Underage DUI. Advice ?

[linosiongco]

Hey, I just got arrested for a DUI last week in Southern California. We were only pulled over because my passenger threw a bottle out the window. The cop even stated that we weren't swerving or breaking any traffic laws. I passed the sobriety test, and the officer knew I was able to drive perfectly. He told me if I blew in a 0.04 or less he would let me go. I blew in a 0.05 and had to stay in jail overnight. I am 18 years old. I was wondering if I should try and fight the case. Any advice?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[musicman654321]

I believe that there is a zero limit for this, since you are under 21 ... correct me if I am incorrect?

He had the littering as a reason for stopping you.

Loss of license for a year?

I don't see how you can fight the charge .. maybe try to get it lowered to something else but most time with drinking they don't do this

Contact an attny for further, more expert, advice.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

What code section(s) were you cited for?

I passed the sobriety test

How do you know that you "passed"?

I blew in a 0.05... I am 18 years old.

Oooops!

Vehicle code Section 23136.

(a) Notwithstanding Sections 23152 and 23153, it is unlawful for a person under the age of 21 years who has a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater, as measured by a preliminary alcohol screening test or other chemical test, to drive a vehicle. However, this section shall not be a bar to prosecution under Section 23152 or 23153 or any other provision of law.

(b) A person shall be found to be in violation of subdivision (a) if the person was, at the time of driving, under the age of 21 years, and the trier of fact finds that the person had consumed an alcoholic beverage and was driving a vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater, as measured by a preliminary alcohol screening test or other chemical test.
(c)

(1) Any person under the age of 21 years who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to a preliminary alcohol screening test or other chemical test for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol in the person, if lawfully detained for an alleged violation of subdivision (a).

(2) The testing shall be incidental to a lawful detention and administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable cause to believe the person was driving a motor vehicle in violation of subdivision (a).

(3) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, a preliminary alcohol screening test or other chemical test as requested will result in the suspension or revocation of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of one year to three years, as provided in Section 13353.1.​

​

​

You should be talking to an attorney!

 

[dmcc10880]

Well, you definitely need a good DUI lawyer. DUI is one thing, DUI under age is a completely different animal.

With a good atty and a lot of luck you might be able to get the charge down to
Minor in Consumption or Minor in Possession- but that's not great either.

Fact is, .04 is still illegal if you're under 21. A less charge is a heck of a lot better than the DUI though, but it will cost you some $$$ and then more $$$ with fines, etc..

 

[linosiongco]

Code 23152 and Code 23140.
I went through each test and my officer told me I was doing completely fine. Also, I was not buzzed or drunk at all and knew what I was doing at the moment. That is why he told me, "I can tell you're not drop down drunk and that you can drive home. So, here's the deal. If you blow in 0.4 or less, I will let you go."
Considering there is a zero tolerance policy I was not sure if a lawyer would even help me or not.

 

[dmcc10880]

Code 23152 and Code 23140.
I went through each test and my officer told me I was doing completely fine. Also, I was not buzzed or drunk at all and knew what I was doing at the moment. That is why he told me, "I can tell you're not drop down drunk and that you can drive home. So, here's the deal. If you blow in 0.4 or less, I will let you go."
Considering there is a zero tolerance policy I was not sure if a lawyer would even help me or not.

Do yourself the only favor you can do and that is speak with a DUI attorney.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Here's a link to 23152: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23152.htm
And here's a link to 23140: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23140.htm

I was not buzzed or drunk at all and knew what I was doing at the moment.

You keep that attitude and you'll have quite a few of these surprises to deal with in your future!

Talk to an attorney!

 

[CdwJava]

Hey, I just got arrested for a DUI last week in Southern California. We were only pulled over because my passenger threw a bottle out the window.

That would appear to make the stop (detention) lawful.

The cop even stated that we weren't swerving or breaking any traffic laws.

Not required for a detention.

I passed the sobriety test, and the officer knew I was able to drive perfectly.

Clearly you did not "pass."

Code 23152 and Code 23140.
I went through each test and my officer told me I was doing completely fine.

Note: This is common ... we don't tend to laugh, point fingers and tell you that you are fouling up as that tends to get you to stop cooperating.

Also, I was not buzzed or drunk at all and knew what I was doing at the moment.

The first thing to go when a person is impaired is their judgment. You may not have felt you were impaired, but apparently the officer felt you were. Whether that can be supported at trial will depend on the officer's articulation of the elements of DUI and his training and experience.

That is why he told me, "I can tell you're not drop down drunk and that you can drive home. So, here's the deal. If you blow in 0.4 or less, I will let you go."
Considering there is a zero tolerance policy I was not sure if a lawyer would even help me or not.

If the officer said that, he was a moron.

Consult legal counsel. Chances are you will be able to walk away from this with a conviction for 23140 which is still a DUI related offense, but not quite as bad as 231452(a).

 

[linosiongco]

I don't think my officer felt that I was impaired while driving. At the station, I asked him what was the point of doing the sobriety test if he took me in anyways. He did not tell me that I did poorly. He told me its mainly procedure and that if anything it is for my BENEFIT because it will be on the police report.

I noticed that everyone is saying to get an attorney. Will they really be worth the money to help me? According to CdwJava, he makes it sound as if there's really no point since it was a lawful stop and I did have alcohol in my system under the age of 21.

 

[dmcc10880]

I don't think my officer felt that I was impaired while driving. At the station, I asked him what was the point of doing the sobriety test if he took me in anyways. He did not tell me that I did poorly. He told me its mainly procedure and that if anything it is for my BENEFIT because it will be on the police report.

I noticed that everyone is saying to get an attorney. Will they really be worth the money to help me? According to CdwJava, he makes it sound as if there's really no point since it was a lawful stop and I did have alcohol in my system under the age of 21.

Do you think the cop might have lied to you into cooperating to take the breath test? You know the police never lie.

Regardless, they can. Take CDW's advice. And I think you're not by insisting that you don't need a lawyer. Your words, "what's the point?" The point is a conviction of a 23140 is better than the alternative in many ways.

Do your self a favor and get a lawyer.

 

[>Charlotte<]

I noticed that everyone is saying to get an attorney. Will they really be worth the money to help me? According to CdwJava, he makes it sound as if there's really no point since it was a lawful stop and I did have alcohol in my system under the age of 21.

A lawyer can do more than just get you completely off the hook. A lawyer can negotiate a less serious charge, or help to minimize your sentence.

 

[linosiongco]

I do not think the lawyer lied to me to cooperate into taking a breath test. I know that you are allowed to refuse the breathalyzer. However, you are not allowed to refuse the one at the station. I was taken to the station, and there was no point in lying to me to take the breath test. If i did not, it would have been refusal. I will get a free consultation and see what can be done. thank you.

 

[dmcc10880]

I do not think the lawyer lied to me to cooperate into taking a breath test. I know that you are allowed to refuse the breathalyzer. However, you are not allowed to refuse the one at the station. I was taken to the station, and there was no point in lying to me to take the breath test. If i did not, it would have been refusal. I will get a free consultation and see what can be done. thank you.

Well, he got the job done quicker in the field. Who knows if your BAC was going up or down at the time? If say, when you finally took a breath test at the station, depending on the time of your last drink, it could have gone down to 0.0.

Wait until you see the police report and subsequently when you go to court. Your "friend" the policeman will be testifying AGAINST you.

 

[CdwJava]

As a note, if you are under 21 you cannot refuse even the field PBT in CA. For them to get a good DUI for being over the per se limit (23152(b)) the station device would often be required.

 

[linosiongco]

Still looking for advice. So, I had just recently spoke to two separate attorneys. One of the attorneys told me he's not too worried about the court and can probably reduce it down to an infraction. He also told me he doesn't feel it was a proper reason to stop me. The officer was parked at a gas station to my left when he heard the glass break. My passenger tossed it out the right window. It would be impossible for the officer to have seen the bottle coming outside my car. He even asked me, "Which one is going to get in trouble for throwing the bottle?" I responded with "Are you sure something was tossed outside my vehicle?" He said, "Are you calling me a liar?" He never admitted to seeing it. He obviously didn't see which window it was thrown out of. He didn't see if a hand was sticking outside the left window or right. He would know who threw the bottle if he was in clear visible contact. The attorney I spoke to would cost $2,000 to hire. If I fight the case with a public defender or even pleaded guilty, I believe the fines would be less than $2,000. My question is what is the point of hiring a personal attorney if I would be saving myself money by pleading guilty or fighting with a PD?