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


 "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

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.

VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 23536-23552
23536. (a) If a person is convicted of a first violation of Section 23152, that person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 96 hours, at least 48 hours of which shall be continuous, nor more than six months, and by a fine of not less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390), nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). (b) The court shall order that a person punished under subdivision (a), who is to be punished by imprisonment in the county jail, be imprisoned on days other than days of regular employment of the person, as determined by the court. If the court determines that 48 hours of continuous imprisonment would interfere with the person's work schedule, the court shall allow the person to serve the imprisonment whenever the person is normally scheduled for time off from work. The court may make this determination based upon a representation from the defendant's attorney or upon an affidavit or testimony from the defendant. (c) The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be suspended by the department under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section 13352.1. The court shall require the person to surrender the driver's license to the court in accordance with Section 13550. (d) Whenever, when considering the circumstances taken as a whole, the court determines that the person punished under this section would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension imposed under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section 13352.1, the court may disallow the issuance of a restricted driver's license required under Section 13352.4. 23538. (a) (1) If the court grants probation to person punished under Section 23536, in addition to the provisions of Section 23600 and any other terms and conditions imposed by the court, the court shall impose as a condition of probation that the person pay a fine of at least three hundred ninety dollars ($390), but not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). The court may also impose, as a condition of probation, that the person be confined in a county jail for at least 48 hours, but not more than six months. (2) The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be suspended by the department under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section 13352.1. The court shall require the person to surrender the driver's license to the court in accordance with Section 13550. (3) Whenever, when considering the circumstances taken as a whole, the court determines that the person punished under this section would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension imposed under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section 13352.1, the court may disallow the issuance of a restricted driver's license required under Section 13352.4. (b) In any county where the board of supervisors has approved, and the State Department of Health Care Services has licensed, a program or programs described in Section 11837.3 of the Health and Safety Code, the court shall also impose as a condition of probation that the driver shall enroll and participate in, and successfully complete a driving-under-the-influence program, licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, in the driver's county of residence or employment, as designated by the court. For the purposes of this subdivision, enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit may not be given for any program activities completed prior to the date of the current violation. (1) The court shall refer a first offender whose blood-alcohol concentration was less than 0.20 percent, by weight, to participate for at least three months or longer, as ordered by the court, in a licensed program that consists of at least 30 hours of program activities, including those education, group counseling, and individual interview sessions described in Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 11836) of Part 2 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) The court shall refer a first offender whose blood-alcohol concentration was 0.20 percent or more, by weight, or who refused to take a chemical test, to participate for at least nine months or longer, as ordered by the court, in a licensed program that consists of at least 60 hours of program activities, including those education, group counseling, and individual interview sessions described in Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 11836) of Part 2 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) The court shall advise the person at the time of sentencing that the driving privilege shall not be restored until proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence program of the length required under this code that is licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code has been received in the department's headquarters. (c) (1) The court shall revoke the person's probation pursuant to Section 23602, except for good cause shown, for the failure to enroll in, participate in, or complete a program specified in subdivision (b). (2) The court, in establishing reporting requirements, shall consult with the county alcohol program administrator. The county alcohol program administrator shall coordinate the reporting requirements with the department and with the State Department of Health Care Services. That reporting shall ensure that all persons who, after being ordered to attend and complete a program, may be identified for either (A) failure to enroll in, or failure to successfully complete, the program, or (B) successful completion of the program as ordered. 23540. (a) If a person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 and the offense occurred within 10 years of a separate violation of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, 23152, or 23153, that resulted in a conviction, that person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 90 days nor more than one year and by a fine of not less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be suspended by the department pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352. The court shall require the person to surrender the driver's license to the court in accordance with Section 13550. (b) Whenever, when considering the circumstances taken as a whole, the court determines that the person punished under this section would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension imposed under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352, the court may disallow the issuance of a restricted driver's license required under Section 13352.5. (c) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005. 23542. (a) (1) If the court grants probation to a person punished under Section 23540, in addition to the provisions of Section 23600 and any other terms and conditions imposed by the court, the court shall impose as conditions of probation that the person be confined in county jail and fined under either of the following: (A) For at least 10 days, but not more than one year, and pay a fine of at least three hundred ninety dollars ($390), but not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). (B) For at least 96 hours, but not more than one year, and pay a fine of at least three hundred ninety dollars ($390), but not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). A sentence of 96 hours of confinement shall be served in two increments consisting of a continuous 48 hours each. The two 48-hour increments may be served nonconsecutively. (2) The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be suspended by the department under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352. The court shall require the person to surrender the driver's license to the court in accordance with Section 13550. (b) In addition to the conditions specified in subdivision (a), the court shall require the person to do either of the following: (1) Enroll and participate, for at least 18 months subsequent to the date of the underlying violation and in a manner satisfactory to the court, in a driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as designated by the court. The person shall complete the entire program subsequent to, and shall not be given any credit for any program activities completed prior to, the date of the current violation. The program shall provide for persons who cannot afford the program fee pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 11837.4 of the Health and Safety Code in order to enable those persons to participate. (2) Enroll and participate, for at least 30 months subsequent to the date of the underlying violation and in a manner satisfactory to the court, in a driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code. The person shall complete the entire program subsequent to, and shall not be given any credit for any program activities completed prior to, the date of the current violation. (c) The court shall advise the person at the time of sentencing that the driving privilege shall not be restored until proof satisfactory to the Department of Motor Vehicles of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence program of the length required under this code licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code has been received in the department's headquarters. (d) Whenever, when considering the circumstances taken as a whole, the court determines that the person punished under this section would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension imposed under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352, the court may disallow the issuance of a restricted driver's license required under Section 13352.5. (e) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005. 23546. (a) If a person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 and the offense occurred within 10 years of two separate violations of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, 23152, or 23153, or any combination thereof, that resulted in convictions, that person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 120 days nor more than one year and by a fine of not less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be revoked by the Department of Motor Vehicles as required in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352. The court shall require the person to surrender his or her driver's license to the court in accordance with Section 13550. (b) A person convicted of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under this section shall be designated as a habitual traffic offender for a period of three years, subsequent to the conviction. The person shall be advised of this designation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 13350. 23548. (a) (1) If the court grants probation to any person punished under Section 23546, in addition to the provisions of Section 23600 and any other terms and conditions imposed by the court, the court shall impose as conditions of probation that the person be confined in the county jail for at least 120 days but not more than one year and pay a fine of at least three hundred ninety dollars ($390) but not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). (2) The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be revoked by the department under paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352. The court shall require the person to surrender the driver's license to the court in accordance with Section 13550. (b) In addition to subdivision (a), if the court grants probation to any person punished under Section 23546, the court may order as a condition of probation that the person participate, for at least 30 months subsequent to the underlying conviction and in a manner satisfactory to the court, in a driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code. In lieu of the minimum term of imprisonment specified in subdivision (a), the court shall impose as a condition of probation under this subdivision that the person be confined in the county jail for at least 30 days but not more than one year. The court shall not order the treatment prescribed by this subdivision unless the person makes a specific request and shows good cause for the order, whether or not the person has previously completed a treatment program pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 23542 or paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 23562. In order to enable all required persons to participate, each person shall pay the program costs commensurate with the person's ability to pay as determined pursuant to Section 11837.4 of the Health and Safety Code. No condition of probation required pursuant to this subdivision is a basis for reducing any other probation requirement in this section or Section 23600 or for avoiding the mandatory license revocation provisions of paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352. (c) In addition to the provisions of Section 23600 and subdivision (a), if the court grants probation to any person punished under Section 23546 who has not previously completed a treatment program pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 23542 or paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 23562, and unless the person is ordered to participate in and complete a driving-under-the-influence program under subdivision (b), the court shall impose as a condition of probation that the person, subsequent to the date of the current violation, enroll and participate, for at least 18 months and in a manner satisfactory to the court, in a driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as designated by the court. The person shall complete the entire program subsequent to, and shall not be given any credit for program activities completed prior to, the date of the current violation. Any person who has previously completed a 12-month or 18-month program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code shall not be eligible for referral pursuant to this subdivision unless a 30-month licensed driving-under-the-influence program is not available for referral in the county of the person's residence or employment. The program shall provide for persons who cannot afford the program fee pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 11837.4 of the Health and Safety Code in order to enable those persons to participate. No condition of probation required pursuant to this subdivision is a basis for reducing any other probation requirement in this section or Section 23600 or for avoiding the mandatory license revocation provisions of paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352. (d) The court shall advise the person at the time of sentencing that the driving privilege may not be restored until the person provides proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence program of the length required under this code that is licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code. (e) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005. 23550. (a) If a person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 and the offense occurred within 10 years of three or more separate violations of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, or Section 23152 or 23153, or any combination thereof, that resulted in convictions, that person shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code, or in a county jail for not less than 180 days nor more than one year, and by a fine of not less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be revoked by the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352. The court shall require the person to surrender the driver's license to the court in accordance with Section 13550. (b) A person convicted of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under this section shall be designated as a habitual traffic offender for a period of three years, subsequent to the conviction. The person shall be advised of this designation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 13350. 23550.5. (a) A person is guilty of a public offense, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or confinement in a county jail for not more than one year and by a fine of not less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) if that person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, and the offense occurred within 10 years of any of the following: (1) A separate violation of Section 23152 that was punished as a felony under Section 23550 or this section, or both, or under former Section 23175 or former Section 23175.5, or both. (2) A separate violation of Section 23153 that was punished as a felony. (3) A separate violation of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 192 of the Penal Code that was punished as a felony. (b) Each person who, having previously been convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 191.5 of the Penal Code, a felony violation of subdivision (b) of Section 191.5, or a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code, is subsequently convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 is guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or confinement in a county jail for not more than one year and by a fine of not less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). (c) The privilege to operate a motor vehicle of a person convicted of a violation that is punishable under subdivision (a) or (b) shall be revoked by the department pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352, unless paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 is also applicable, in which case the privilege shall be revoked under that provision. The court shall require the person to surrender the driver's license to the court in accordance with Section 13550. (d) A person convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 that is punishable under this section shall be designated as a habitual traffic offender for a period of three years, subsequent to the conviction. The person shall be advised of this designation under subdivision (b) of Section 13350. 23552. (a) (1) If the court grants probation to a person punished under Section 23550, in addition to the provisions of Section 23600 and any other terms and conditions imposed by the court, the court shall impose as conditions of probation that the person be confined in a county jail for at least 180 days but not more than one year and pay a fine of at least three hundred ninety dollars ($390) but not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). (2) The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be revoked by the department under paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352. The court shall require the person to surrender the driver's license to the court in accordance with Section 13550. (b) In addition to subdivision (a), if the court grants probation to any person punished under Section 23550, the court may order as a condition of probation that the person participate, for at least 30 months subsequent to the underlying conviction and in a manner satisfactory to the court, in a driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code. In lieu of the minimum term of imprisonment in subdivision (a), the court shall impose as a condition of probation under this subdivision that the person be confined in the county jail for at least 30 days but not more than one year. The court shall not order the treatment prescribed by this subdivision unless the person makes a specific request and shows good cause for the order, whether or not the person has previously completed a treatment program pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 23542 or paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 23562. In order to enable all required persons to participate, each person shall pay the program costs commensurate with the person's ability to pay as determined pursuant to Section 11837.4 of the Health and Safety Code. No condition of probation required pursuant to this subdivision is a basis for reducing any other probation requirement in this section or Section 23600 or for avoiding the mandatory license revocation provisions of paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352. (c) In addition to Section 23600 and subdivision (a), if the court grants probation to any person punished under Section 23550 who has not previously completed a treatment program pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 23542 or paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 23562, and unless the person is ordered to participate in, and complete, a program under subdivision (b), the court shall impose as a condition of probation that the person, subsequent to the date of the current violation, enroll in and participate, for at least 18 months and in a manner satisfactory to the court, in a driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as designated by the court. The person shall complete the entire program subsequent to, and shall not be given any credit for program activities completed prior to, the date of the current violation. A person who has previously completed a 12-month or 18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code shall not be eligible for referral pursuant to this subdivision unless a 30-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code is not available for referral in the county of the person's residence or employment. A condition of probation required pursuant to this subdivision is not a basis for reducing any other probation requirement in this section or Section 23600 or for avoiding the mandatory license revocation provisions of paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352. (d) The court shall advise the person at the time of sentencing that the driving privilege may not be restored until the person provides proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence program of the length required under this code that is licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code.

We are top DUI Lawyers who are well recognized in the Fullerton Courts for our specialized knowledge of scientific DUI Defenses.  We can separate the DUI Facts from the Drunk Driving Myths. I am a leading DUI defense lawyer in the Inland Empire and surrounding counties.  In the past other DUI lawyers have referred me their "tougher" dui cases which required an "expert" to handle.

Patrick J. Silva - Attorney at Law

A Professional Law Corporation

DuiLawyerSanBernardinoCourt.com