For example, two alternatives/remedies have equal weight in terms of day-for-day sentencing; however, in my opinion, one is clearly better than the other.

Cal Trans is adult paper-pick-up. You show up bright and early at a pre-designated location. Check in with the Sheriff Officer and spend your day picking up trash on the freeway or the beach, tending to a tree farm, wash cop cars, etc. While you perform this community labor or service, the officers watch over you. The officers can have a good day; or, the officers can have a bad day.

The worst part of Cal Trans type sentencing, is if you are sentenced to 15 days, you are going to do 15 days.

Another is the early release program. Although it is not written in stone, it is a current policy of LA County jail administrators. The general rule is, for non-violent offenders, you only do 10% of the time you are sentenced to. An example is 2 days actually spent in jail for 20 days; 3 for 30. In actuality, you spend 10%, OR LESS!

Now its much easier for me to say that it would much better to do 30 days in county jail (which amounts to 3 days, or less, actual) than 15 actual days picking up trash under the watch of some sheriff officer having a bad day. Easier said then done because I have never spent even an hour in jail.

The long and short of it is, if you can endure jail, jail is the much better alternative than Cal Trans, or any other form of community labor or service in sentencing.

Should you risk taking your case to trial or attempt to resolve it with a plea bargain and a lower charge? That depends on the case. Quite recently, I had a case where my client was charged not only with a Los Angeles County DUI, but also with endangering a minor, his 15 year old brother, who was also in the vehicle at the time by driving while intoxicated.

The Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office wanted 20 and 30 days jail time on each charge, including all the other programs, fines and obligations that went along with a DUI. However, in this specific case, my client was not pulled over, not seen driving, but was observed by the officer just sitting in the driver’s seat making a phone call, after the vehicle had collided with a fence, while his minor brother was sitting by his side in the passenger seat. Both informed the officer that the minor was driving at the time the vehicle collided with the fence as his older brother was intoxicated and unable to drive.

If you were not driving, you cannot be charged with a DUI. I took this case to trial. I had the minor ready as a witness and intended to have my client testify also. On the morning of trial, the prosecutor was informed that we were ready for trial, both witnesses will state who was driving, and that we will state that the officer’s opinion of the matter due to the surrounding circumstances was incorrect. I then managed to negotiate a plea bargain with the prosecutor which involved one excessive speed charge, no alcohol program and no Los Angeles County Jail time whatsoever.

Bottom line, there are some instances where you should seriously consider taking your case to trial, since sometimes the ramifications of losing at trial are not that different from what you are facing if you don’t go to trial…and there is always a chance at a good resolution of the matter when the defense announces ready on the morning of trial.

The San Diego DUI Defense Attorney office is located downtown and services all the San Diego County courthouses. The San Diego office will defend clients accused of DUI at the San Diego Central Courthouse, as well as the courthouses in Vista, Chula Vista and El Cajon.

With the addition of the San Diego and Ventura offices, Southern California DUI Defense now serves five counties, including also San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles and Orange County. The firm is committed to helping drunk driving clients to fight their DUI charges in court and at the DMV.

While traditionally, those on DUI probation in Riverside County have had to check in with their supervising officers by phone or mail one time per month, under the new program in Riverside and Contra Costa County, DUI probationers will have contact with their officers as many as eight times per month.

This program, which targets DUI offenders in Riverside County as well as other California counties, is supported by a $624,000 state grant. State officials claim that the constant supervision of DUI probationers will help to contain the rising number of deaths caused by DUI offenders in Riverside County and around California. The program is designed to deter DUI offenders in Riverside County and surrounding counties from committing additional DUIs.

Contra Costa County has used the Riverside County DUI program as its model for implementing more strict guidelines for DUI offenders. If the program proves effective, Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernardino and other southern California counties may soon follow with their own stricter DUI programs.

Although the Every 15 Minutes program is a community-run endeavor, the majority of it is staged at their High School.  At the beginning of the first day, one of the Every 15 Minutes volunteers, dressed as the "Grim Reaper", goes into the classrooms and, in 15 minute increments, removes students from class.  These students are now a part of the "living dead."  The students making up the "living dead" are pre-selected from a cross-section from the entire student body.  Immediately after a student is removed from class, a police officer from the community will enter the classroom and read an obituary written by the parents of the selected student.  The obituary explains the circumstances of their child's death and lists contributions they made to their school and community. 

A few minutes later, the student returns to their classroom in white face paint, a black Every 15 Minutes t-shirt, and a coroner's tag. Once these students become members of the "living dead," they cannot speak or interact with anyone for the remainder of the program.  At this same time, the parents of the "dead" students receive notification of their child's "death" at their work or home. 

The removal of students halts at lunch-time, after which a 911 call comes on over the intercom announcing an accident has occurred.  A mock collision on the school grounds is viewable to the student body at this point.  A few of the "living dead" are set up at the scene in elaborate make-up and the Fire Department, Coroner's Office, Police Department, and Paramedics show up to the scene of the "drunk driving accident" and begin administering aide as if they had just arrived at the scene.  The Fire Department uses the Jaws-Of-Life to pry the injured from the car, while those "dead" at the scene are placed in body bags.  Those still "alive" are placed on stretchers, given CPR, and are placed in an ambulance or Flight-For-Life helicopter and taken to the nearest hospital.  The police officers on the scene will investigate, arrest, and book the "drunk driver."

For those who were "involved" in the accident, they are taken to the hospital, where they attempt to treat the injuries, or the morgue, where the "dead" are tagged and processed.  That night, all involved in the accident as well as the rest of the "living dead" are taken to a hotel where they begin a retreat.  During this time, each student is asked to write a letter to their parents explaining all the things they did have a chance to say.  The parents write a similar letter to their children.

The next morning starts with a mock funeral for all of the "dead."  A video compiled of scenes from the day before is viewed and then the parents of the "living dead" are asked to read the letters they wrote to their child, after which the "living dead" then read their letters.  Organizers of the Every 15 Minutes program agree the most poignant moment of the assembly is toward the end of the mock funeral when a parent who lost a child because of a drunk driver speaks to the entire assembly about their traumatic experience. 

After the "funeral" the "living dead" are allowed to rejoin the rest of the student body for activities which include trying on drunk goggles.  The drunk goggles allow students to experience the impairment caused by drinking without actually consuming any alcohol.  Every 15 Minutes focuses on including the whole community, not just the teenagers, because the object is to reiterate that drunk driving does not just effect the person who has been drinking. 

Every 15 Minutes wants to create an impression on the community, and especially the teenagers, who have just started or are about to start driving and who just started or are about to start driving and who are easily seduced by temptations such as alcohol.  Every 15 Minutes hopes that by utilizing a strategy that involves real-life simulations, the "experience" of the horrific consequences to drinking and driving will stick with these teens longer than programs requiring much less interaction.  The goal is to help teens realize the responsible choice when offered alcohol and perhaps elicit flashbacks to their experience in Every 15 Minutes. 

The program makes itself available to schools in California and nationwide from the end of March through May of every year as well as a few weekends in the fall.  If you would like to learn more about the program or how to schedule a visit to your school, visit www.every15minutes.com. 

Initially, there is concern in involving the cost of these red plates. According to the proposal, once a person is sentenced to don the specialized plates, they must purchase them out-of-pocket for $250 a piece, and they must be put on each vehicle that person drives. Not all repeat offenders will be able to afford the plates, at which point the bill may be passed to the California Department of Motor Vehicles – a burden which may end up costing the state after all is said and done, considering about 33,000 people each year become repeat DUI offenders in the state of California.

Another drawback emerges when family members of the offender are registered drivers on the same cars. There has been much apprehension involving the stigma to which these individuals may be subjected, not to mention the potential for unwarranted stops by patrol cars.

After both sides pled their case on April 4, 2006, the Assembly Public Safety Committee voted against AB 2099 by a vote of 5 – 2. Committee members concluded that they are always open to any proposals which aim to combat drunk driving, but they maintained the strategy behind Mr. Hays’ proposal was unproven and may do more harm than good. Assemblyman Mark Leno, committee chairman, said he would prefer a bill that aimed “in the direction of dealing with the illness.” Mr. Hays tried passing a similar bill unsuccessfully in 1997.

Interestingly, Ohio has been practicing a similar law for the past several years with their DUI repeat offenders using yellow license plates. State officials disclose, however, that it is still too soon to wage whether the change in policy has made any significant impact on deterring drinking and driving in those individuals who have already been found guilty twice.