How is this legal, how can it be fought?

[rolinger]

In 2007 the California DUI laws changed increased the amount of time the DUI would stay on your record from 7 to 10 years. Any logical person would assume this would only apply to all new DUI cases after the law changed and any conviction prior to 2007 would still be a 7 years. However, the legislation allowed for the DMV to back date 10 years regardless of the date of conviction.

Example: Acoording to the law (law prior to 2007), a person convicted of a DUI in 2002, after 7 years, would have the DUI removed from their record in 2009. But because of the new 2007 law increasing the DUI to 10 years, that same person would now have the conviction on their record until 2012! Essentially the law has backdated all DUI charges.

For some people, who's DUIs fell off between 2004 and 2007, the DUI's were put back on their records...for others who had offenses prior to 2007 it extends their sentencing - without another trial! Isn't that equivelant to some kind of double jeopardy....or double conviction?

How is legally possible? How can they retroactively apply NEW laws, over-riding the laws at the time of the conviction? Isn't this unconsitutional? By that logic, they can change the laws every year, for any type of crime/offense and just constantly keep anyone they want in jail, paying fines, etc. Isn't this a horrible precedent?

This has a big impact on employment, insurance, future driving incidents. I completely understand changing the law - it happens all the time. But where in the history of our country have the changed the law today to apply to incidents that happened before the law changed?

How can this be fought?!

Reference: [url=http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dui/reportability.htm]New DUI Reportability Requirements[/url]
Questions Q3 and Q4 straight from the California DMV site.

[Wirelessany1]

Originally Posted by rolinger

In 2007 the California DUI laws changed increased the amount of time the DUI would stay on your record from 7 to 10 years. Any logical person would assume this would only apply to all new DUI cases after the law changed and any conviction prior to 2007 would still be a 7 years. However, the legislation allowed for the DMV to back date 10 years regardless of the date of conviction.

Example: Acoording to the law (law prior to 2007), a person convicted of a DUI in 2002, after 7 years, would have the DUI removed from their record in 2009. But because of the new 2007 law increasing the DUI to 10 years, that same person would now have the conviction on their record until 2012! Essentially the law has backdated all DUI charges.

For some people, who's DUIs fell off between 2004 and 2007, the DUI's were put back on their records...for others who had offenses prior to 2007 it extends their sentencing - without another trial! Isn't that equivelant to some kind of double jeopardy....or double conviction?

How is legally possible? How can they retroactively apply NEW laws, over-riding the laws at the time of the conviction? Isn't this unconsitutional? By that logic, they can change the laws every year, for any type of crime/offense and just constantly keep anyone they want in jail, paying fines, etc. Isn't this a horrible precedent?

This has a big impact on employment, insurance, future driving incidents. I completely understand changing the law - it happens all the time. But where in the history of our country have the changed the law today to apply to incidents that happened before the law changed?

How can this be fought?!

Reference: [url=http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dui/reportability.htm]New DUI Reportability Requirements[/url]
Questions Q3 and Q4 straight from the California DMV site.

You have to remember that driving is a priviledge in this state ~ IT IS NOT A RIGHT. Since it is not your right to drive, no "right" has been violated.

[rolinger]

Regardless. This doesn't necessarily have to do with driving and has more to do with retro-actively applying new laws to old convinctions. Since a DUI is a criminal conviction one can swap out DUI with Battery, or Grand Theft or Burglary - anything else for that matter.

The fact remains a person was convicted of a crime and was sentenced. The law later changed and allows the state to go back and increase that person's sentencing - without further trial.

Can anyone site other examples of when a state (or even federal) government has retro-actively applied new laws to over ride previous laws or convictions?

I mean, that would be like changing a DUI to BAC limit of .06 and then going back X years to apply the new law to all people who blew a .07.

[Wirelessany1]

Originally Posted by rolinger

Regardless. This doesn't necessarily have to do with driving and has more to do with retro-actively applying new laws to old convinctions. Since a DUI is a criminal conviction one can swap out DUI with Battery, or Grand Theft or Burglary - anything else for that matter.

The fact remains a person was convicted of a crime and was sentenced. The law later changed and allows the state to go back and increase that person's sentencing - without further trial.

Can anyone site other examples of when a state (or even federal) government has retro-actively applied new laws to over ride previous laws or convictions?

I mean, that would be like changing a DUI to BAC limit of .06 and then going back X years to apply the new law to all people who blew a .07.

You are not being sentenced to anything additional. The DMV cannot sentence you to anything ~ they are an administrative branch of government.

[FlyingRon]

Originally Posted by rolinger

The fact remains a person was convicted of a crime and was sentenced. The law later changed and allows the state to go back and increase that person's sentencing - without further trial.

No, it doesn't change the sentencing. Your sentencing for the first case stands. They just increased the penalty for SUBSEQUENT DUI. If they passed the law AFTER you got your second DUI and sentenced you under the new law, then you'd have an argument for ex post facto, but that window is long gone (and they write the laws so that they don't go into effect immediately anyhow).

You're wrong anyhow. The DUI NEVER comes off your records. Not in seven years, not in ten. The only thing that changed was the penalty for subsequent DUI convictions has a longer lookback to determine if it was a first offense or not.

[Stevef]

Originally Posted by rolinger

Can anyone site other examples of when a state (or even federal) government has retro-actively applied new laws to over ride previous laws or convictions?

Sex offender registration comes to mind.

If you don't like the law, write your legislator.

[paguy88]

priviledge in this state ~ IT IS NOT A RIGHT

That is not eaxactly true. You enter into a contract of sorts with the DMV who you pay for a DL every so many years. It's a peronal property stake this was supported by a supreme court ruling. That's why the DMV has administrative hearings.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by paguy88

That is not eaxactly true. You enter into a contract of sorts with the DMV who you pay for a DL every so many years. It's a peronal property stake this was supported by a supreme court ruling. That's why the DMV has administrative hearings.

One does not have the "right" to drive...

[paguy88]

Originally Posted by Zigner

One does not have the "right" to drive...

what you are doing is merly playing with words.

I could ask were do we have a right and insert anything you wish?

the governemt does not spell out ever RIGHT we have,but we do thigns anythings anyway.

That said, I stand by my statement. you can lose your DL, I never questioned that simply saying it is proven in court to be more than a privlage since you pay for it and have a stake in it. Shot I could do something at my gym and get my membership revoked.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by paguy88

what you are doing is merly playing with words.

I could ask were do we have a right and insert anything you wish?

the governemt does not spell out ever RIGHT we have,but we do thigns anythings anyway.

That said, I stand by my statement. you can lose your DL, I never questioned that simply saying it is proven in court to be more than a privlage since you pay for it and have a stake in it. Shot I could do something at my gym and get my membership revoked.

Let's look at your SC ruling...cite?

[paguy88]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Let's look at your SC ruling...cite?

In Bell v Burson (402 U.S. 535)

basically says we don't have a right to drive, however once the state issues you a DL. The person has a property right to it. it's a bit more than a privlage.. and can not be taken away with out some type of due process. that's why you have a adimin hearing.

again I never said driving is a right.. however it is more involved than any blanket statement.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by rolinger

Regardless. This doesn't necessarily have to do with driving and has more to do with retro-actively applying new laws to old convinctions. Since a DUI is a criminal conviction one can swap out DUI with Battery, or Grand Theft or Burglary - anything else for that matter.

The fact remains a person was convicted of a crime and was sentenced. The law later changed and allows the state to go back and increase that person's sentencing - without further trial.

Can anyone site other examples of when a state (or even federal) government has retro-actively applied new laws to over ride previous laws or convictions?

I mean, that would be like changing a DUI to BAC limit of .06 and then going back X years to apply the new law to all people who blew a .07.

The ONLY way the lookback period becomes an issue is when you commit a NEW DUI. If you follow the law, then it is not a problem.

Priors have had effects on sentencing for many years ... the Three Strikes law also made crimes committed many years before the law was passed eligible as strikes for new offenses. And they continue to change sex offender registration requirements.

So, you are simply out of luck if you want to fight the 10 year priorable offenses. But, you are free to lobby the legislature forf a fix if you wish.

Good luck.

- Carl

[BigMistakeFl]

Not only do we pay for the license, we also pay for all the roads and highways. I think driving is a right, but one for which we must be qualified and licensed to do. Because of the dangers of driving, that right can be revoked when we screw up to make it safe for others.

(I'm putting on my flame-retardant long johns now. Ow.... asbestos is itchy!)