California's prescription drug monitoring program has existed since 1939 and went online in 1998. Physicians can use the system to see whether their patients have filled their prescriptions in the state. The drug tracking system can also help determine whether a patient is trying to find additional pain pills beyond an initial prescription for pain killers.
Last year, California Gov. Jerry Brown eliminated the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement which managed the prescription drug monitoring program for budget reasons. Today the system, with 200 million entries, is managed by one person and relies on grants from non-state sources as other states across the country expand their prescription drug monitoring programs.
The funding issue for California's prescription drug monitoring program also comes at a time when sales of painkillers continue to rise skyward. Figures from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration show substantial increases in the distribution of oxycodone over the last decade, and last year pharmacies dispensed 69 tons of oxycodone and 42 tons of hydrocodone.
]]> The sale of painkillers is partly driven by an aging U.S. population, a greater willingness among doctors to treat pain and users who become addicted and doctor shop to sustain their source of prescription drugs.The growth in demand of painkillers has exposed the shortcomings in state drug monitoring programs. Patients who are addicted and flagged by one state's system can often obtain painkillers in another state because state monitoring systems are not linked together. There is also no federal monitoring program.
Source: wbur.org, "Calif.'s Prescription-Drug Monitoring System Feels Pain From Budget Cuts," Sarah Varney, April 10, 2012
]]>Although the sale of medical marijuana has been legal in California since 1996, the California marijuana law sits in opposition to federal law regulating the sale of marijuana. The legal conundrum puts medical marijuana sellers in between a rock and a hard place. Marijuana sales under federal law are illegal and lately U.S. attorneys in California are stepping up enforcement of the federal law.
Recently federal authorities have been threatening marijuana dispensaries in California that are located within 1,000 feet of a school with legal action and even drug charges. Dispensaries in proximity to schools in San Francisco, Berkeley and Sacramento have received letters from U.S. attorney offices. The letters explain that if the owners of the dispensaries do not close their operations they face seizure of property and up to 40 years in federal prison.
]]> Many dispensary owners who have received the letters have chosen to close their businesses rather than face federal prosecution, and some owners who have closed down have given the federal government's strategy a nickname, the 44-cent policy. For the price of a postage stamp, federal authorities convince dispensary owners in proximity to schools to close their businesses without due process. Many dispensary owners like other business owners worked with city planners to open their businesses and spent thousands of dollars to setup their businesses.So far, nine out of San Francisco's 27 dispensaries have been closed because of the policy. Some dispensary owners question the purpose of the policy. They say in some school areas where their businesses are not allowed to operate strip clubs, porn shops and liquor and tobacco stores continue to prosper.
Source: bellinghamherald.com, "San Francisco Marijuana Shop Crackdown is About Locations," Peter Hecht, April 16, 2012
]]>In 2010, the number of women who received a DUI charge increased 36 percent from 2001 and DUI charges for men decreased 10 percent over that same period.
]]> The latest information points to a number of potential reasons for the change including:Together with strict BAC requirements, these factors seemingly point to the increase in DUI arrests among women over the last decade.
It remains to be seen whether or not women will ever surpass men in DUI charges in California and elsewhere around the country. However, everyone-male and female-should understand that the penalties both direct and indirect that result from DUI can be harsh.
Source: http://westorlandonews.com/2012/01/30/aaa-more-women-driving-drunk/
]]>Generally, when a suspect is booked for a California drunk driving offense, a few processes take place:
A suspect, however, will usually be able to get out of jail and obtain what's known as "pre-arraignment release." This is done either through bail or "own recognizance" release.
]]> Release Via BailGetting of jail via bail means a suspect pays money to be released generally on the condition that he or she agrees to appear for all future court appearances that relate to the alleged crime. If the suspect doesn't have enough money to pay the full bail amount, he or she may be able to get a "bond" through a bondsman or bond agency.
In a bond agreement, the bondsman or agency pledges to pay the full amount of bail for the suspect in exchange for a fee or posting of collateral.
Not all suspects, however, will be offered bail during the booking process. In some instances, a judge will decide whether a suspect can be released on bail and how much. This usually happens at a future date.
Sometimes, bail can be avoided altogether because the suspect is allowed to be released on his or her "own recognizance." This simply means the suspect promises to appear for his or her future court appearances. Also known as O.R., the law however limits when this method of release can be used.
It's important to note that procedures and processes can vary among California police stations and courts. Speaking with an experienced California DUI attorney as soon as possible is advised.
]]>Irresponsible drinking can lead to charges for driving while intoxicated, hospitalization for alcohol poisoning, injures and school disciplinary charges. The consequences of an alcohol-related criminal charge can stay with students for years, hindering their ability to get a job or enter graduate studies.
Colleges have long used media campaigns and community-based programs to reach out to students to help them understand the dangers of irresponsible drinking. A new report shows these strategies may be working, at least in California.
]]> New data reveals that alcohol-related misconduct is down at all California State University campuses. Students are reporting less drinking and driving and an increased willingness to seek medical attention for a friend who has had too much to drink. Overall, the study reported reductions in both underage drinking and binge drinking behavior.California is not alone in its efforts to reduce student drinking. The federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act requires colleges and universities receiving federal funds to maintain alcohol and drug prevention programs for students. Schools are required to review the effectiveness of their programs every two years.
These trends are most certainly a good thing. Irresponsible drinking puts lives at risk and can have serious health consequences. Furthermore, students who are caught drinking and driving can face severe penalties.
A person convicted of a DUI first offense in California must spend a minimum of 48 hours in jail. They will also lose their driver license for six months and may face up to $1,800 in fines and court fees. Depending on the severity of the offense, they may also be placed on up to five years of court probation. The penalties for driving while intoxicated increase with each subsequent offense. If a person is injured in connection with a DUI, the drunk driver could face felony charges and may be sent to state prison.
California also has a "zero tolerance" law for underage DUI, meaning that drivers under the age of 21 can be charged with DUI even if their blood alcohol content is well below the legal limit of 0.08.
If you are a student who is facing DUI charges, don't take risks with your future. Contact an experienced California DUI defense attorney who can help you understand your legal options.
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm
]]>The ignition interlock device (IID) is a small device that attaches to the interior of a vehicle. It will not permit the vehicle to start until the driver blows into it. If the device detects alcohol on the driver's breath, the car will not start.
The IID will also check the driver's breath periodically as he or she drives. This is to ensure that the driver is the person who first blew into the device, in addition to checking whether the driver has consumed any alcohol since.
]]> Who Is Eligible for an Ignition Interlock Device?While some California counties participating in a pilot program (Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento and Tulare counties) require all people convicted of DUI to install an IID in their cars, most do not. Using an IID may shorten the time a driver must wait to drive again, however.
Some San Mateo DUI lawyers say that drivers with second or third DUI convictions may be able to shorten their license suspension/revocation period by using an IID. Their last DUI must have occurred July 1, 2010, or later, and they must not have been using drugs at the time.
To obtain a restricted license, a driver must have completed a year of license suspension. The driver must meet other requirements, including properly installing an IID, complying with a drinking driver program and satisfying auto insurance conditions.
The IID must be installed by an authorized installer and the driver will have to show proof of installation to the court.
The installer must recalibrate the IID every 60 days. The installer will also check to see whether the device has been tampered with. If it has, the installer will notify the California Department of Motor Vehicles. The installer will also notify the DMV if the driver fails at least three times to comply with regulations.
Although the requirements for IIDs can seem rigorous, they may allow drivers convicted of California DUI to resume driving. It is important to comply with the regulations to maintain the privilege to drive.
]]>California Assemblyman Michael Allen proposed a bill that would establish uniform regulations for DUI checkpoints across the state. Currently, there is no regulation of DUI checkpoints state-wide. Police have the option of following the guidelines for operating sobriety checkpoints that the California Supreme Court outlined in a 1987 decision, but the police forces do not have to follow them. The bill passed the Assembly in May 2011 and is waiting for a vote in the Senate.
]]> Among the changes in the rules in the bill is to allow those driving without licenses who police stop at DUI checkpoints to park their cars in a safe spot and call someone else to come and pick the vehicles up, rather than have their cars impounded for 30 days as is the current practice. The bill would also require police to give citizens a 48 hour advance warning of when they were going to set up DUI checkpoints and the general area of where the checkpoints are going to be.The bill is an attempt to address the criticism that California's DUI checkpoints target illegal immigrants, who cannot get driver's licenses under California law, more than drunk drivers. The arrest data from Petaluma, CA is illustrative of the entire state: in 2010 approximately 50 percent of the citations or arrests by police at sobriety checkpoints were of drivers without licenses. Of the 506 cars that police pulled over during 2010 at the checkpoints, only 25 resulted in arrests for DUI, while police issued 117 citations for driving without a license. Immigrant rights activists argue that those in the undocumented immigrants run the risk of deportation when they have to appear in court for such citations and that is the real goal of police officers in issuing the tickets.
Critics of the bill say that the notice provision of the bill would defeat the whole purpose of the bill. Those opposed to the bill argue that if people know where the police are going to be stopping drivers looking for those who are intoxicated, they will just take different routes. Some in law enforcement also claim that the DUI checkpoints serve as a valuable public education and deterrent tool, so even though the checkpoints do not net many DUI arrests they still serve a useful function as is.
Police also defend the practice of checking for driver's licenses at DUI checkpoints for safety reasons. Ken Savano, head of Petaluma Police Department's Traffic Unit, noted that drivers with suspended licenses are four times more likely to be involved in an accident and those without licenses are five times more likely to be involved in an accident.
As part of their jobs of keeping the roads safe for all drivers, police need to be able to stop drivers who are driving while intoxicated. However, police should not be able to use public safety as a guise in order to be able to harass certain parts of the population. Having a uniform set of rules for police forced across the state would reduce the risk of DUI checkpoints being abuses.
]]>According to the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, Prop 36 was passed for a number of reasons including to improve public health and safety through the use of approved treatment strategies, preserve jail and prison capacity for violent and serious offenders, and cut taxpayer costs.
]]> However, specifically, the program is only available for first or second offenders convicted of non-violent adult drug crimes involving drug possession. Despite the similar need for alcohol offenders to receive treatment under this program, California drunk-driving convictions are not eligible under Prop 36-but some say they should be.Personal testimonials collected by the California office of the Drug Policy Alliance, reveal that Prop 36 is not only crucial for individuals caught in the spiral of drug addiction, but alcohol addiction as well.
Further, the program is found to save California taxpayers millions. Drug policy experts estimate that California saved at least $275 million in state revenue in just the first year Prop 36 was implemented. Further studies show that wider implementation of the program, to include convictions for alcohol offenses for example, would save the state even more money.
In a time when California's budget woes dominate public policy discussions, smart programs like SACPA deserve commitment and investment. In the future, California legislatives may reconsider proposing a similar law to extend treatment options for alcohol offenders.
]]>In 2000, California enacted Proposition 36 to offer a more successful solution to incarceration. The text of Prop. 36 states: "Non-violent, drug dependent criminal offenders who receive drug treatment are much less likely to abuse drugs and commit future crimes, and are likelier to live healthier, more stable and more productive lives." Additionally, the law was enacted to help better serve the community, save taxpayers money and improve public safety within the state.
]]> Some indicate it has successfully completed all of these initiatives. In the first six years of its existence, more than 70,000 Californians completed treatment programs under Prop. 36. During that same period, the number of California residents sent to jail or prison for drug possession in California dropped by 32 percent. According to the University of California Los Angeles, the state saved $173 million in just the first year Prop 36 was implemented. An additional $2.50 for every taxpayer dollar invested in the program was saved.Generally, individuals convicted of certain drug possession crimes in California are eligible for treatment under Prop 36; however, the law doesn't cover all offenders under this category.
If a person is convicted of drug possession, he or she is ineligible for treatment if he or she has any prior convictions, within the last five years, for serious or violent felonies. (However, these offenders may still be eligible if they have already served their sentence and lived for five years without any new violent crime convictions).
People in California with recent drug possession or use convictions are also ineligible for treatment if they have simultaneous convictions for drug sale, manufacture or any other non-drug crimes.
Parolees convicted of minor drug possession or parolees who violate a drug-related condition of their parole might also be ineligible for treatment under Prop. 36 if the parolee has any prior convictions for serious or violent felonies. And, unlike others involved in Prop. 36, parolees enrolled in treatment programs will be monitored by parole authorities and could face prison time for violating their treatment program.
]]>Proposition 36 (Prop 36), The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, was passed by a majority of California voters in November 2000. At that time, California ranked tenth among states for drug use. Voters recognized that the traditional punishment of jailing simple drug crimes offenders was not working to prevent drug use, and they decided to try something different: treatment.
]]> Due to Prop 36, first-time and second-time offenders convicted for nonviolent drug possession or being under the influence of drugs automatically receive mandated probation with drug treatment instead of being sent to prison. These drug-treatment programs are community based and offer a variety of services that may include:Initially, dedicated funding for Prop 36 rolled into the coffers over the course of five years resulting in a drug treatment trust fund of $600 million. However, the fund was depleted in 2006 after benefiting more than 150,000 individuals. Since then, it has competed with other state priorities for support.
Prop 36 continues to mandate treatment instead of incarceration, but the budget challenges in California make ongoing treatment funding uncertain. Decisions by the legislature in the coming weeks will determine if additional financial support will be granted. Meanwhile, proponents' efforts to secure increased funding for diversion programs remain undaunted.
Source: http://www.nationalfamilies.org/guide/california36-full.html
]]>California citizens, 61 percent to be exact, voted in favor of offering alternative treatment programs for low-level offenders; some say a step in the right direction to getting non-violent offenders out of the prison systems.
However, Proposition 36, unfortunately, doesn't apply to all individuals convicted of drug offenses. Generally, Prop 36 applies to only three types of offenders.
]]> New ConvictionsOffenders that are convicted for drug possession or being under the influence of drugs after July 1, 2000 are eligible. However, offenders cannot be simultaneously convicted of sale, manufacture, or any other non-drug crime at the time of the applicable conviction.
Offenders that are on probation for drug possession or being under the influence of drugs after July 1, 2000 are eligible if they violate a condition of probation that is drug-related.
Offenders that are on parole and violate their parole after July 1, 2000 by committing either a non-violent drug possession offense or an offense that is drug related is eligible for treatment. However, in order for these offenders to be eligible, they must have no prior convictions for a serious or violent felony.
The limitations above are in no way a complete list of qualifications. Consulting with an experienced criminal defense attorney to discuss your particular situation and whether you are eligible for treatment under Proposition 36 is recommended.
]]>Unfortunately, alongside these side effects, there are other indirect consequences that result from "Robo Tripping."
A person driving under the influence of caught syrup can be pulled over in California-if an officer suspects the driver is impaired-and charged with DUI. Drunk-driving charges do not apply to just alcohol or drugs, but any substance, legal or otherwise, that impairs a person's ability to drive.
Because the penalties and consequences of DUI are severe, it's important to speak with an experienced California DUI attorney if you or someone you know is facing this type of charge.
]]>A first-time DUI offender can be subjected to a variety of punishments, including up to six months of jail time. All first time California DUI offenders must complete at least a 48 hour jail stint-although some offenders are allowed to complete work service as a substitute. Mandatory fines and court fees start at $1,000 and can go as high as $1800. First-time offenders lose their license for 6 months and must complete a DUI education program. In addition, some counties require the installation of ignition interlock devices on the vehicles of first-time offenders.
The penalties increase substantially for multiple DUIs. For example, for a second DUI, the fine and court costs can skyrocket to $2,800, the minimum jail time jumps to 96 hours (with a maximum jail sentence of up to a year), an offender's license is revoked for 2 years (although some offenders can qualify for a restricted license after a year), and a far more extensive 18-month DUI school program is required. For DUIs beyond the second, the severity of penalties continues to grow: a fourth DUI can be considered a felony, potentially landing an offender in prison for three years and resulting in the permanent loss of a driver's license.
]]> Variation in Sentences for Drunk Driving in CaliforniaSentences vary based on the factors of individual cases. For example, having children in the vehicle, speeding, or having an extremely high blood alcohol concentration at the time of the offense can all be reasons for an augmented sentence. In addition, the quality of your legal representation plays a huge role in the eventual sentence and the availability of any plea bargains.
If you are facing a drunk-driving charge in California, contacting an experienced DUI attorney is recommended.
]]>Drivers suspected of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs may be pulled over-and not just for erratic driving. According to the Auburn Journal, Police officers pull over cars when they see signs of possible DUI like driving too fast or too slowly, or driving with no headlights or high-beam headlights.
]]> If pulled over, drivers will most likely be asked by the police officer to take a field sobriety test. A field sobriety test in California, however, is not mandatory but if drivers refuse, then the officer can, under the law, force a blood or breath test.Drivers arrested for DUI may be required to post bail in order to get out of custody. At the arraignment, the defendant can choose whether to plead guilty or not guilty. The defendant's attorney may negotiate with the prosecutor to work out a plea deal.
The punishments for a first-time California DUI can include:
Additional consequences of a drunk-driving conviction or plea include:
It's important to note that no one is immune from a DUI charge. Many types of people have been charged with driving under the influence in California. Contacting an experienced DUI lawyer when faced with DUI charges is recommended.
]]>A DUI offender should understand that an arrest for driving under the influence triggers two legal proceedings: criminal and civil.
The criminal proceeding is confined to the actual arrest and criminal penalties such as possible incarceration, probation and its attendant conditions, fines, and alcohol rehab or education classes.
The civil proceeding takes place with the state's Department of Motor Vehicles, which has the power to suspend anyone's license for an alcohol-related driving offense.
If an offender decides to plead guilty or are found guilty in a criminal court of law, the fine for a first DUI offense can range from $400 to $1,300 and, depending on the jurisdiction, jail time of up to 48 hours.
Subsequent DUI offenses will result in longer jail sentences. If a fatality or serious injury occurred as a result of the accident, the offender will be charged with a felony such as vehicular manslaughter. The offender can face several months to a number of years of jail time if convicted and the fine can be several thousand dollars.
Further, many injury victims file personal-injury claims against the offender's insurance. If the at-fault driver's insurance is inadequate or nonexistent, then the offender might be subject to a civil judgment for medical costs, loss of income and benefits, property damage and pain and suffering.
All motorists are required to carry liability insurance. Insurance companies, however, classify a DUI offender as high risk (since about 12 percent of fatal accidents are caused by repeat offenders). Consequently, the premiums these individuals can expect to pay for several years are extremely expensive.
An offender can receive a restricted license for work purposes, but a truck driver or someone who otherwise drives for a living might find his employment terminated, especially if the terms of that employment prohibit a DUI conviction and/or license suspension. Time in court can lead to lost time from work, but an extended incarceration inevitably leads to loss of employment.
Aside from predictable fines, the consequences of a DUI can be considerable.
Source: http://duiconsequences.com/
]]>