You probably know that if you are over the age of 21, it is illegal to drive with a blood alcohol level over .08%. You may even be aware of your right to refuse to take the road side breathalyzer test (referred to as a preliminary alcohol screening, or PAS test) if you have not been placed under arrest. (Remember, if you are placed under arrest, you MUST submit to a chemical test, either of your blood or breath.)
But it’s a whole different ball game if you are under 21.
For starters, those who may not legally drink in California also do not have the right to refuse the PAS test. The Vehicle Code specifically provides that any person under the age of 21 who has been legally stopped has given consent to any chemical or screening test to determine BAC. If a person refuses to take the test, his or her license will automatically be suspended for a minimum of year – even if the person is stone cold sober. If the driver does not yet have a license, then it will result in a one year delay in receiving driving privileges.
California exercises a zero tolerance law for underage drivers behind the wheel. Registering a .01% BAC will result in a violation of V.C. 23136. Upon a finding an underage driver has violated the zero tolerance standard, by way of a DMV hearing or a conviction in court, the DMV will automatically impose a one year license suspension.
In addition to the zero tolerance law, an underage driver with a BAC higher than .05% may also be charged with a criminal offense under V.C. 23140. This charge is only used with an underage driver with a BAC between .05% and .07%, because if the driver has a BAC of .08% or higher, he or she would generally be charged with a regular DUI, just like an adult. This is a criminal charge, but it is only an infraction. This means you cannot receive any jail sentence. Any conviction for VC 23140 will result in a one year license suspension, various fines, and will require you to attend a three month alcohol program before your license can be reinstated.
Finally, any person under the age of 21 can still be charged with a DUI under V.C. 23152 just like an adult. Further, the zero tolerance violation will be added to the DUI charge, resulting in the same penalties an adult would face (several thousand dollars in fines, probation, potential jail time, mandatory alcohol education program) in addition to the one year license suspension.
Bottom line, it is extremely risky to drink and drive period, and penalties are much steeper for those under 21. If you have been arrested for underage and have been arrested for DUI, you should contact an attorney immediately. You have exactly ten days from your arrest to contact the DMV to challenge your license suspension. Contact criminal defense attorney Scott R. Ball today for a free and confidential evaluation of your case.
Showing posts with label Civil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil. Show all posts
1/15/10
The Difference Between Criminal and Civil Trials
When a person commits an act that is both illegal and causes financial harm to another, that person potentially exposes his or herself to both criminal and civil liability. This can result in two separate and distinct trials, which can have surprisingly different results.
The most famous case of dual criminal and civil trials happened in the mid ‘90s when O.J. Simpson was accused of murder. After O.J. was found not guilty at his criminal trial, the families of the victims brought suit in civil court alleging O.J. was liable for the wrongful death of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Despite the fact the jury in the criminal case returned a not guilty verdict, the jury in the civil case found O.J. liable for the deaths of the victims and ordered a payment of millions of dollars to the families.
Why the different result? Well, although both cases dealt with the same issue (did O.J. kill Simpson and Goldman?) there is a different standard of proof in criminal and civil trials. To be guilty of a criminal charge, the prosecution must show “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant committed the act. This is the highest standard of proof in our legal system. However to be found liable in a civil suit, the plaintiff need only show a “preponderance of the evidence.” This means it is more likely than not that the defendant committed the alleged act. This is a much lower standard of proof. Therefore, although O.J.’s legal team was able to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the criminal jury over whether he committed the murder, they were unable to convince the civil jury that it was more likely than not that he was not involved in the victim’s deaths.
As a result of the civil trial, O.J. was found liable financially for the deaths of Simpson and Goldman. Although he did not lose his freedom, he was ordered to make the families whole for the loss in the form of a payment, determined by the jury, of $33.5 million.
For almost any crime that involves a victim, there exists the possibility of an additional civil suit being brought as well. However, the vast majority of the time no civil suit is ever filed. There are several reasons for this. For one, punishment for many crimes include automatic restitution where a defendant found guilty must pay the victim for his or her loss. The main reason civil suits are uncommon, however, is the fact that most defendants simply don’t have the enough wealth to make a costly civil suit worthwhile.
If you have been charged with a crime, it is important to realize the possibility of a civil suit being brought against you, even if the criminal charges are dismissed or you are found not guilty at trial. Contact the Law Offices of Scott R. Ball for a confidential and free evaluation of your case.
The most famous case of dual criminal and civil trials happened in the mid ‘90s when O.J. Simpson was accused of murder. After O.J. was found not guilty at his criminal trial, the families of the victims brought suit in civil court alleging O.J. was liable for the wrongful death of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Despite the fact the jury in the criminal case returned a not guilty verdict, the jury in the civil case found O.J. liable for the deaths of the victims and ordered a payment of millions of dollars to the families.
Why the different result? Well, although both cases dealt with the same issue (did O.J. kill Simpson and Goldman?) there is a different standard of proof in criminal and civil trials. To be guilty of a criminal charge, the prosecution must show “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant committed the act. This is the highest standard of proof in our legal system. However to be found liable in a civil suit, the plaintiff need only show a “preponderance of the evidence.” This means it is more likely than not that the defendant committed the alleged act. This is a much lower standard of proof. Therefore, although O.J.’s legal team was able to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the criminal jury over whether he committed the murder, they were unable to convince the civil jury that it was more likely than not that he was not involved in the victim’s deaths.
As a result of the civil trial, O.J. was found liable financially for the deaths of Simpson and Goldman. Although he did not lose his freedom, he was ordered to make the families whole for the loss in the form of a payment, determined by the jury, of $33.5 million.
For almost any crime that involves a victim, there exists the possibility of an additional civil suit being brought as well. However, the vast majority of the time no civil suit is ever filed. There are several reasons for this. For one, punishment for many crimes include automatic restitution where a defendant found guilty must pay the victim for his or her loss. The main reason civil suits are uncommon, however, is the fact that most defendants simply don’t have the enough wealth to make a costly civil suit worthwhile.
If you have been charged with a crime, it is important to realize the possibility of a civil suit being brought against you, even if the criminal charges are dismissed or you are found not guilty at trial. Contact the Law Offices of Scott R. Ball for a confidential and free evaluation of your case.
7/7/09
Civil Compromises Lead to Dismissal of Criminal Charges
If you have been arrested on criminal charges dealing with damage to another person’s property, it is possible that you may be able to have those criminal charges dismissed through a civil compromise. A civil compromise is available when an offense charged involves damage for which the victim may seek a civil remedy (i.e. a civil suit for damages) and the victim agrees to drop the charges in exchange for payment for the damages. For example, if you are charged with a hit and run for backing into another vehicle, you may be able to pay for the repairs to the victim’s vehicle in exchange for the criminal charges against you being dismissed.
For a court to order a civil compromise, it is NOT necessary for the prosecution to agree to this disposition. As long as the case at hand falls within the statutory guidelines, a civil compromise is appropriate. This outcome is often favorable to both the defendant charged with committing the crime and the victim. The former receives no conviction and resulting criminal record while the latter is fully compensated for his or her loss.
There are several limitations to when a court may order a civil compromise. If the crime committed by the defendant was against a peace officer, or committed riotously or with felonious intent, a civil compromise will not be available. Further, it will not be available when the crime was committed against any family or household member, or against a child or an elder. Many of these definitions, however, are subject to interpretation. A skilled attorney with experience in negotiating civil compromises can successfully argue that a case is eligible for this sort of favorable disposition.
If you have been arrested for a crime and believe you may fit the above criteria to be eligible for a civil compromise, you should contact the Law Offices of Scott R. Ball today. Making a victim whole by compensating them for their damages can lead to the complete dismissal of any criminal charges, leaving all parties satisfied with the outcome.
For a court to order a civil compromise, it is NOT necessary for the prosecution to agree to this disposition. As long as the case at hand falls within the statutory guidelines, a civil compromise is appropriate. This outcome is often favorable to both the defendant charged with committing the crime and the victim. The former receives no conviction and resulting criminal record while the latter is fully compensated for his or her loss.
There are several limitations to when a court may order a civil compromise. If the crime committed by the defendant was against a peace officer, or committed riotously or with felonious intent, a civil compromise will not be available. Further, it will not be available when the crime was committed against any family or household member, or against a child or an elder. Many of these definitions, however, are subject to interpretation. A skilled attorney with experience in negotiating civil compromises can successfully argue that a case is eligible for this sort of favorable disposition.
If you have been arrested for a crime and believe you may fit the above criteria to be eligible for a civil compromise, you should contact the Law Offices of Scott R. Ball today. Making a victim whole by compensating them for their damages can lead to the complete dismissal of any criminal charges, leaving all parties satisfied with the outcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
