Second offense in California

[Silverplum]

Lol, unfortunately I have a baby with him as well, so that's not quite the case. I know. Lay into me. Lol I get it.

Nobody, to my knowledge, wants to "lay into" you.

http://al-anon.alateen.org/.

ETA: Well, perhaps OG.

 

[Ohiogal]

Lol, unfortunately I have a baby with him as well, so that's not quite the case. I know. Lay into me. Lol I get it.

Don't let him watch the child while you are work or you will find that he has had "only a few beers, honey" and he needed to run to the store to get more when he crashed into a pole killing your child. No big deal as he can get a license for work and child needs. Seriously, al-anon.

 

[Ohiogal]

Nobody, to my knowledge, wants to "lay into" you.

http://al-anon.alateen.org/.

Don't want to lay into her. I want her to let him sink on his own. He needs help. And he won't get it so long as he can sell his story to someone.

 

[Silverplum]

Don't want to lay into her. I want her to let him sink on his own. He needs help. And he won't get it so long as he can sell his story to someone.

I know you well enough to know that you actually, honestly want her to get help, and for Dad to get help, and mostly for all the children to be safe.

Donna Quixote, you are. I happen to love that about you.

 

[duidumdum]

Honey, HE has to "figure out the next steps." Not you. It's not your problem: it's his.

http://al-anon.alateen.org/

By that I mean... his ex-wife is being very cordial, probably with me more than him (she hasn't talked to him yet, she's appreciative that I was able to pick their son up and keep him safe until she could pick him up). She is concerned because he has his son every Wednesday and every other weekend. The Wednesday is because she needs him to watch him while she is working, and she is concerned with finding alternative care because she relies on him. I know it's not my problem, but I offered (to her) to help out as much as I can, and I don't want to do her wrong. Again, no, not my problem, but I'm accepting it as partial responsibility just because that's how I am.

 

[TheGeekess]

Actually, you're right. I pulled his plastic belongings baggy with his paperwork in it out of his shorts and it was just those 2 papers, but in his other pocket is a paper with the court date on it and the section he's charged with (73152(A/B) VC is what it says).

He's generally pretty responsible... obviously that doesn't portray here, but he does love his son and it was heartbreaking for him to sit in the cruiser, cuffed and his 6-year old looking out the back window at him, crying. So I hope that is an eye opener.

V C Section 23152 Driving Under Influence of Alcohol or Drugs
Driving Under Influence of Alcohol or Drugs

23152. (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.

(b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.

For purposes of this article and Section 34501.16, percent, by weight, of alcohol in a person's blood is based upon grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.

(c) It is unlawful for any person who is addicted to the use of any drug to drive a vehicle. This subdivision shall not apply to a person who is participating in a narcotic treatment program approved pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 11875) of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

(d) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210.

In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.

(e) This section shall ( )1 remain in effect only until January 1, ( )2 2014, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2014, deletes or extends that date.

( )3

Amended and repealed Sec. 1, Ch. 753, Stats. 2012. Operative January 01, 2013. Repeal operative January 1, 2014.
The 2012 amendment added the italicized material, and at the point(s) indicated, deleted the following:
1. "become operative on "
2. "1992, and shall remain operative until the director determines that federal regulations adopted pursuant to the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (49 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 et seq.) contained in Section 383.51 or 391.15 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations do not require the state to prohibit operation of commercial vehicles when the operator has a concentration of alcohol in his or her blood of 0.04 percent by weight or more."
3. "(f) The director shall submit a notice of the determination under subdivision (e) to the Secretary of State, and this section shall be repealed upon the receipt of that notice by the Secretary of State."

NOTE: The preceding section becomes inoperative on January 1, 2014, at which time the following section becomes operative. The preceding section is repealed January 1, 2014.

23152 (a) It is unlawful for ( )1 a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.

(b) It is unlawful for ( )1 a person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.

For purposes of this article and Section 34501.16, percent, by weight, of alcohol in a person's blood is based upon grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.

(c) It is unlawful for ( )1 a person who is addicted to the use of any drug to drive a vehicle. This subdivision shall not apply to a person who is participating in a narcotic treatment program approved pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 11875) of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

(d) It is unlawful for ( )1 a person who has 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210.

In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.

(e) ( )3 It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any drug to drive a vehicle.

(f) ( )4 It is unlawful for a person who is under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug to drive a vehicle.

(g) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2014.

Amended Sec. 2, Ch. 753, Stats. 2012. Effective January 1, 2014.
The 2012 amendment added the italicized material, and at the point(s) indicated, deleted the following:
1. "any"
2. "or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, "
3. "This section shall become operative on January 1, 1992, and shall remain operative until the director determines that federal regulations adopted pursuant to the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (49 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 et seq.) contained in Section 383.51 or 391.15 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations do not require the state to prohibit operation of commercial vehicles when the operator has a concentration of alcohol in his or her blood of 0.04 percent by weight or more."
4. "The director shall submit a notice of the determination under subdivision (e) to the Secretary of State, and this section shall be repealed upon the receipt of that notice by the Secretary of State."
23152.
Amended Sec. 32, Ch. 455, Stats. 1995. Effective September 5, 1995.
Repealed Sec. 3, Ch. 753, Stats. 2012. Effective January 1, 2013.
The repealed section read as follows: "(a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined
influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.
(b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.
For purposes of this Article and Section 34501.16, percent, by weight, of alcohol in a person's blood is based upon grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.
(c) It is unlawful for any person who is addicted to the use of any drug to drive a vehicle. This subdivision shall not apply to a person who is participating in a narcotic treatment program approved pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 11875) of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(d) This section shall become operative only upon the receipt by the Secretary of State of the notice specified in subdivision (f) of Section 23152, as added by Section 25 of Chapter 1114 of the Statutes of 1989."

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23152.htm

 

[TheGeekess]

V C Section 23217 Legislative Declarations Mandatory Minimum Penalties for Multiple Offenses
Legislative Declarations: Mandatory Minimum Penalties for Multiple Offenses

23217. The Legislature finds and declares that some repeat offenders of the prohibition against driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, when they are addicted or when they have too much alcohol in their systems, may be escaping the intent of the Legislature to punish the offender with progressively greater severity if the offense is repeated one or more times within a 10-year period. This situation may occur when a conviction for a subsequent offense occurs before a conviction is obtained on an earlier offense.

The Legislature further finds and declares that the timing of court proceedings should not permit a person to avoid aggravated mandatory minimum penalties for multiple separate offenses occurring within a 10-year period. It is the intent of the Legislature to provide that a person be subject to enhanced mandatory minimum penalties for multiple offenses within a period of 10 years, regardless of whether the convictions are obtained in the same sequence as the offenses had been committed.

Nothing in this section requires consideration of judgment of conviction in a separate proceeding that is entered after the judgment in the present proceeding, except as it relates to violation of probation.

Nothing in this section or the amendments to Section 23540, 23546, 23550, 23560, 23566, 23622, or 23640 made by Chapter 1205 of the Statutes of 1984 affects the penalty for a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 occurring prior to January 1, 1985.
Amended Sec. 72.5, Ch. 118, Stats. 1998. Effective January 1, 1999. Operative July 1, 1999.
Amended Sec. 11, Ch. 550, Stats. 2004. Effective January 1, 2005.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23217.htm

 

[duidumdum]

That whole if you drink don't drive lesson just went over his head.
You are dealing with someone with a drinking problem -- not everyone has one DUI let alone two. Not everyone feels compelled to get behind the wheel of a car. Not everyone decides to make excuses regarding their stupidity -- it was only three beers, I was only .08%. He could have been impaired at .06% and killed someone. Would that have been better? Oh but he wasn't per se drunk so he could drive... doesn't matter he killed two nuns and a baby.

You are defending him. If you weren't, you would be letting him sink on his own and deal with the consequences on his rather than making excuses -- "he felt fine" -- lovely. So fine he endangered his child. If you have children with him, be prepared for him to feel fine and take them out after drinking two or three or five beers. But that is okay if he doesn't blow over .08%. Perfectly fine.

Well... the letter of the law is .08%, so regardless of personal opinion, if he's below .08%, the law says that he is fine to drive. Why did he do it? Yes, it was stupid. I'm really NOT defending him. I'm aggravated and stressed, he made a stupid mistake that could have been a lot worse. I'm glad that it wasn't worse. But the fact of the matter is, it's happened and it can't be erased. It can only be prevented in the future, and all I really want is to figure out possible scenarios or outcomes so that we can get over the hump and move past it. I do think that he needs to deal with the consequences. I also feel like he should sink on his own. When he called me at 5AM, I seriously wanted to tell him to take a cab. But letting him sink on his own is also going to make things more difficult for me, and it's going to make things more difficult for his little boy, and for his ex-wife. None of US have done anything wrong, and I would like for the rest of us to suffer as little as possible. I'm willing to contribute however I can if it will make our lives more peaceful.

 

[Silverplum]

By that I mean... his ex-wife is being very cordial, probably with me more than him (she hasn't talked to him yet, she's appreciative that I was able to pick their son up and keep him safe until she could pick him up). She is concerned because he has his son every Wednesday and every other weekend. The Wednesday is because she needs him to watch him while she is working, and she is concerned with finding alternative care because she relies on him. I know it's not my problem, but I offered (to her) to help out as much as I can, and I don't want to do her wrong. Again, no, not my problem, but I'm accepting it as partial responsibility just because that's how I am.

http://al-anon.alateen.org/.

 

[duidumdum]

Dayyyum. I can't keep up with you guys. You're too fast for me. Lol

 

[Silverplum]

Well... the letter of the law is .08%, so regardless of personal opinion, if he's below .08%, the law says that he is fine to drive. Why did he do it? Yes, it was stupid. I'm really NOT defending him. I'm aggravated and stressed, he made a stupid mistake that could have been a lot worse. I'm glad that it wasn't worse. But the fact of the matter is, it's happened and it can't be erased. It can only be prevented in the future, and all I really want is to figure out possible scenarios or outcomes so that we can get over the hump and move past it. I do think that he needs to deal with the consequences. I also feel like he should sink on his own. When he called me at 5AM, I seriously wanted to tell him to take a cab. But letting him sink on his own is also going to make things more difficult for me, and it's going to make things more difficult for his little boy, and for his ex-wife. None of US have done anything wrong, and I would like for the rest of us to suffer as little as possible. I'm willing to contribute however I can if it will make our lives more peaceful.

Look at you, trying to take care of everyone. His X, his son with her, his stupid DUI, his stupid problems...none of which are yours.

http://al-anon.alateen.org/.

 

[Silverplum]

Dayyyum. I can't keep up with you guys. You're too fast for me. Lol

You're receiving replies from at least 3 time zones!

 

[TheGeekess]

V C Section 23540 Penalty Second Offense Within Ten Years
Penalty: Second Offense Within Ten Years

23540. (a) If a person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 and the offense occurred within 10 years of a separate violation of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, 23152, or 23153, that resulted in a conviction, that person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 90 days nor more than one year and by a fine of not less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). The person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be suspended by the department pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352. The court shall require the person to surrender the driver’s license to the court in accordance with Section 13550.

(b) Whenever, when considering the circumstances taken as a whole, the court determines that the person punished under this section would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension imposed under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352, the court may disallow the issuance of a restricted driver’s license required under Section 13352.5.

(c) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005.
Added Sec. 17.5, Ch. 551, Stats. 2004. Effective January 1, 2005. Operative September 20, 2005.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11_5/vc23540.htm

 

[duidumdum]

Don't let him watch the child while you are work or you will find that he has had "only a few beers, honey" and he needed to run to the store to get more when he crashed into a pole killing your child. No big deal as he can get a license for work and child needs. Seriously, al-anon.

There is no concern there. He rarely drives with her. He does not drink in the mornings. I work early mornings (typically 5:45AM-2:30PM). I truly don't think he will make this mistake again, but only time will tell. I'm SUPER EXCITED that I have to go all mom-mode on him and make sure that he's not. Really, it's not my place to babysit him. I hope he's willing to help himself so that I don't have to, but only time will tell.

 

[Silverplum]

There is no concern there. He rarely drives with her. He does not drink in the mornings. I work early mornings (typically 5:45AM-2:30PM). I truly don't think he will make this mistake again, but only time will tell. I'm SUPER EXCITED that I have to go all mom-mode on him and make sure that he's not. Really, it's not my place to babysit him. I hope he's willing to help himself so that I don't have to, but only time will tell.

I'll bet you can guess what I would post in response to this.