effery B. was accused of a .27 BAC on a second time DUI resulting from a traffic accident and hit and run. He was also charged with a violation of probation for the 1st DUI. RESULT: The 2nd time DUI was dismissed based on the 6th Amendment and his probation on the 1st DUI was terminated. Eric V. was charged with a .33 BAC on a 3rd time DUI. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing on a Title 17 violation and saved his license from a minimum suspension of 6 months. Results like these are obtainable with a DUI lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Joe B. was charged with a .29 BAC on a 1st time DUI. We filed and heard a motion to suppress under penal code 1538.5. RESULT: The judge ruled in our favor and dismissed the case Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Hass E. was charged with a 2nd time DUI while he was still on probation for his first. The DA alleged that he had a .28 blood BAC, an accident at over 100 mph, and charged him with a VOP. Before trial the DA wanted Mr. E to do 120 of county jail, 90 days of a SCRAM braclet, and a $2000 fine. TRIAL: We started trial and after we excluded some evidence through the Motion in Limine process the DA re-evaluated their case. RESULT: DUI dismiss, Mr. E pled to a wet/reckless, NO jail time, NO scram, NO VOP, and a $800 fine. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. . Daniel S. was charge with a .20% BAC after he had a solo car crash. Based on my highly regarded skills as a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer I was able to get his case DISMISSED IN COURT AND I WON THE DMV HEARING. This was the result of skill and hard work and of course I found a 4th Amendment violation. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Christopher B. was charged with a 3rd time DUI. His 2 priors were in another state. We filed a "Motion to Strike the Priors" asserting that the out of state dui's did not meet the California equivalency test. RESULT: His out of state of priors were stricken from the record, so instead of facing a 3rd time DUI in California, he is now only facing a 1st time DUI. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Angelina T. was charged with a DUI with an alleged BAC of .17 after she had crashed into a police station. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved her license. The court issues was resolved for a no-jail time plea. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Samuel T. was charged with a DUI with an alleged .14 BAC after he was stopped for swerving while exiting the freeway. RESULT: We subpoenaed the dash cam video which helped up win the DMV hearing and we were able to get the entire court case dismissed based on an illegal stop. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Joe M. was charged with a .079 PAS and a .06 blood BAC after he had a solo accident on the freeway. This was a 2nd time DUI. RESULT: The DUI charges were dismissed after he pled guilty to 2 traffic violations. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Wesley C. was accused of a .19 BAC, having a loaded gun in the car and was pulled over for allegedly weaving. RESULT: We filed a 1538.5 motion to suppress. On the day of the hearing we got the DA to dismiss the DUI and gun charge in exchange to a plea of reckless driving under cvc 23103.5. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Melissa W. was charged with a .23 BAC on a 2nd time DUI. We filed a motion challenging the officer's reason for the stop after he alleged she "straddled" the lanes. RESULT: Case Dismissed. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Joel D. was charged with a .18 blood BAC after he had a car accident on the freeway at 2:00 in the morning. Joel had poor field sobriety test and allegedly a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved his license and his ability to get back and forth to work. We showed that the BAC result was ambiguous as to the date of testing and the date of reporting. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. ~~Dennis H: was charged with a .10 BAC after he allegedly failed the field sobriety tests and had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. RESULT: ALL DUI charges dismissed. Dennis plead guilty to a moving traffic violation. We also overturned his loss at the DMV and got his license back. ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Jacob Q: was charged with a DUI after he had a solo car crash. The police arrived and after investigation they arrested Jacob. RESULT: At the DMV hearing I was able to show that the police officer could NOT establish that Jacob drove a vehicle within 3 hours of the blood test. Thus, I saved his license, the increased cost of auto insurance, and the 10 year mark on his driving record. ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Danielle M: was charged with a .18 blood BAC after she was stopped for weaving. After some considerable time and effort we were able to plead it down to a wet/reckless under 23103.5 ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Diana L: was charged with a .10 blood BAC. During the discovery process we found out that the phlebotomist had done 2 blood draws at once and may have mixed up the vials during the labeling process. What was also odd was that our client blew a .06 at the station after the blood draw on a PAS breath unit. RESULT: case reduced to a dry reckless and the dui charges were dismissed. We were also able to overturn the previous loss at the DMV and reinstate her full license. ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Michael T: was charged with a DUI MARIJUANA: RESULT: We filed a motion to suppress the blood result on a 4th Amendment violation of Michael's constitutional rights, we also did extensive discovery for the Gas Chromatograms on the blood test results. We finally got the DUI charges dismissed in exchange to a plea on a "dry reckless". ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Marcus A. was charged with a .15 blood BAC after he had a 3 car accident on the freeway and after he was alleged by the other drivers to have been the cause of the collision. RESULT: We won the DMV because they could not prove the allegations under vehicle code 23152(b) as having the blood test performed within 3 hours of the time of driving. This saved his license and his job. ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Elke C. was charged with a .25 BAC after she alleged drove her car off a small hill into a river bottom. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved her license after we showed that the officer could not prove her blood test was completed within 3 hours of driving. ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Jeffery B. was accused of a .27 BAC on a second time DUI resulting from a traffic accident and hit and run. He was also charged with a violation of probation for the 1st DUI. RESULT: The 2nd time DUI was dismissed based on the 6th Amendment and his probation on the 1st DUI was terminated. This was accomplished by his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer who knew the DUI facts and drunk driving myths. 1. Eric V. was charged with a .33 BAC on a 3rd time DUI. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing on a Title 17 violation and saved his license from a minimum suspension of 6 months. Joe B. was charged with a .29 BAC on a 1st time DUI. We filed and heard a motion to suppress under penal code 1538.5. RESULT: The judge ruled in our favor and dismissed the case. This only could have happen as a result of the hard work from his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Hass E. was charged with a 2nd time DUI while he was still on probation for his first. The DA alleged that he had a .28 blood BAC, an accident at over 100 mph, and charged him with a VOP. Before trial the DA wanted Mr. E to do 120 of county jail, 90 days of a SCRAM braclet, and a $2000 fine. TRIAL: We started trial and after we excluded some evidence through the Motion in Limine process the DA re-evaluated their case. RESULT: DUI dismiss, Mr. E pled to a wet/reckless, NO jail time, NO scram, NO VOP, and a $800 fine. ~~This only could have happen as a result of the hard work from his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Daniel S. was charge with a .20% BAC after he had a solo car crash. Based on my highly regarded skills as a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer I was able to get his case DISMISSED IN COURT AND I WON THE DMV HEARING. This was the result of skill and hard work and of course I found a 4th Amendment violation. Christopher B. was charged with a 3rd time DUI. His 2 priors were in another state. As his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we filed a "Motion to Strike the Priors" asserting that the out of state dui's did not meet the California equivalency test. RESULT: His out of state of priors were stricken from the record, so instead of facing a 3rd time DUI in California, he is now only facing a 1st time DUI. This only could have happen as a result of the hard work from his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer Angelina T. was charged with a DUI with an alleged BAC of .17 after she had crashed into a police station. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved her license. The court issues was resolved for a no-jail time plea. This only could have happen as a result of the hard work from his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer Samuel T. was charged with a DUI with an alleged .14 BAC after he was stopped for swerving while exiting the freeway. RESULT: We subpoenaed the dash cam video which helped up win the DMV hearing and we were able to get the entire court case dismissed based on an illegal stop. Again the results of his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Joe M. was charged with a .079 PAS and a .06 blood BAC after he had a solo accident on the freeway. This was a 2nd time DUI. RESULT: The DUI charges were dismissed after he pled guilty to 2 traffic violations. Another win for the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Wesley C. was accused of a .19 BAC, having a loaded gun in the car and was pulled over for allegedly weaving. RESULT: His San Bernardino DUI Lawyers filed a 1538.5 motion to suppress. On the day of the hearing we got the DA to dismiss the DUI and gun charge in exchange to a plea of reckless driving under cvc 23103.5. One more win from the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Melissa W. was charged with a .23 BAC on a 2nd time DUI. As her San Bernardino DUI Lawyers we filed a motion challenging the officer's reason for the stop after he alleged she "straddled" the lanes. RESULT: Case Dismissed. Another happy client from the hard work of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer Joel D. was charged with a .18 blood BAC after he had a car accident on the freeway at 2:00 in the morning. Joel had poor field sobriety test and allegedly a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. RESULT: As his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we won the DMV hearing and saved his license and his ability to get back and forth to work. We showed that the BAC result was ambiguous as to the date of testing and the date of reporting. San Bernardino DUI Lawyers saved his DMV drivers license. Dennis H: was charged with a .10 BAC after he allegedly failed the field sobriety tests and had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. RESULT: ALL DUI charges dismissed. Dennis plead guilty to a moving traffic violation. We also overturned his loss at the DMV and got his license back. Only the experience from the best dui law firm and the best San Bernardino DUI Lawyers in could have achieved a dismissal like this and to overturn the DMV loss. Jacob Q: was charged with a DUI after he had a solo car crash. The police arrived and after investigation they arrested Jacob. RESULT: At the DMV hearing I was able to show that the police officer could NOT establish that Jacob drove a vehicle within 3 hours of the blood test. Thus, I saved his license, the increased cost of auto insurance, and the 10 year mark on his driving record. More work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Danielle M: was charged with a .18 blood BAC after she was stopped for weaving. After some considerable time and effort San Bernardino DUI Lawyers were able to plead it down to a wet/reckless under 23103.5 Diana L: was charged with a .10 blood BAC. During the discovery process her San Bernardino DUI Lawyers found out that the phlebotomist had done 2 blood draws at once and may have mixed up the vials during the labeling process. What was also odd was that our client blew a .06 at the station after the blood draw on a PAS breath unit. RESULT: case reduced to a dry reckless and the dui charges were dismissed. San Bernardino DUI Lawyers were also able to overturn the previous loss at the DMV and reinstate her full license. Michael T: was charged with a DUI MARIJUANA: RESULT: We filed a motion to suppress the blood result on a 4th Amendment violation of Michael's constitutional rights, we also did extensive discovery for the Gas Chromatograms on the blood test results. We finally got the DUI charges dismissed in exchange to a plea on a "dry reckless". More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Marcus A. was charged with a .15 blood BAC after he had a 3 car accident on the freeway and after he was alleged by the other drivers to have been the cause of the collision. RESULT: We won the DMV because they could not prove the allegations under vehicle code 23152(b) as having the blood test performed within 3 hours of the time of driving. This saved his license and his job. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Elke C. was charged with a .25 BAC after she alleged drove her car off a small hill into a river bottom. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved her license after we showed that the officer could not prove her blood test was completed within 3 hours of driving. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Moises K. was charged with a .10 BAC after he allegedly REFUSED to give a breath sample. The DMV instituted actions to suspend his license for 1 year. RESULT: At the hearing we proved that he did not refuse and we saved him his license and his job. At the hearing we showed that the FST were not done correctly by the officer and put on our own proof as to our client's medical issues. COURT RESULT: All DUI charges were dismissed in exchange for a plea to a dry-reckless. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Mauricio C. was charged with a .12 BAC after a person called 911 to report that the thought he was DUI. We did a motion to suppress under penal code 1538.5 challenging the officer's reason for the stop under the case law of People v. Wells. RESULT: DUI charges dismissed, client plead to guilty to a 23103.5, and we are currently appealing the denial of the motion to suppress. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Eric H. was accused of refusing to take a blood test, several officers had to tie him down in order to draw blood, a .18 BAC. RESULT: We won the DMV Refusal hearing which saved him a year of suspension and got him no jail time on his court case. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Tricia J. was accused of a .13 BAC. At the DMV Hearing we challenged the validity of the probable cause. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved her license. David R. was accused of a .12 BAC. At the DMV Hearing we challenged the lawfulness of the arrest. RESULT: We won the DMV Hearing and saved his license. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Arnel B. Was charge with DUI after the police stopped him for allegedly speeding. We filed a motion to suppress under PC 1538.5 challenging the officer's alleged reason for the stop was not satisfied by the use of his LIDAR Gun. RESULT: Both DUI charges dismissed,client pled to a speeding infraction and no turn signal infraction. Both were no point counts with the DMV. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Amalik A. was charged with a 2nd time DUI while he was still on probation for the 1st offense. He had an auto accident, a BAC of .17, and a high level of Marijuana in his system. RESULT: All DUI counts dismissed, he pled to a reckless driving under cvc 23103. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Bart D. was charged with a DUI after having a BAC of .20. It was alleged that Bart had been swerving and almost hitting a police officer head on, running into the curb, and vomited all over himself. We filed a 6th Amendment motion challenging the violation of his rights to a speedy trial. RESULT: After hearing the motion in open court the case was Dismissed. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Marvin M. was charged with a Drug DUI, allegedly being under the influence of 4 types of pain medication after he was observed swerving across several lanes of travel. RESULT: DUI dismiss/reduced to 2 driving infractions. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Cyerra R. was charged with a DUI as a minor since she was only 18 years old. Her BAC was alledged to be a .14. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved her license from 12 months of suspension. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Eric S. was charged with DUI after having a .10 BAC. It was alledged that he was speeding, doing 65mph in a 35 mph zone, that he made a wide right turn almost hitting a curb, almost lost control, and did not respond the the officer's loud speaker to pull over. RESULT: WE TOOK THIS TO TRIAL AND GOT 12 PEOPLE TO VOTE NOT GUILTY ON BOTH COUNTS. Richard P. was charged with a DUI after having a BAC of .13 and a PAS machine reading of .14. RESULT: Richard pled to a wet-reckless under cvc 23103.5, this was achieved after an extensive cross examination of the officer at the DMV hearing in which he admitted that Richard did not show any signs of mental or physical impairment. Richard elected to take this plea instead of proceeding to a jury trial. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Romney N. : was accused of a DUI with a blood alcohol of .22. We fought the case on the officer's inability to prove that he had been driving within 3 hours of his blood test. RESULT: We beat the DMV hearing and saved his license. Monica S. : was accused of a DUI with a blood alcohol of .20. The issue in her case was that she was not the driver. RESULT: After the conclusions of 3 DMV hearings in which we crossed examined the officer and we presented our own independent witness, we Won the DMV hearing and saved her license. Daniel R. was charged with a DUI with an alleged BAC of .10. The issue in his case was they could not prove his driving was within 3 hours of his blood test. RESULT: based on the facts the DUI was dismissed and he pled to a misdemeanor vandalism. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Ricardo F. was charged with a 2nd DUI and an alleged BAC of .15. We challenged the stop with a 1538.5 motion to suppress. At the hearing we showed that the officer had lied in contrast to what he previously told the DDA. RESULT: case reduced to a reckless driving cvc 23103.5 Deborah P. was charged with a DUI and a high BAC of .23 allegedly picking up her children from school drunk. RESULT: No jail time. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Nicholas P. was 18 years old and charged with an alleged .07 BAC on a first time DUI. He was stopped for allegedly doing 90 mph on the freeway. As an underage driver his legal limit was zero tolerance, a .01. RESULT: Case dismissed after he pled to a DRY reckless. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Mario R. was charged with a DUI with an allegation that he had Marijuana in his system. RESULT: Case Dismissed after he pled to 2 traffic violations. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Bobby A. was charged with a DUI and a BAC of .07 after the officer allegedly followed Bobby out of a bar in Fontana. RESULT: DUI dismissed reduced to running a stop sign. ROSALIO R. was charged with a DUI and a BAC of .07. RESULT: Case dismissed. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Ray R. was charged with a .07 DUI as a minor. We proceeded to court and the matter was heard as a bench trial. RESULT: Client acquitted of all charges. David M. was charged with a DUI. RESULT: Case reduced to reckless driving under cvc 23103.5 Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Gary A. was charged with a 2nd time DUI and an alleged BAC of .11. It was alleged that he did not immediately stop for the officers and he had very poor Field Sobriety Test. We took the case to trial. RESULT: After nearly 3 days of jury deliberations they were deadlocked. However, they ultimately convicted my client. The good news is that he only had to do 4 days of community service in contract to the 40 days of jail time the DDA wanted prior to trial. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Hailey L. was charge with a DUI with an allegation that she was a .14 BAC. The problem was that she was a minor and her legal limit is .01. We filed a 1538.5 motion to suppress because under the community caretaker exception to 4th Amendment could not be satisfied by the officer under the controlling case of People v. Madrid. RESULT: The prosecution stipulated to a finding of NOT GUILTY on the 23152(b) count and 23136(a) count, dismiss 23152(a), that her blood was not over .01, and she pled to 23103.5. This allowed us to send a certified copy of the docket up to mandatory action in Sacramento and have her 1 year suspension lifted from her driver's license. David M. : DUI RESULT: Reduced to wet/reckless. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. J. Castro. was charged with a .08, alleged to have been weaving. RESULT: Dismissed. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. * This is not a guarantee or indication of the outcome to your case.

Patrick J. Silva - Attorney at Law

A Professional Law Corporation

DuiLawyerSanBernardinoCourt.com 

Arrested for DUI? Find Out What Everyone Should Know Before Talking to the Judge, Hiring an Attorney, Pleading Guilty or Going to Trial. 

Redlands                  909-798-1500

San Bernardino       909-888-7992

​Riverside                   951-779-1362

Los Angeles              714-953-1921

 "My name is David and when I got my 3rd DUI I hired Pat Silva to fight for me and he did! He got my 3rd DUI dropped, all I had to do was plead no contest to a few moving violations. I had a bac of .17 and he still got it dropped that's why I call him the specialist! "    ONLINE REVIEWS

~~VEHICLE CODE SECTION 13200-13210 13200. Whenever any person licensed under this code is convicted of a violation of any provision of this code relating to the speed of vehicles or a violation of Section 23103 the court may, unless this code makes mandatory a revocation by the department, suspend the privilege of the person to operate a motor vehicle for a period of not to exceed 30 days upon a first conviction, for a period of not to exceed 60 days upon a second conviction, and for a period of not to exceed six months upon a third or any subsequent conviction. 13200.5. Whenever any person licensed under this code is convicted of a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 22348, the court may, unless this code makes mandatory a revocation by the department, suspend the privilege of the person to operate a motor vehicle for a period of not to exceed 30 days. 13201. A court may suspend, for not more than six months, the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction of any of the following offenses: (a) Failure of the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident to stop or otherwise comply with Section 20002. (b) Reckless driving proximately causing bodily injury to a person under Section 23104 or 23105. (c) Failure of the driver of a vehicle to stop at a railway grade crossing as required by Section 22452. (d) Evading a peace officer in violation of Section 2800.1 or 2800.2, or in violation of Section 2800.3 if the person's license is not revoked for that violation pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 13351. (e) (1) Knowingly causing or participating in a vehicular collision, or any other vehicular accident, for the purpose of presenting or causing to be presented any false or fraudulent insurance claim. (2) In lieu of suspending a person's driving privilege pursuant to paragraph (1), the court may order the privilege to operate a motor vehicle restricted to necessary travel to and from that person's place of employment for not more than six months. If driving a motor vehicle is necessary to perform the duties of the person's employment, the court may restrict the driving privilege to allow driving in that person's scope of employment. Whenever a person's driving privilege is restricted pursuant to this paragraph, the person shall be required to maintain proof of financial responsibility. 13201.5. (a) A court may suspend, for not more than 30 days, the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction of subdivision (b) of Section 647 of the Penal Code where the violation was committed within 1,000 feet of a private residence and with the use of a vehicle. (b) A court may suspend, for not more than 30 days, the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction of subdivision (a) of Section 647 of the Penal Code, where a peace officer witnesses the violator pick up a person who is engaging in loitering with the intent to commit prostitution, as described in Section 653.22 of the Penal Code, and the violator subsequently engages with that person in a lewd act within 1,000 feet of a private residence and with the use of a vehicle. (c) Instead of ordering the suspension under subdivision (a) or (b), a court may order a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle restricted for not more than six months to necessary travel to and from the person's place of employment or education. If driving a motor vehicle is necessary to perform the duties of the person's employment, the court may also allow the person to drive in that person's scope of employment. 13202. (a) A court may suspend or order that the department revoke in which case the department shall revoke the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction of any offense related to controlled substances as defined in Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code when the use of a motor vehicle was involved in, or incidental to, the commission of the offense. (b) A court shall order that the department revoke and the department shall revoke the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction of a violation of Section 11350, 11351, 11352, 11353, 11357, 11359, 11360, or 11361 of the Health and Safety Code when a motor vehicle was involved in, or incidental to, the commission of such offense. (c) The period of time for suspension or the period after revocation during which the person may not apply for a license shall be determined by the court, but in no event shall such period exceed three years from the date of conviction. 13202.4. (a) (1) For each conviction of a minor who commits a public offense involving a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, the court may suspend the minor' s driving privilege for five years. If the minor convicted does not yet have the privilege to drive, the court may order the department to delay issuing the privilege to drive for five years subsequent to the time the person becomes legally eligible to drive. For each successive offense, the court may suspend the minor's driving privilege for those possessing a license or delay the eligibility for those not in possession of a license at the time of their conviction for one additional year. (2) (A) Any minor whose driving privilege is suspended pursuant to this section may elect to reduce the period of suspension or delay imposed by the court by performing community service under the supervision of the probation department if both of the following conditions are met: (i) At least 50 percent of the suspension or delay period has expired. (ii) The person has not been the subject of any other criminal conviction during the suspension or delay period. (B) If the conditions specified in subparagraph (A) are met, the period of suspension or delay ordered under paragraph (1) shall be reduced at the rate of one day for each hour of community service performed. (3) As used in this section, the term "conviction" includes the findings in juvenile proceedings specified in Section 13105. (b) (1) Whenever the court suspends driving privileges pursuant to subdivision (a), the court in which the conviction is had shall require all driver's licenses held by the person to be surrendered to the court. The court shall, within 10 days following the conviction, transmit a certified abstract of the conviction, together with any driver's licenses surrendered, to the department. (2) Violations of restrictions imposed pursuant to this section are subject to Section 14603. (c) When the court is considering suspending or delaying driving privileges pursuant to subdivision (a), the court shall consider if a personal or family hardship exists that requires the person to have a driver's license for his or her own, or a member of his or her family's, employment or medically related purposes. (d) The suspension, restriction, or delay of driving privileges pursuant to this section shall be in addition to any penalty imposed upon conviction for the offense. 13202.5. (a) For each conviction of a person for an offense specified in subdivision (d), committed while the person was under the age of 21 years, but 13 years of age or older, the court shall suspend the person's driving privilege for one year. If the person convicted does not yet have the privilege to drive, the court shall order the department to delay issuing the privilege to drive for one year subsequent to the time the person becomes legally eligible to drive. However, if there is no further conviction for an offense specified in subdivision (d) in a 12-month period after the conviction, the court, upon petition of the person affected, may modify the order imposing the delay of the privilege. For each successive offense, the court shall suspend the person's driving privilege for those possessing a license or delay the eligibility for those not in possession of a license at the time of their conviction for one additional year. As used in this section, the term "conviction" includes the findings in juvenile proceedings specified in Section 13105. (b) Whenever the court suspends driving privileges pursuant to subdivision (a), the court in which the conviction is had shall require all driver's licenses held by the person to be surrendered to the court. The court shall within 10 days following the conviction transmit a certified abstract of the conviction, together with any driver's licenses surrendered, to the department. (c) (1) After a court has issued an order suspending or delaying driving privileges pursuant to subdivision (a), the court, upon petition of the person affected, may review the order and may impose restrictions on the person's privilege to drive based upon a showing of a critical need to drive. (2) As used in this section, "critical need to drive" means the circumstances that are required to be shown for the issuance of a junior permit pursuant to Section 12513. (3) The restriction shall remain in effect for the balance of the period of suspension or restriction in this section. The court shall notify the department of any modification within 10 days of the order of modification. (d) This section applies to violations involving controlled substances or alcohol contained in the following provisions: (1) Article 7 (commencing with Section 4110) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of, and Sections 25658, 25658.5, 25661, and 25662 of, the Business and Professions Code. (2) Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code. (3) Section 191.5, subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 192.5, and subdivision (f) of Section 647 of the Penal Code. (4) Section 23103 when subject to Section 23103.5, Section 23140, and Article 2 (commencing with Section 23152) of Chapter 12 of Division 11 of this code. (e) Suspension, restriction, or delay of driving privileges pursuant to this section shall be in addition to any penalty imposed upon conviction of a violation specified in subdivision (d). 13202.6. (a) (1) For every conviction of a person for a violation of Section 594, 594.3, or 594.4 of the Penal Code, committed while the person was 13 years of age or older, the court shall suspend the person's driving privilege for not more than two years, except when the court finds that a personal or family hardship exists that requires the person to have a driver's license for his or her own, or a member of his or her family's, employment, school, or medically related purposes. If the person convicted does not yet have the privilege to drive, the court shall order the department to delay issuing the privilege to drive for not less than one year nor more than three years subsequent to the time the person becomes legally eligible to drive. However, if there is no further conviction for violating Section 594, 594.3, or 594.4 of the Penal Code in a 12-month period after the conviction, the court, upon petition of the person affected, may modify the order imposing the delay of the privilege. For each successive offense, the court shall suspend the person's driving privilege for those possessing a license or delay the eligibility for those not in possession of a license at the time of their conviction for one additional year. (2) A person whose driving privilege is suspended or delayed for an act involving vandalism in violation of Section 594, 594.3, or 594.4 of the Penal Code, may elect to reduce the period of suspension or delay imposed by the court by performing community service under the supervision of the probation department. The period of suspension or delay ordered under paragraph (1) shall be reduced at the rate of one day for each hour of community service performed. If the jurisdiction has adopted a graffiti abatement program as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 594 of the Penal Code, the period of suspension or delay ordered under paragraph (1) shall be reduced at the rate of one day for each day of community service performed in the graffiti abatement program when the defendant and his or her parents or legal guardians are responsible for keeping a specified property in the community free of graffiti for a specified period of time. The suspension shall be reduced only when the specified period of participation has been completed. Participation of a parent or legal guardian is not required under this paragraph if the court deems this participation to be detrimental to the defendant, or if the parent or legal guardian is a single parent who must care for young children. For purposes of this paragraph, "community service" means cleaning up graffiti from any public property, including public transit vehicles. (3) As used in this section, the term "conviction" includes the findings in juvenile proceedings specified in Section 13105. (b) (1) Whenever the court suspends driving privileges pursuant to subdivision (a), the court in which the conviction is had shall require all drivers' licenses held by the person to be surrendered to the court. The court shall, within 10 days following the conviction, transmit a certified abstract of the conviction, together with any drivers' licenses surrendered, to the department. (2) Violations of restrictions imposed pursuant to this section are subject to Section 14603. (c) The suspension, restriction, or delay of driving privileges pursuant to this section shall be in addition to any penalty imposed upon conviction of a violation of Section 594, 594.3, or 594.4 of the Penal Code. 13202.7. (a) Any minor under the age of 18 years, but 13 years of age or older, who is an habitual truant within the meaning of Section 48262 of the Education Code, or who is adjudged by the juvenile court to be a ward of the court under subdivision (b) of Section 601 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, may have his or her driving privilege suspended for one year by the court. If the minor does not yet have the privilege to drive, the court may order the department to delay issuing the privilege to drive for one year subsequent to the time the person becomes legally eligible to drive. However, if there is no further truancy in the 12-month period, the court, upon petition of the person affected, may modify the order imposing the delay of the driving privilege. For each successive time the minor is found to be an habitual truant, the court may suspend the minor's driving privilege for a minor possessing a driver's license, or delay the eligibility for the driving privilege for those not in possession of a driver's license, for one additional year. (b) Whenever the juvenile court suspends a minor's driving privilege pursuant to subdivision (a), the court may require all driver's licenses held by the minor to be surrendered to the court. The court shall, within 10 days following the surrender of the license, transmit a certified abstract of the findings, together with any driver's licenses surrendered, to the department. (c) When the juvenile court is considering suspending or delaying a minor's driving privilege pursuant to subdivision (a), the court shall consider whether a personal or family hardship exists that requires the minor to have a driver's license for his or her own, or a member of his or her family's, employment or for medically related purposes. (d) The suspension, restriction, or delay of a minor's driving privilege pursuant to this section shall be in addition to any other penalty imposed by law on the minor. 13202.8. The restrictions specified in Section 13202.5 for the violations specified in that section may include, but are not limited to, the installation and maintenance of a certified ignition interlock device pursuant to Section 13386. Any restriction is subject to the provisions of Section 13202.5 relating to restrictions. 13203. In no event shall a court suspend the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle or as a condition of probation prohibit the operation of a motor vehicle for a period of time longer than that specified in this code. Any such prohibited order of a court, whether imposed as a condition of probation or otherwise, shall be null and void, and the department shall restore or reissue a license to any person entitled thereto irrespective of any such invalid order of a court. 13205. The privileges of a nonresident to operate vehicles in this State may be suspended or revoked under the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as the privileges of a resident driver. 13206. Whenever a court suspends the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle, the court shall require the person's license to be surrendered to it. Unless required by the provisions of Section 13550 to send the license to the department, the court shall retain the license during the period of suspension and return it to the licensee at the end of the period after indorsing thereon a record of the suspension. 13207. Whenever a court suspends the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle, the suspension shall apply to all driver's licenses held by him, and all licenses shall be surrendered to the court. 13208. In any criminal proceeding, without regard to its disposition, wherein the defendant is charged with a violation of Division 11 (commencing with Section 21000), the court may, if it has reason to believe that any of the conditions specified in Section 12805 or 12806 exist, recommend to the department that an investigation be conducted to determine whether the driving privilege of that person should be suspended or revoked. In making the recommendation, the court shall state the basis for the belief that the condition exists and whether the defendant relied upon the condition as a part of his or her defense. The department may provide a form for the court's convenience. 13209. Before sentencing a person upon a conviction of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, the court shall obtain from the department a record of any prior convictions of that person for traffic violations. The department shall furnish that record upon the written request of the court. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1449 of the Penal Code, in any such criminal action the time for pronouncement of judgment shall not commence to run until the time that the court receives the record of prior convictions from the department. 13210. In addition to the penalties set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 245 of the Penal Code, the court may order the suspension of the driving privilege of any operator of a motor vehicle who commits an assault as described in subdivision (a) of Section 245 of the Penal Code on an operator or passenger of another motor vehicle, an operator of a bicycle, or a pedestrian and the offense occurs on a highway. The suspension period authorized under this section for an assault commonly known as "road rage," shall be six months for a first offense and one year for a second or subsequent offense to commence, at the discretion of the court, either on the date of the person's conviction, or upon the person's release from confinement or imprisonment. The court may, in lieu of or in addition to the suspension of the driving privilege, order a person convicted under this section to complete a court-approved anger management or "road rage" course, subsequent to the date of the current violation.