~~VEHICLE CODE SECTION 13550-13559 13550. Whenever any person is convicted of any offense for which this code makes mandatory the revocation or suspension by the department of the privilege of the person to operate a motor vehicle, the privilege of the person to operate a motor vehicle is suspended or revoked until the department takes the action required by this code, and the court in which the conviction is had shall require the surrender to it of the driver's license or temporary permit issued to the person convicted and the court shall within 10 days after the conviction forward the same with the required report of the conviction to the department. 13551. (a) Whenever the department revokes or suspends the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle, the revocation or suspension shall apply to all driver's licenses held by that person, and, unless previously surrendered to the court, all of those licenses shall be surrendered to the department, or, pursuant to Section 13388, 23612, or 13382, to a peace officer on behalf of the department. Whenever the department cancels a driver's license, the license shall be surrendered to the department. All suspended licenses shall be retained by the department. The department shall return the license to the licensee, or may issue the person a new license upon the expiration of the period of suspension or revocation, if the person is otherwise eligible for a driver's license. (b) The department shall return the license to the licensee, or may issue the person a new license, whenever the department determines that the grounds for suspension, revocation, or cancellation did not exist at the time the action was taken, if the person is otherwise eligible for a driver's license. 13552. (a) 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. (b) Any nonresident, whether or not licensed to drive in a foreign jurisdiction, who operates a motor vehicle upon a highway after his privilege of operating a motor vehicle in this state has been suspended or revoked is in violation of Section 14601 or 14601.1. (c) Whenever the department revokes or suspends the privileges of a nonresident to operate vehicles in this state, it shall send a certified copy of the order to the proper authorities in the state wherein the person is a resident. 13553. Whenever a court or the department suspends or revokes the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle and the person does not hold a valid driver's license, or has never applied for or received a driver's license in this State, the person shall be subject to any and all penalties and disabilities provided in this code for a violation of the terms and conditions of a suspension or revocation of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle. 13555. A termination of probation and dismissal of charges pursuant to Section 1203.4 or a dismissal of charges pursuant to Section 1203.4a of the Penal Code does not affect any revocation or suspension of the privilege of the person convicted to drive a motor vehicle under this chapter. Such person's prior conviction shall be considered a conviction for the purpose of revoking or suspending or otherwise limiting such privilege on the ground of two or more convictions. 13556. (a) Unless otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, no suspension of a license by the department shall be for a longer period than six months, except that the department may suspend a license for a maximum period of 12 months in those cases when a discretionary revocation would otherwise be authorized pursuant to this chapter. (b) Any discretionary suspension, the ending of which is dependent upon an action by the person suspended and which has been in effect for eight years, may be ended at the election of the department. (c) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this code, a suspension based upon a physical or mental condition shall continue until evidence satisfactory to the department establishes that the cause for which the action was taken has been removed or no longer renders the person incapable of operating a motor vehicle safely. 13557. (a) The department shall review the determination made pursuant to Section 13353, 13353.1, or 13353.2 relating to a person who has received a notice of an order of suspension or revocation of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle pursuant to Section 13353, 13353.1, 13353.2, 13382, or 23612,. The department shall consider the sworn report submitted by the peace officer pursuant to Section 23612 or 13380 and any other evidence accompanying the report. (b) (1) If the department determines in the review of a determination made under Section 13353 or 13353.1, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the following facts, the department shall sustain the order of suspension or revocation: (A) The peace officer had reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving a motor vehicle in violation of Section 23136, 23140, 23152, 23153, or 23154. (B) The person was placed under arrest or, if the alleged violation was of Section 23136, that the person was lawfully detained. (C) The person refused or failed to complete the chemical test or tests after being requested by a peace officer. (D) Except for the persons described in Section 23612 who are incapable of refusing, the person had been told that his or her privilege to operate a motor vehicle would be suspended or revoked if he or she refused to submit to, and complete, the required testing. (2) If the department determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of the facts required under paragraph (1) were not proven, the department shall rescind the order of suspension or revocation and, if the person is otherwise eligible, return or reissue the person's driver's license pursuant to Section 13551. The determination of the department upon administrative review is final unless a hearing is requested pursuant to Section 13558. (3) If the department determines in the review of a determination made under Section 13353.2, by the preponderance of the evidence, all of the following facts, the department shall sustain the order of suspension or revocation, or if the person is under 21 years of age and does not yet have a driver's license, the department shall delay issuance of that license for one year: (A) The peace officer had reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving a motor vehicle in violation of Section 23136, 23140, 23152, 23153, or 23154. (B) The person was placed under arrest or, if the alleged violation was of Section 23136, the person was lawfully detained. (C) The person was driving a motor vehicle under any of the following circumstances: (i) When the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood. (ii) When the person was under 21 years of age and had 0.05 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood. (iii) When the person was under 21 years of age and had a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater, as measured by a preliminary alcohol screening test, or other chemical test. (iv) When the person was driving a vehicle that requires a commercial driver's license and the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood. (v) When the person was on probation for a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 and had a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater, as measured by a preliminary alcohol screening test or other chemical test. (4) If the department determines that any of those facts required under paragraph (3) were not proven by the preponderance of the evidence, the department shall rescind the order of suspension or revocation and, if the person is otherwise eligible, return or reissue the person's driver's license pursuant to Section 13551. For persons under 21 years of age, the determination of the department pursuant to paragraph (3) is final unless a hearing is requested within 10 days of the determination, which hearing shall be conducted according to Section 13558. For persons over 21 years of age, the determination of the department upon administrative review is final unless a hearing is requested pursuant to Section 13558. (c) The department shall make the determination upon administrative review before the effective date of the order of suspension or revocation. (d) The administrative review does not stay the suspension or revocation of a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle. If the department is unable to make a determination on administrative review within the time limit in subdivision (c), the department shall stay the effective date of the order of suspension or revocation pending the determination and, if the person's driver's license has been taken by the peace officer pursuant to Section 13382, 13388, 13389, or 23612, the department shall notify the person before the expiration date of the temporary permit issued pursuant to Section 13382, 13388, 13389, or 23612, or the expiration date of any previous extension issued pursuant to this subdivision, in a form that permits the person to establish to any peace officer that his or her privilege to operate a motor vehicle is not suspended or revoked. (e) A person may request and be granted a hearing pursuant to Section 13558 without first receiving the results of an administrative review pursuant to this section. After receiving a request for a hearing, the department is not required to conduct an administrative review of the same matter pursuant to this section. (f) A determination of facts by the department under this section has no collateral estoppel effect on a subsequent criminal prosecution and does not preclude litigation of those same facts in the criminal proceeding. 13558. (a) Any person, who has received a notice of an order of suspension or revocation of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle pursuant to Section 13353, 13353.1, 13353.2, 13388, 23612, or 13382 or a notice pursuant to Section 13557, may request a hearing on the matter pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 14100) of Chapter 3, except as otherwise provided in this section. (b) If the person wishes to have a hearing before the effective date of the order of suspension or revocation, the request for a hearing shall be made within 10 days of the receipt of the notice of the order of suspension or revocation. The hearing shall be held at a place designated by the department as close as practicable to the place where the arrest occurred, unless the parties agree to a different location. Any evidence at the hearing shall not be limited to the evidence presented at an administrative review pursuant to Section 13557. (c) (1) The only issues at the hearing on an order of suspension or revocation pursuant to Section 13353 or 13353.1 shall be those facts listed in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 13557. Notwithstanding Section 14106, the period of suspension or revocation specified in Section 13353 or 13353.1 shall not be reduced and, notwithstanding Section 14105.5, the effective date of the order of suspension or revocation shall not be stayed pending review at a hearing pursuant to this section. (2) The only issues at the hearing on an order of suspension pursuant to Section 13353.2 shall be those facts listed in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 13557. Notwithstanding Section 14106, the period of suspension specified in Section 13353.3 shall not be reduced. (d) The department shall hold the administrative hearing before the effective date of the order of suspension or revocation if the request for the hearing is postmarked or received by the department on or before 10 days after the person's receipt of the service of the notice of the order of suspension or revocation pursuant to Section 13353.2, 13388, 23612, or 13382. (e) A request for an administrative hearing does not stay the suspension or revocation of a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle. If the department does not conduct an administrative hearing and make a determination after an administrative hearing within the time limit in subdivision (d), the department shall stay the effective date of the order of suspension or revocation pending the determination and, if the person's driver's license has been taken by the peace officer pursuant to Section 13388, 23612, or 13382, the department shall notify the person before the expiration date of the temporary permit issued pursuant to Section 13388, 23612, or 13382, or the expiration date of any previous extension issued pursuant to this subdivision, provided the person is otherwise eligible, in a form that permits the person to establish to any peace officer that his or her privilege to operate a motor vehicle is not suspended or revoked. (f) The department shall give written notice of its determination pursuant to Section 14105. If the department determines, upon a hearing of the matter, to suspend or revoke the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle, notwithstanding the term of any temporary permit issued pursuant to Section 13388, 23612, or 13382, the temporary permit shall be revoked and the suspension or revocation of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall become effective five days after notice is given. If the department sustains the order of suspension or revocation, the department shall include notice that the person has a right to review by the court pursuant to Section 13559. (g) A determination of facts by the department upon a hearing pursuant to this section has no collateral estoppel effect on a subsequent criminal prosecution and does not preclude litigation of those same facts in the criminal proceeding. 13559. (a) Notwithstanding Section 14400 or 14401, within 30 days of the issuance of the notice of determination of the department sustaining an order of suspension or revocation of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle after the hearing pursuant to Section 13558, the person may file a petition for review of the order in the court of competent jurisdiction in the person's county of residence. The filing of a petition for judicial review shall not stay the order of suspension or revocation. The review shall be on the record of the hearing and the court shall not consider other evidence. If the court finds that the department exceeded its constitutional or statutory authority, made an erroneous interpretation of the law, acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or made a determination which is not supported by the evidence in the record, the court may order the department to rescind the order of suspension or revocation and return, or reissue a new license to, the person. (b) A finding by the court after a review pursuant to this section shall have no collateral estoppel effect on a subsequent criminal prosecution and does not preclude litigation of those same facts in the criminal proceeding.

DuiLawyerSanBernardinoCourt.com 

Redlands                  909-798-1500

San Bernardino       909-888-7992

​Riverside                   951-779-1362

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

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

 "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