California DUI Arrests Under The Legal Limit

CA DUI Laws- BAC Under.08 Can Still Lead to a DUI Arrest

Did you know that according to California DUI law, a driver 21 years of age or older with a BAC under .08% can still face DUI charges? Most drivers are aware that driving with a BAC of .08% or more will result in DUI charges- this is known as a per se DUI. Per se DUIs are straightforward. They rely on testing the driver’s blood-alcohol level. If the result of the chemical test comes back at .08% or above, it is an automatic DUI. However, under California DUI law, a driver 21 or older can also be charged with a DUI with a BAC within the legal limit if their driving is impaired because of the use of drugs or alcohol.

California Vehicle Code 23152(a)

According to California Vehicle Code 23152(a), “it is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage to drive a vehicle.” Legally, you are “under the influence” if your “physical or mental abilities are impaired to such a degree that you no longer have the ability to drive with the caution characteristic of a sober person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances.” This type of DUI is far more subjective. To be charged with a DUI with a BAC below .08, simply requires the officer to have probable cause or a reasonable suspicion that you are driving impaired. For example, a police officer can develop probable cause based on observing suspicious driving behavior. Suspicious driving behaviors include driving excessively fast or slow, weaving between lanes, failure to use turn signals, failure to stop at a stop sign, etc. After pulling the driver over, the officer will look for signs of behavior or physical traits that indicate impairment and thus establish probable cause. Examples include red or bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, dilated pupils, an open container, slurred speech, the smell of alcohol, erratic behavior, etc.

California Implied Consent Law

If the officer observes signs that could indicate impairment, he or she will ask you to perform a series of field sobriety tests that serve to test your mental and motor skills in order to identify whether you are impaired. California implied consent laws require anyone with a valid driver’s license to submit to alcohol and drug testing if an officer suspects you of committing a DUI. After conducting several field sobriety tests, the officer will likely ask you to submit to a breathalyzer. If you blow within the legal limit but performed poorly on the field sobriety tests, the officer can still arrest you for DUI. Even if you refuse to blow, the officer can still arrest you if they believe that you are impaired. According to California’s implied consent laws, refusal to blow can result in the immediate suspension of your driver’s license. Fortunately, there are several California DUI Defenses to Vehicle Code 23152(a). A skilled and experienced California DUI attorney can help you fight your DUI charge and possibly get the charges reduced or even dismissed.

Driving Under the Influence of Drugs in California

California DUI laws make it illegal to drive while “intoxicated” by any substance. If the officer witnesses signs of impairment resulting from drugs (legal or illegal), you can still be arrested for DUI/DWI. Law enforcement officials believe that the legalization of recreational marijuana will lead to an increase in California DUI arrests. The lack of an accurate scientific method to accurately measure the amount of THC affecting a person at a specific time, gives law enforcement officials extraordinary discretionary power to arrest based on the suspicion of intoxication.

The Absence of the Rule of Law That Makes All Hispanics Suspect As Illegal Aliens

When certain politically influential people, liberal progressives ideologically opposed to U.S. Constitutional requirements and constraints, pick laws from the U.S. Code that they don’t particularly like, refuse to obey them, and strongly encourage other rank-and-file citizens to disobey them, a major problem exists that the Honorable John Adams would have described as a matter needing to be severely handled by federal law enforcement. This is because John Adams, and the other Constitutional Framers, believed in the rule of law as the sole basis for social order in the new American republic, forged from the blood, sweat, and anguished tears of many American patriots. If one disagrees with an existing law, he must still obey and stay the proper course while seeking to change it through congressional repeal or through the Constitutional amendment process. To ignore and disobey the law, and to persuade others to ignore and disobey it, are crimes that oppose social order and, as such, should carry the weight of criminal redress and punishment. As such, immigration law as it exists in the U.S. Code contains criminal statutes that have been legislated by plural Congresses and signed into law by several different U.S. Presidents during the 226 year history of the American republic. These laws are not arbitrary and flippant in their summary of immigration policy, but precise in their statements and requirements regarding illegal immigration and the legal intent of the laws making illegal immigration a crime.

Previously I have written numerous articles and essays about the treatment to be accorded to illegal aliens currently residing within the USA, and have compared those, predominantly Hispanic, individuals to shoplifters, since the first offense of illegal immigration committed by a foreign national is a federal misdemeanor, per the U.S. Immigration Code, and the crime of shoplifting is, and has been, regarded as, either, a federal or State misdemeanor, per U.S. and State criminal codes. Moreover, I have posed the issue, and left it blowing in Bob Dillon’s wind, of which is worse, shoplifting or illegal immigration. In one article, I asked the question, “What do you say to an illegal alien.” Well, I’m pretty sure I know what nearly everyone will say to shoplifters, especially the merchants and storeowners who are victimized by them. “You damn thieves! Put the merchandise back before I call the cops!” If a shoplifter steals something and a store customer sees him, or her, do it, there’s a 97 percent probability of that customer reporting the theft to store management. This means that nearly every honest person regards shoplifting as a terrible crime. So, what happens to a shoplifter who commits the same crime over and over? The shoplifter is arrested continually for a misdemeanor crime, unless the amount of the theft exceeds the threshold for grand theft, or if the shoplifter committed burglary by planning to shoplift before entering a particular store. Yet, an illegal alien who is deported, and is, again, arrested a second time for illegally entering the USA is charged with a federal felony. This is the major difference between illegal immigration and shoplifting. Illegal immigration is much worse than shoplifting, and carries with it a greater punishment if it is a repeat offense. Let me provide a graphic example of this fact, which will clearly convey the profound reason why a high impenetrable wall needs to be built along the entire southern border between the USA and Mexico.

When I was an itinerant contract shoplift-agent for the Safeway Stores, working for a time at the Safeway store in San Ysidro, California, the store manager was particularly concerned about a pair of illegal alien Mexican sisters who were regularly coming across the border from Tijuana into San Ysidro and stealing great quantities of expensive foods from his store. So far they had stolen $5,000 worth of merchandise. He wanted my partner and me to apprehend and arrest those sisters and ensure that they were punished for their crimes and permanently deported. It was July 17, 1984, the day before the Big Mac attack mass-murder at the McDonald’s in San Ysidro by James Huberty, the unemployed security guard, when we saw the sisters enter the store, and immediately begin filling their purses with expensive foods. I arrested one of the sisters and my partner the other. We handcuffed them, did our required paperwork, and immediately called the San Diego Police Department, who, in turn, contacted the U.S. Border Patrol. The sisters were subsequently arrested by the San Diego Police and then turned over to two Border Patrol agents, who didn’t do any paperwork on the sisters, but took them directly to the border and released them. Catch and release; that was the way it worked in 1984, and is the way it still works today in the second decade of the 21st Century. Illegal aliens are not punished for their original misdemeanor crimes. It is, instead, continually a revolving door of repeat illegal immigration. The Safeway store manager contacted us a week later to let us know that the sisters had again looted his store, and that he was considering hiring someone to break the sisters’ legs, or worse, since law enforcement wasn’t willing to do anything to stop them. Hence, an impenetrable border wall between Mexico and the USA, guarded 24/7, is greatly needed. But what about the 12-14 million illegal Hispanic aliens currently in the USA. How should they be treated by American citizens who respect the rule of law?

Of these millions of illegal Hispanic aliens residing in all parts of the republic, there are those who have been in the country for only a short period of time, who cannot speak English. These aliens are those Hispanics who have trespassed across the southern border on Monday, and by Thursday have been relocated to a Hispanic community in Virginia or some other state through an illegal network set-up for illegal aliens. And then there those who have been in the country for decades of time, who have learned to speak and write the English language and have had numerous anchor babies, or children who are “not” American citizens even though they were born on U.S. soil. I will address these many illegal aliens per the 14th Amendment later in this article. Illegal aliens, who have managed to remain in the country on the lam, unseen and unnoticed, are tantamount to U.S. citizen criminals who have committed crimes and have successfully evaded law enforcement by changing their names, staying under the radar, and blending quietly into a community in a particular job setting, until the day when they are recognized and brought to justice. These criminal aliens have committed crimes by sneaking into the USA one, or more, times. If they have already been deported once and sneak, again, across the border, they are illegal alien felons. Therefore, based upon the current demographics of illegal immigration, in a group of fifteen adult Hispanics gathered on a street corner anywhere in the USA, the probability that five or more of them are illegal aliens is 95 percent. This is an alarming statistic that broaches the many billions of tax dollars collected from hardworking U.S. citizens that have been spent by State and federal governments to feed, clothe, educate, and provide healthcare for these millions of illegal aliens and their anchor babies. Now, what about those millions of anchor babies currently in the USA. If, for example, Rosa and Juan Mendez, Mexican citizens, sneak across the southern Mexican-U.S. border when Rosa is nine months pregnant, and, at the moment that Rosa and Juan step onto U.S. soil, the woman goes into labor to have triplets, which have to be delivered by caesarian-section, who picks up the cost tab for the healthcare? Let’s say the Border Patrol finds Rosa ten feet inside the border on U.S. soil in labor. What should federal immigration enforcement do? This is where the matter of what they should do conflicts with what they actually do. The Border Patrol “should” call the Mexican police to have Rosa taken to a Mexican hospital, and should not spend one-dollar of federal tax money on her. Yet, these border cops think that money grows on trees when they humanely radio for a life-flight helicopter to fly illegal alien Rosa Mendez, and her husband, to the nearest U.S. hospital to have an American obstetrician perform the caesarian-section at taxpayer expense. And you know what? Rosa and Juan Mendez, and the many other illegal aliens like them, aren’t required to repay a penny of the money that has been spent on them. Now the children born to them are not under the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth. Why? The parents are Mexican nationals who have illegally entered the USA. Hence, they are still under the jurisdiction of Mexico while illegally in the United States. As such, the children that exit Rosa Mendez’s body onto U.S. soil are also not under the jurisdiction of the United States. Why does this make a world of difference in the birth status of those children? The first sentence of the 14th Amendment, known as the citizenship clause, states the following. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” While Rosa Mendez’s children were born on U.S. soil, they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Who, then, would be foreign nationals born in the USA and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? If Rosa and Juan Mendez had obtained visas and had been on U.S. soil legally, they would have been under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, and, therefore, their children would have been born under U.S. jurisdiction. Also, if the couple had endeavored to immigrate legally into the USA, and were legally in the State of California, Arizona, Texas, or New Mexico when Rosa had been required to go to a hospital to have her babies, the children would have been born as U.S. citizens. That was the intent of the citizenship clause, to make it clear that illegal aliens were not under the jurisdiction of the USA, and that children born to them in the USA were not U.S. citizens.

The absence of the rule of federal law in firmly stipulating the citizenship status of anchor babies, and the immigration status of any foreign Hispanic national that crosses the southern U.S. border illegally, makes all Hispanics in the republic suspect of illegal status; for who can tell the difference between an illegal Hispanic alien who has been on U.S. soil for a month, but can speak and write English passably, and another Hispanic, an educated U.S. citizen who was born legally in the USA to Hispanic U.S. citizen parents? The presence of the millions of illegal aliens in the republic makes imperative the application of law to enforce the U.S. Immigration Code and to deport all Hispanics illegally in the United States. The “rule of law” is essential in determining legal U.S. citizenship, just like the codified law making shoplifting a crime. If a police officer apprehends a shoplifter and, afterward, pats him on the shoulder saying, “It’s okay! You didn’t steal that much. You don’t deserve to be arrested,” or if a judge exonerates a shoplifter and rules that the person really didn’t commit a crime by stealing a box of candy bars from a store, and allows the shoplifter to go free, he has set a dangerous subjective precedent that flies in face of the Honorable John Adams famous statement, “We are a nation of laws, and not of men.”

In summation, people who break the laws of the United States should not be treated nicely. If the federal government treats illegal alien criminals nicely and refuses to enforce the immigrations laws, and all other codified laws, as they were intended to be enforced, it is a system that is just the opposite of the foregoing statement by John Adams. By its refusal to properly enforce existing immigration laws, the U.S. government is telling the American electorate, and the world, that “we are a nation of men, and not of laws,” that human whims and subjectivities are more important than legal rules and their constancy.

Allowing illegal Hispanics the same courtesies as U.S. citizens contradicts the “rule of law” principle. If you are going to allow illegal aliens those courtesies, why not allow shoplifters the same courtesies. If you learn that a person, with whom you just had lunch, with whom you had just shared some personal secrets, had stolen hundreds of dollars of merchandise over-time from 7-Eleven stores by shoplifting, how would you feel about that person? Illegals and their children, over time, steal a great deal of money from American taxpayers, and they do it with apparent impunity. Just because illegal Hispanics are holding down jobs and earning money does not mean that they have a legal right to have those jobs and make that money. The only way that illegal immigration is going to end is by the American electorate awakening to the fact that illegal immigration is illegal and wrong, and that the building of a southern border wall, as President Trump has pledged to do, will go a long way to let these illegal aliens know that they are not welcome in the republic and that they should go back to their native countries. If you allow one shoplifter to get away with stealing, a terrible precedent has been set by men and the rule of law has been defied. The same basic principle applies to all crimes, especially illegal immigration.

Stay of Enforcement of California Judgment

A stay of enforcement of a California judgment is the topic of this article. Code of Civil Procedure section 918 is the California statute authorizing a trial court to stay the enforcement of any judgment but only for a limited period of time. For most California judgments such as money judgments the trial court can stay enforcement for no more than 10 days beyond the last date on which a notice of appeal could be filed.

A request for a stay of enforcement of a California judgment requires that the moving party file a noticed motion or more commonly an ex-parte application for what is known as a stay of execution of the judgment.

Any parties in California that have had a money judgment entered against them in California need to realize the vital importance of immediately seeking a stay of execution of any money judgment as soon as possible after the judgment has been entered. The reason for this is Code of Civil Procedure section 683.010 states that, “Except as otherwise provided by statute or in the judgment, a judgment is enforceable under this title upon entry.” This means that California law allows a judgment creditor to begin collection proceedings to enforce the judgment as soon as the judgment has been entered by the clerk of the court, in some cases that may be the same day!

In cases where the judgment creditor appears to be particularly aggressive and a party believes that they may begin collection efforts right away that party may wish to file an ex-parte application for a stay of execution.

The period of time in which the execution of a judgment may be stayed varies depending on whether the case is a limited civil or unlimited civil case and whether or not a notice of entry of judgment has been served by either the clerk of the court or any other party to the action. Therefore every case is unique and this is the reason there are several different deadlines for filing a notice of appeal for both limited civil case and unlimited civil cases. Examples of the different deadlines will be given below.

California Rule of Court 8.822 governs the deadline for filing a notice of appeal in limited civil cases.

For most limited civil cases in which the clerk of the court or any party has served a notice of entry of judgment on the defendant the deadline to file a notice of appeal is 30 days from the date that the notice of entry of judgment is served on the defendant.

For most limited civil cases if no notice of entry of judgment was served on the defendant the deadline to file a notice of appeal is 90 days from the date that the judgment is entered by the clerk of the court.

California Rule of Court 8.104 governs the deadline for filing a notice of appeal in limited civil cases.

For most unlimited civil cases in which the clerk of the court or any party has served a notice of entry of judgment on the defendant the deadline to file a notice of appeal is 60 days from the date that the notice of entry of judgment is served on the defendant.

For most unlimited civil cases if no notice of entry of judgment was served on the defendant the deadline to file a notice of appeal is 190 days from the date that the judgment is entered by the clerk of the court.

Although the trial court has the power to stay enforcement of the judgment whether or not a notice of appeal has been filed in the real world there are some judges who may only grant a stay of enforcement in the following situations:

The moving party had a judgment obtained against them through default and they have filed or will file a motion to vacate that judgment that shows valid grounds for vacating the judgment.

The moving party has already filed a notice of appeal or will file a notice of appeal and can show at least facially plausible grounds for appealing the judgment and the moving party can make a strong showing that they will suffer irreparable injury if execution of the judgment is not stayed.

The moving party should include a detailed declaration with specific facts and evidence detailing the irreparable harm they will suffer if a stay of execution is not granted and should also include any relevant documents as exhibits.

Possible grounds could include that the judgment was obtained by default and the moving party has filed or will file a motion to vacate the judgment, that allowing enforcement of the judgment will cause the sale of a key asset of significant value, would devastate an ongoing business or would likely result in insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings.

California Cyber Bullying Laws to Protect Your Children and Teens

Since home computer systems have grown so popular, there have been more men, women, and children that become the targeted victims of cyber bullying. This is an extremely frustrating and sometimes frightening problem that can quickly be solved when a reverse email look-up is performed by an experienced private investigator. The California cyber bullying laws that have been enacted can also be of great help to people that are experiencing this type of harassment.

The Education Code Sections 32260 through 32262, it simply refers to the partnership formed between Law Enforcement and Schools. This partnership is comprised of the Attorney General and the Superintendent providing instruction to students of the Public School System. This is a partnership that is commonly known as the Interagency School Safety Demonstration Act of 1985. As a form of protection of all students this is one of the California cyber bullying laws that consists of the following:

Policies and programs shall be put in place that is required to carry out Article 5 provisions, starting with Section 32280. The administrators of safe school programs, all activities, procedures, and training that are conducted in accordance with this chapter.The cooperation of other state and federal agencies of other states when it comes to the matter of safety in schools.While attending classes on any of the campuses of the California School System, it is the right of each and every student to be ensured that the campus will be peaceful, secure, and safe. Without each of these elements, it is practically impossible for students to benefit from the specific educational programs they are a part of. This is precisely why this chapter of the California Cyber bullying laws was developed.

Legislature’s intent is for the agencies that serve California’s youth, school districts, law enforcement agencies, and county offices of education to all work together. They are encouraged to create and use various types of programs of in-service training, interagency strategies, and different kinds of activities that are geared towards reducing issues with bullying and other problems that often occur within the school system. California cyber bullying laws in this section refer to bullying that occur with the use of various types of electronic devices. This would include home computer systems, mobile phones, pagers, home telephones, and video recorders.

If one of your children has been experiencing the trauma that cyber bullying can cause, you are urged to review the valuable information contained in the Education Code Sections 32260 through 32262 of the California cyber bullying laws. Another helpful step to put a halt to this type of situation would be to have a reverse email look-up performed by a professional private investigator.

The New California Cell Phone Law and Why Bluetooth Will Save You a Ticket

If you live in California you should be aware by now that as of July 1, 2008 you can no longer drive while holding your cell phone and talking without receiving a ticket. The new California Cell Phone Driving Law requires drivers to be equipped with a hands free device to use a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle.

A couple of the most common questions about the new cell phone law are as follows:

What are the differences between the two laws?

Answer – The first law forbids all drivers from using a handheld wireless cell phone while operating a motor vehicle but does allow for the use of the cell phone if the driver is using a hands free device. The second law states that NO driver under the age of eighteen may use a cell phone while driving a motor vehicle.

What if I have an emergency and need to make a call and do not yet have a hands free device?

According to the language in the law, a driver is permitted to place an emergency call to law enforcement, medical providers, fire departments, and other emergency service providers.
These are just a couple of the many questions that people have about the new California Cell Phone Driving Law, for more Q&A read to the end of this article.

The easy answer to avoiding a ticket is to simply purchase a Bluetooth hands free device for your cell phone. It is highly recommended that you do so because unlike the cell phone laws in some states where one must be pulled over for some other infraction, the law in California requires no other infraction and a law enforcement officer may ticket you purely for the use of the cell phone while driving.

The wireless headsets available today are very lightweight and comfortable and offer exceptional sound quality. The ones I like the best are the Bluetooth devices that fit behind the ear and are very unobtrusive. The great thing about this technology is that they do not lose their signal on bridges are while in tunnels. Using a Bluetooth hands free device will keep you in compliance with the new cell phone law and keep you safer because you won’t be fumbling around with your cell phone while you are driving. Most of the newer headsets are equipped with voice activation calling so you needn’t even look at your cell phone, you merely speak the name of the person you want to call that is stored in your address book and the call will be connected.

There is really no reason not to have a Bluetooth headset for use in your car even if you are in a state that doesn’t require it yet. Driving while talking on a cell phone without a headset has been proven to cause four times more accidents resulting in injury according to a study done in emergency rooms from 2002-2004. Now, four years later with even more people using cell phones while driving I am sure the statistics are even higher.

California LiveScan, A Real Background Check?

California LiveScan is the state run system administered by the California Department of Justice for criminal background checks and is available only on workers whose work includes working with children, the elderly and disabled. These include law enforcement agencies, public and private schools, non-profit organizations and in-home supportive care agencies. There is no other statewide criminal check available for employers. All school teachers, public and private, recreational workers and nursing home workers must be LiveScaned.

Church pastors and nursery workers are also eligible to use the program. Most churches use LiveScan if they already use it for their affiliated church school. Organizations who use this program send their applicants who have been conditionally hired pending the background check, to a LiveScan vendor who fingerprints the applicant (the applicant puts their fingerprints on a scanner which electronically scans the fingerprint, hence the name) submits the applicant’s data online to the state where a statewide criminal check is performed and, if chosen by the organization ordering the report, a nationwide NCIC (FBI files) check is performed. The resulting information is then sent to the participating organization.

This system is one of the best in the in the country, but the purpose of this article is to point out that it does have what I consider to be major flaws that very few people know about. I think that it is very important, especially for parents, to know the system’s limitations in hopes that someday the state will tighten the loopholes and more children will be protected.

The LiveScan system places strict limitations on what information is available and how that information is distributed. The criminal history report is sent to the organization’s Records Custodian, which may or may not be the person making the hiring decision and in larger organizations it us usually not the same person. The Records custodian is only allowed to tell the person making the hiring decision that the person has passed or failed the LiveScan. They don’t even get to know why that person has failed the background check.

SURPRISING FACT # 1. CALIFORNIA LIVE SCAN DOES NOT REPORT ALL CRIMINAL HISTORY The state of California has mandated that only records related to the following categories are revealed by LiveScan: 1. Crimes relating to child abuse or elder abuse 2. Sex Offenders 3. Convictions or incarcerations in the last 10 years as a result of committing: theft, robbery burglary or any felony.

Now, on its face the list above looks pretty good, but let’s go over some of the crimes that it doesn’t cover and as we go through the list try to think of your child’s nanny or her Sunday school teacher engaged in these crimes. Here’s a partial list: Assault, Accessory to a crime, Aiding and abetting, Bad check writing, Carrying a gun without a license, Contempt, Domestic Violence, False impersonation, Medicare fraud, Stalking, Drug possession, Indecent exposure, Misdemeanor Prostitution, Lewd conduct, Disorderly conduct, Disturbing the peace, Vandalism, Trespassing, Malicious mischief, Public drunkenness and the list goes on. I don’t know about you, but before I would hire someone to work with children I think I would want to know if they are a pot-smoking, bar-fighting drunk-in-public type person. Most people would agree.

SURPRISING FACT # 2. LIVESCAN DOESN’T CHECK FOR ANY CIVIL RECORDS. OK maybe now you are thinking that this California LiveScan doesn’t cover as much as you thought and you would be correct. It also doesn’t cover any civil court rulings against a person such as Restraining orders, Non-molestation orders, Order for Protection and Injunctions (for things such as stalking). You don’t think that is important? The Family Violence Prevention Fund estimates that up to three million women are the victims of domestic violence each year and restraining orders are one important way that they can protect themselves.

SURPRISING FACT # 3 LIVESCAN DOES NOT CHECK THE CALIFORNIA SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY (also known as the Megan’s Law registry). THE PRECEEDING SENTENCE IS NOT A MISPRINT; IT’S TRUE! You can verify this by calling the California Department of Justice and asking them. Their number is 916 227-4974. By now you are probably asking yourself, “How in the world can this be true? A state system designed to protect children doesn’t even check for drug offenders, wife beaters and sex offenders? That is unconscionable!” Even as I write this I find it hard to believe myself. It doesn’t even check the Megan’s Law list for sex offenders who have moved to California from another state who are required to register.

BUT WAIT; THERE’S MORE. There are even two more area that LiveScan does not check or report. When it searches criminal records, it only searches records where a person was fingerprinted. For a minor, non-violent crime people are sometimes issued a notice to appear, just like a traffic ticket. People who are arrested in that way are not fingerprinted. I understand that when big cities do things like prostitution sweeps that they sometimes use that method for both the prostitutes and their “clients”. Also, if an arrest is found on someone’s criminal history and there is no corresponding disposition such as a trial verdict, plea agreement or sentencing information, they withhold the information from you. The following quote is off their website: “Unless otherwise authorized by law, where only an arrest record exists but the Department is unable to obtain corresponding disposition information, the Department shall suppress that arrest information and provide the authorized agency with a response that no criminal history information exists.”

As a person who has been in the background check business for 13 years and the father of two college age daughters, I would have designed the system very differently to say the least. I certainly would not have designed in holes big enough to drive a truck through and potentially let criminals have access to children. The more I study this information the more I am convinced that the State of California is more interested in protecting the rights of criminals than protecting children and the elderly. In all my dozens of conversations with pastors, school administrators and law enforcement people I have only spoken to one person, who was truly aware of the built-in limitations of the LiveScan system. Most people assume that if it is the state-run system then it must be the best and most complete.

As I was re-researching the data to write this article I also found that it is possible for someone to have their sex offence crime expunged after serving their sentence, but would still be required to be registered as a sex offender. That is one more very convincing reason to check the Megan’s Law list.

Again, if someone was background checking my daughter’s teacher, coach, counselor or pastor I would want a more thorough check and I expect better from the State of California on behalf of all children.

THE ALTERNATIVE: Most organizations who use LiveScan have to by state law, but if you have a choice you should consider a private sector background check from a reputable company that gives you all of the criminal information on a county by county basis, checks the civil records, the Megan’s Law list and records from any other state where a person may have lived.

California Auto Insurance Laws: A Must Thing to Follow

Each state of US has various laws about car insurance requirements. The Public Utilities Commission of California and the DMV of California has set the basic requirements for the car insurance within the state of California. All the California auto insurance requirements are authorized by law and one has to fulfill these requirements for obtaining the vehicle registration within California. If you do not follow all these auto insurance laws properly, you may have your vehicle ceased, license suspended, high fines or criminal charges. All these risks are pertaining to a situation where you don’t go through an accident. In case of an accident, if you haven’t met the legal requirements, you may face huge liabilities for the damage repairs. In California, the private vehicles need to have the minimum liability insurance which is stated in the insurance Code of California. Under this code, the minimum auto insurance requirements are:

• The amount of $15,000 for the injury or death to a single person.
• The amount of $30,000 for the injury or death to 2 or more than 2 persons.
• The amount of $5,000 for the damage to vehicle.

The liability insurance also covers other persons besides the policyholder in case of property damage or personal injury. The Comprehensive or Collision Insurance is unable to cover such damages or injuries. The Comprehensive Insurance covers for the damages that are beyond your control like vandalism, fire, natural disasters and theft. In the state of California, if you face any affordability issues in the coverage of minimum liability California auto insurance, you may apply for California Low Cost Auto Insurance Program. The local DMV offices can easily provide you the details of this program.

While registering your vehicle, if you are involved in any kind of accident or if the law enforcement agency requests it, you may be asked to disclose your entire car insurance coverage. Along with the insurance card, DMV may also ask you to provide the following documents:

• An authorized letter of DMV.
• The proof of Insurance certificate of California (SR-22).
• The evidence of the ownership or lease of the stated person.
• A notification about the alternative kinds of financial responsibility.
• An affidavit claiming the fulfillment of California auto insurance requirements.

In order to follow the auto insurance laws, there is no need to break the bank after every 6 months. You can easily get new quotes on the basis of your current record. After every 3 years, the traffic tickets and accidents are usually dropped from your record. Moreover, with passage of time, as you get mature, gain more experience in driving, relocate, change jobs, your vehicle insurance costs automatically decrease. There are many websites where the customers may compare the insurance rates and can also receive quotes from the auto insurance providers operating within their area. These insurance providers are well aware of the California auto insurance laws and also offer attractive discounts to the customers.

Finally, it is essential to make sure that you are fully insured according to the California auto insurance requirements in order to avoid many risks and expenses. For getting the quotes on the cheap car insurance, Californian drivers can easily use Quote Dash for the completion of their driver and vehicle profile. After submission, you can get the cheap California vehicle insurance from a wide network of insurance companies and agents that will definitely compete in order to get business.

How To Deal With Age Discrimination As Per California Labor Laws

Age is one of the most critical factors that comprise discrimination issues in the workplace. Hence, it is only fitting that a specific section is created to tackle this issue when looking at California labor laws and policies in general. Lawmakers in the state of California strive their best to ensure that this employment policy stay as neutral as possible, especially for those aged 40 and above. To help in the preservation of employer rights and facilitate in providing employee benefits, make sure you read further for more details.

The federal law has imposed its own policies when it comes to age discrimination in the workplace. This is explained further in the ADEA or Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The goal of this section in the law is to protect all individuals who are at least 40 years old or above from any form of discrimination resulting from their age. According to this act, it is against the law to discriminate an individual within the workplace based solely on their age. Furthermore, it is also unlawful and could lead to employer liability if they are deprived of terms, benefits, and other aspects of their employment for the same reasons. Even if a person is not employed yet, discrimination resulting from age as associated with training or hiring can also subject the employer to lawsuit.

The California labor law concerning age discrimination is lenient when it comes to the enforcement of this policy, though. Provided that an employer can prove that the employee was terminated or refused employment or promotion can show proof that the employer was denied of such privileges for reasons other than their age, then they are cleared of any legal accountability. Currently, the legislators in California are still finalizing on what are the grounds that could fall under the “reasonable factors” classification.

A new government code under the California law was put forth via the Labor Code §12941.1, which was later revised to §12941. According to this law, all employers are prohibited from differentiating older employees when there is a need to lay off, especially when it produces an adverse impact to the older workers. The goal of this particular section in the employment law is to not just protect older employees as individuals, but also to give them the opportunity to prepare for any obstacles that they might face later in life. This unique consideration must therefore be taken into account by companies to curtail the possibility of employer liability.

In case of a defense on business necessity, you need to stay informed to preserve employer right. The ADEA might honor the presentation of “reasonable factors” for terminating older employees from work, the California labor laws require a more detailed explanation for what has led the employer into such a decision. The California employer has to be able to showcase the decision at a higher standard in order to exemplify that it was part of business necessity. The act specifically indicates that it must be part of an “overriding legitimate business purpose” and that it is necessary for the sake of the business operation in general. Furthermore, the employer will be held accountable if the court is able to show that there is an alternative decision available to them aside from one that would bring about significant discriminatory impact on older employees.

First Offense DUI California

DUI is considered a serious offense and carries penalties for 1st offense DUI California cases. Because of the potential for causing injuries and fatalities to other motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists, DUI is an offense that can be classified as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances surrounding the offense and the number of convictions an offender has within a certain time period. Knowing the definition of DUI, how DUI is determined, and how it is prosecuted can help drivers avoid the penalties associated with a 1st or subsequent offense.

DUI Defined

DUI is an acronym that stands for driving under the influence. Motorists may be driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both substances. There are two parts to a 1st offense DUI California case. One takes into account the level of impairment of the defendant. This level can be determined when law enforcement officers are talking to the individual or when field sobriety tests are performed. Officers will often make notes about slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, the odor of the driver, and how the driver is acting. Sobriety tests are performed to determine if a driver is impaired. When these tests are administered, officers look for stumbling, falling, tripping, and other signs that a driver may have been drinking. The other component of a 1st offense DUI California case is blood alcohol level. This level is determined with chemical testing of a suspect’s blood, urine, or breath. In California, the legal limit for blood alcohol level is 0.08%. If this limit is met or exceeded, a driver is considered to be under the influence, even if they do not show any physical signs of impairment.

1st Offense DUI California Prosecution

How a DUI case is prosecuted depends on a number of factors. The age of the person being charged, their blood alcohol level at the time of arrest, any injuries or property damage caused by the defendant, and any prior convictions are considered. DUI is often a misdemeanor charge, but it can be charged as a felony if the defendant has had a number of prior convictions or if serious injuries have been caused. The prosecutor in the case will rely on chemical testing results and statements from law enforcement officers to try to convict those charged with driving under the influence.

1st Offense DUI California Administrative Penalties

If convicted of driving under the influence, two sets of penalties are imposed. The first penalty is administrative in nature and is imposed by the Department of Motor Vehicles. For a 1st offense DUI California case, the penalty is a four-month license suspension period. If the convicted driver refused chemical testing, the penalty is a one-year license suspension, even if they are not convicted in a criminal trial at a later date. The administrative penalties increase with each subsequent driving under the influence offense.

1st Offense DUI California Criminal Penalties

There are a number of criminal penalties that can be imposed for a 1st DUI offense in the state of California. The courts consider a number of factors when imposing these penalties on offenders. If the convicted offender’s blood alcohol level was extremely high, or if injuries or property damage occurred, the sentence may be harsher. Jail time of 96 hours to 6 months can be imposed, along with fines up to $1,000 and a six-month license suspension. Offenders are also expected to attend alcohol education classes.

1st Offense DUI California Ignition Interlock Device Penalty

Some offenders are required to have an ignition interlock device install in every vehicle they own. An ignition interlock device is a device that is installed in a vehicle and tests a breath sample of an offender each time they attempt to start the engine. If the offender has any alcohol in his or her breath, the vehicle will fail to start and they will be unable to drive. These devices have both proponents and critics. Those who support ignition interlock devices think they cut down on driving under the influence. Critics of the devices believe they do not work because offenders could easily ask a friend or relative to breathe into the device if they have been drinking. The device would read that breath sample and allow the vehicle to be started even if the offender had been drinking. This can allow repeat offenders to get away with driving under the influence even though ignition interlock devices are supposed to prevent it from happening.

If you are facing a 1st offense DUI California charge, contact a qualified attorney to help you prepare your case and give you the best chance of experiencing success during your trial.

Junk Faxes – New California Law Challenged

I hate junk faxes. You hate junk faxes. We all hate junk faxes! California legislators passed a law banning them, but it has been delayed to a legal challenge.

Junk Fax Prevention Act

In 2005, the State of California passed the Junk Fax Prevention Act. Legislators were reacting to the bevy of businesses screaming about the junk faxes being received daily. The problem with junk faxes, besides being annoying, is they put wear and tear on fax machines as well as using up paper and toner. In passing the new law, legislators sought to help businesses. In truth, I imagine they just wanted to free up their own faxes, but I digress.

The Junk Fax Prevention Act was set to go into force on January 1, 2006. In a rather shocking move, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed for an injunction, which was granted. Joining the Chamber of Commerce is Xpedite Systems, a fax company. Filed in federal court, the injunction was granted and the law stayed from being enforced. A hearing on the matter will be held January 23, 2006 with the earliest resolution of the matter being January 30, 2006.

At the heart of the dispute is an exemption to the law known as the previous business relationship exemption. Under federal law, a person may send a fax to a person or business with which they have had a previous business relationship. The problem, however, is there is no particular test for determining a previous business relationship. The California law seeks to require proof of such a business relationship.

Ironically, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was one of the biggest and boisterous supporters of the federal junk fax law. In a mysterious change of position, the Chamber of Commerce is now taking the position the California law is unduly burdensome on medium and small businesses.

This position is so much hogwash, a typical stance for the Chamber of Commerce. When evaluating such bland statement positions, it is always important to use common sense. In this case, a business sending faxes to clients is easily going to have proof of such relationships. Indeed, most businesses now communicate by email with their clients in lieu of a fax. If something written needs to go out, it is typically done by snail mail.

Intentionally or not, the only parties the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is protecting are the junk fax senders. What a shame. Let’s hope the court puts the Chamber in its place.