transcript and not waived automatically. I will also provide the list of 15 lawyers and legal firms that I have talked to, which sent soliciting information after my arrest, their fees, and their comments. Each one willing to represent me or fight the charge, if I decided to pay for their services for retainer (which I do not have the capital to spend currently). Using that information, mention of lawyers that the specific DMV officer that has dealt with a specific lawyer I have contacted, and the possible threat of obtaining a "writ" if the suspension is not "set aside." In that case, the DMV attorney in Sacramento would be contacted and as far as I know, legal fees that I do happen to spend would be reimbursed if it is found that eventually the writ could be obtained and accepted. Hopefully this could be some reason for the DMV hearing administrator to act in my interest and "set aside" the suspension. I am also curious to see if the actual arresting officer shows up to the DMV, as my initial thoughts would be that he would be too busy or not even subpoenaed in the first place. This may be a bad presumption though.

[x_x_x]

As far as trying to go to a jury trial, I do believe that this is a possible pathway. Depending on what is on the police videos, or if they even can produce video footage of the stop, detainment, interrogation, I feel that I may have a reasonable defense and I do feel that I could convince at least 1 juror out of 12 to believe that there is reasonable doubt as to the charges. I would actually feel somewhat comfortable taking the stand and attempting to explain the circumstances. This may be a "risky" proposition though, because it is possible that, if found guilty, the sentence could be pushed further upwards rather than just the minimum. However, seeing that this is my future livelihood at stake and that I do have time to invest in an optimal outcome, it may be a path to take. I also will claim that I have a grievance with the priors, to which I plead "no contest" in both events as I was young, scared, and just wanted to get past it. I do not think I was given the best advice, nor optimal outcomes in either situation, and may have some constitutional grounds to appeal or have them stricken from the record.

Thank you in advance.

[FlyingRon]

Um.. that's a nice novel.

You want strategies:

What you do need is a very good lawyer, familiar in the specific court that you are going to have to appear in. You're looking at MANDATORY jail time, and at the discretion of the court over a year.
The costs are going to be great. You're going to get a hard suspension for a year and the even more fun at the DMV with the charges and refusal. I hate to see what your insurance bills are going to be like.

Frankly, if I was the DA, there is no way I'd let you plead this down. Even if you were to beat the DUI (which I don't think you will), as a prosecutor, I still have the incontestable hit and run charge to hit you with which has some pretty serious sanctions to it as well.

You will not get anywhere contesting the priors at this point. You no contested them, you were found guilty. Claiming you plead out of ignorance or being scared isn't a justification for reversal.

Your personal life, your failed business, your living at home, your supposed trauma and stigma of your first violation of public safety, don't do anything to mitigate what you have done.

The fact that you were not wearing glasses is not mitigating, and potentially makes things worse. Do you have a corrective lenses restriction on your license?

When you have a collision, it's required for you to get out and meet with the other driver no matter how minor you think it is. If there is no damage and the two drivers want to shake hands and be on their way at that point, fine, but you're required to stop.

An impaired person is not usually qualified to judge their own performance on FST's.

What comment on your driving do they have to make other than you were involved in an at-fault rear end collision and you failed to stop as required?

I don't know you think is going to read your 100 page document. 90% of the people aren't even going to bother to read what you posted here.

A few AA meetings isn't going to sway the DA or the judge. A commitment to the program might mitigate the sanctions eventually imposed.

So lets ge this straight. You feel because of your psycological problems you should be exempt from prosecution. You feel that because of the trauma from your previous DUI you should be exempt from prosecution. You feel that because you were driving visually impaired you should be exempt from prosecution.

You're warped. All of those are exact reasons why you should be prosecuted.

Lets see you were:

1. Drunk (you don't contest this only that you feel you shouldn't be prosecuted for this).
2. Driving in violation of your license, or at least visually impaired.
3. You caused an accident.
4. You left the scene of that accident without stopping as required by law.

I seriously think that if you have a chance, you're going to have to let a sane and competent attorney work on this. You're not acting rationally.

[garrula lingua]

And, what OP is skipping over, is that s/he refused to test.

OP, you are in serious need of help.
You have been isolated too long.

You committed a hit and run, DUI, refused to test, and possibly damaged a police car.

The facts are great for the Prosecutor who tries you - I love the part about: maybe I backed into the police car and hit it. (yehaa, good trial - some laughs).

Love the fact that the image of your license plate was imbedded in the victim's bumper. (yehaa- good trial ... blow a picture of that up and show it to the jury).

This is your third DUI in eleven years.
You're not a scared and confused kid - you're an adult with a serious problem.
Work on fixing your problems, not avoiding/denying them.

[FlyingRon]

GL: chortle...yep I think the police / DA are having so much fun with the two charges he did get charged with, they aren't even worried about the subsequent things he COULD have been charged with but they didn't bother.

It's too bad I live on the east coast. These court appearances would be entertaining.

[Shay-Pari'e]

Ahh, to be a fly on the wall in the court room.

[x_x_x]

Love the fact that the image of your license plate was imbedded in the victim's bumper.

No, the screw that holds the license plate.

[x_x_x]

The crime of California hit and run only occurs if you flee the scene and you know that you caused property damage or injuries to a third party. If you honestly (and reasonably) didn't know or didn't realize that damage was caused, you are not guilty of the crime.

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by x_x_x

The crime of California hit and run only occurs if you flee the scene and you know that you caused property damage or injuries to a third party. If you honestly (and reasonably) didn't know or didn't realize that damage was caused, you are not guilty of the crime.

Ah!

So someone who does the following is guilty:


Coming to congestion in a left hand turn lane at a stop light, tapped the car in front at 2 MPH. (other driver says 5 MPH). Car wanted to pull over, but I kept going.

[x_x_x]

The fact that you were not wearing glasses is not mitigating, and potentially makes things worse. Do you have a corrective lenses restriction on your license?

this does not make things worse. This is an innocent explanation as to the faulty driving that i experienced. not wearing the glasses, i believe was the sole reason for the accident. it is not indicated on the license as a restriction, but i have been wearing them at all times for about 16 years. Things are blurry if i do not wear them

[x_x_x]

Car wanted to pull over, but I kept going.

that is what is claimed that the other party said in the police report

[x_x_x]

1. Drunk (you don't contest this only that you feel you shouldn't be prosecuted for this).

No, that is the accusation. That is actually what I am contesting.

[x_x_x]

or clt747 any more comments ? thanks in advance

[x_x_x]

regarding alleged refusal

And, what OP is skipping over, is that s/he refused to test.

actually the charge is DUI alcohol/drugs. The police officer was told by my mother at the scene that I had been taking a doctor prescribed medication prior, but i was not on it recently because the prescription was old and could not be refilled. The police officer also tore apart ever single cigarette of the Marlboro Light 100's that were on the passenger side seat.

Willingness to give a urine test is not grounds for a refusal.
California Drunk Driving Law: § 9:220.6.1 Form 9-38 Willingness to take urine test is no refusal.

Questions about which test were asked, but no answer was given. Is silence a refusal? At the time, I believed that the 5th amendment protected people arrested from saying anything until speaking to a lawyer. Obviously this is "mistake of law" on my part. If the police wanted to they could have taken a sample forcefully. Just as the Miranda only protects verbal evidence, as I later found out, how can verbal response or lack of verbal response protect the acquisition of physical evidence? There is a double standard here.

[FlyingRon]

Originally Posted by x_x_x

The crime of California hit and run only occurs if you flee the scene and you know that you caused property damage or injuries to a third party. If you honestly (and reasonably) didn't know or didn't realize that damage was caused, you are not guilty of the crime.

Sorry, that's NOT what the statute says. It says squat about you "knowing" that their is damage. It says that you are involved in an accident only involving property damage. It covers whether you "know it" or not. If you hit something, you darned well better make sure there is no damage before you move off.