DUI or Not?

[NuGunner]

40300.5. In addition to the authority to make an arrest without a
warrant pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 836
of the Penal Code, a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a
person when the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the
person had been driving while under the influence of an alcoholic
beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic
beverage and any drug when any of the following exists:
(a) The person is involved in a traffic accident.
(b) The person is observed in or about a vehicle that is
obstructing a roadway.
(c) The person will not be apprehended unless immediately
arrested.
(d) The person may cause injury to himself or herself or damage
property unless immediately arrested.
(e) The person may destroy or conceal evidence of the crime unless
immediately arrested.


40300.6. Section 40300.5 shall be liberally interpreted to further
safe roads and the control of driving while under the influence of an
alcoholic beverage or any drug in order to permit arrests to be made
pursuant to that section within a reasonable time and distance away
from the scene of a traffic accident.
The enactment of this section during the 1985-86 Regular Session
of the Legislature does not constitute a change in, but is
declaratory of, the existing law.


Here are the related sections. Note in 40300.6 CVC states "shall be liberally interpreted to further safe roads." This would not be difficult to articulate in such a scenario.

[mxadam579]

If he would have got in on the passanger side i think he would be ssafe

[Ron-Solo]

yeah, they have 48 hours to charge from when he is arrested. you can call the court house and see what they have. It will be one of 3, yes, no, pending further investigation. if it's the 3rd, they may be waiting for something.

To clarify, the 48 hours only applies if he is still in custody. If he made bail, cited out, or released OR, the 48 hours does not apply. The Statute of Limitations is one year.

[Ron-Solo]

If he would have got in on the passanger side i think he would be ssafe

I agree, but someone barfed there.

[Falconis]

To clarify, the 48 hours only applies if he is still in custody. If he made bail, cited out, or released OR, the 48 hours does not apply. The Statute of Limitations is one year.

ohh yeah that thing. sorry, my job was to just dump them off after arresting

seriously, Ron is right.

[mrboma]

Thanks Ron and Squid for the heads up. I will be reading the report today to get the arresting officers side of the story.
Everyone's help is appreciated.
Regards,
Mike

[barca101]

I"m a bailiff in court and I've heard many funny and not so funny similar cases like the OP's friend. I've seen many defendants found guilty for CVC 23152 even if their car is parked and the car not moving.
I say "don't put yourself into these kinds of situation!" Call a cab.

[Armed24-7]

I might not even lawyer up yet...get a copy of the arrest report first.

Check those facts against what your buddy remembers, and the cell phone text evidence.

Wait and see what happens at the first court appearance. If they are going to proceed with a DUI or wet reckless at that point just plead not guilty and ask for time to get a lawyer.

They may just drop it based on what you posted...why give an atty $$$ for that?

Sorry, but that is very poor advice. This guy asking for an opinion from a LEO. What Ron Solo said was blunt, but accurate. A good DUI lawyer can be a real pain for police officers,but maybe not so much CHP. Nobody should try to play lawyer. I have been a LEO for 23 years and counting. I have generally found that people who think they know the law are usually wrong or misguided. People who defend themselves in court are fools.

People who are not a LEO shouldn't be trying to answer his question.

[Turbinator]

And this thread is pretty much done. Thanks, all.

Turby