DUI charge Blood test 0.08. Possible outcome

[reformer1]

I regret this for my life and have stopped alcohol from that day. I am 100% sure, there was no valid reason for pulling over. I was arrested and let go after taking the blood sample. Fully co-operated with cops for FST and PAS. The arraingment date is in May. What could be the possible outcome?. (Orange county, CA). My career is at stake.. Please advice. This is first DUI (to be honest first time pulled over since 15 years... first ever encounter with law enforcement.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Assuming this is your first offense.

https://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/california-first-offense-dui.htm

 

[reformer1]

Assuming this is your first offense.

https://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/california-first-offense-dui.htm

Yes. first ever...

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Read the link I posted. If you have any questions head back and ask them.

One bit of advice I'll give now is hire a lawyer.

 

[reformer1]

Read the link I posted. If you have any questions head back and ask them.

One bit of advice I'll give now is hire a lawyer.

I know the general rules. What could be possible outcome? Any experiences of plea bargains? If I go to trail how long it may take...
I will for sure hire an attorney.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

The possible outcome is the maximum sentence in criminal and administrative penalties. Both of which are listed in the link.

What plea bargains your lawyer can work out will vary by jurisdiction and your lawyer will be able to help you there.

 

[reformer1]

The possible outcome is the maximum sentence in criminal and administrative penalties. Both of which are listed in the link.

What plea bargains your lawyer can work out will vary by jurisdiction and your lawyer will be able to help you there.

thank you. How will the test margin of error come into picture here? Its unfair when everyone knows there is some error margin in scientific laboratory tests. I know it can swing either ways... but for justice, it should benefit the defendant. Are are there cases where error margins are considered when it is exactly 0.08?

 

[Taxing Matters]

thank you. How will the test margin of error come into picture here? Its unfair when everyone knows there is some error margin in scientific laboratory tests. I know it can swing either ways... but for justice, it should benefit the defendant. Are are there cases where error margins are considered when it is exactly 0.08?

Bear in mind that most states, including California, have two parts to their DUI laws. The first is that the law makes it a crime to operate a vehicle with a BAC of .08 or more (and in Utah, it is a BAC of .05 or more). That's the part that everyone seems to know. With a reading of exactly .08 you certainly can try to argue reasonable doubt based on the potential margin of error in the test to avoid conviction under this part of the DUI law.

The other part is that the law makes it illegal to operate a vehicle while you are impaired by alcohol or drugs. It is possible to be impaired with a BAC less than .08. What this means is that if the state can prove impairment then it won't matter if the test was slightly off and your real BAC might have been below .08. This is why cops do things like the FSTs. Those tests help them get evidence of impairment. While the implied consent law does require that you consent to the breath or blood test or face sanctions for the refusal, there is no such sanction for refusal to do the FSTs. As a result I would not do the FST if the cop asked for that. And I advise people in my state (which is not California) not to do them. There is little chance it will help you; there is a good chance it will hurt you. I'd be surprised if DUI lawyers in California would recommend their clients consent to the FSTs either.

So you'll need to see a lawyer and have him/her review all the evidence the state has against you and advise you as to how strong the state's case is and what defenses you may have available. This is not something you want to try to do on your own. The possible outcomes could be anything from dismissal/acquittal on the charges up to conviction with sentence to the maximum penalty that the law provides. No way I could hazard a guess on the information available here what the most likely outcome would be. That's what your lawyer will do for you.

 

[reformer1]

Bear in mind that most states, including California, have two parts to their DUI laws. The first is that the law makes it a crime to operate a vehicle with a BAC of .08 or more (and in Utah, it is a BAC of .05 or more). That's the part that everyone seems to know. With a reading of exactly .08 you certainly can try to argue reasonable doubt based on the potential margin of error in the test to avoid conviction under this part of the DUI law.

The other part is that the law makes it illegal to operate a vehicle while you are impaired by alcohol or drugs. It is possible to impaired with a BAC less than .08. What this means is that if the state can prove impairment then it won't matter if the test was slightly off and your real BAC might have been below .08. This is why cops do things like the FSTs. Those tests help them get evidence of impairment. While the implied consent law does require that you consent to the breath or blood test or face sanctions for the failure to refuse, there is no such sanction for refusal to do the FSTs. As a result I would not do the FST if the cop asked for that. And I advise people in my state (which is not California) not to do them. There is little chance it will help you; there is a good chance it will hurt you. I'd be surprised if DUI lawyers in California would recommend their clients consent to the FSTs either.

So you'll need to see a lawyer and have him/her review all the evidence the state has against you and advise you as to how strong the state's case is and what defenses you may have available. This is not something you want to try to do on your own. The possible outcomes could be anything from dismissal/acquittal on the charges up to conviction with sentence to the maximum penalty that the law provides. No way I could hazard a guess on the information available here what the most likely outcome would be. That's what your lawyer will do for you.

thanks a lot for your inputs. much appreciated.

 

[HighwayMan]

So you're really, really sorry but suddenly it's unfair and you're looking for a technicality to get off on. I see.

This matter is best discussed with your retained legal counsel.

 

[FlyingRon]

.08 as TM says, it the point where the state doesn't have to show evidence of intoxication, you're assumed to be intoxicated. There doesn't need to be any quibbling on precision as it's already implicit in them setting that bar.

Note, there's a third component. Many states, especially California, levy an independent adminstrative action for violating the per se limit. You've got ten days to protest that and it makes no difference if you ultimately beat the criminal charge (nor does it matter on the criminal charge if you beat the administrative sanctions).

 

[RJR]

I regret this for my life and have stopped alcohol from that day. I am 100% sure, there was no valid reason for pulling over.

You can not be 100% sure the officer had no reason to pull you over. Either a Court appointed Attorney or a hired one can analyze that. Either the Seizure was reasonable or it wasn't?