Signal Hill DUI Crash, Refusal, Long Beach Courthouse
Our client, age 37, had no prior criminal history. He had a steady job and a strong bond with the community.
However, on one night in October 2022, he found himself in “The Fantasy Castle,” an adult-theme bar in Signal Hill. According to bouncers at the bar later interviewed by Signal Hill Police Department officers, our client entered the bar already quite intoxicated. He then continued to drink in the bar and became quite loud. Our client was only about five feet, four inches tall and perhaps 150 pounds.
Eventually, at about 9:00 p.m., bouncers asked our client to leave and reluctantly, he did. Once outside the bar, however, he loitered in the parking lot, speaking with a security guard for about a half hour.
Finally, he got in his car and sped off, only to crash into a Southern California Electric light pole only about 100 yards away from the Fantasy Castle.
The Signal Hill Police Department was at the scene almost immediately, as their station was less than a block away.
Our client was found still in his car and officers allegedly detected the odor of alcohol immediately, which was remarkable because our client had only been in his car for perhaps three minutes before driving, crashing and officers having face-to-face contact with him.
Officers immediately sensed that our client was drunk and therefore asked if he had been drinking. Our client’s response was honest: “A lot!” Officers then asked him to perform field sobriety tests, which really should not be administered after a DUI suspect is involved in a car accident. Moreover, there really was no need to independently corroborate that our client was physically impaired since he just drove his car into a light pole and admitted he had consumed a significant amount of alcohol.
Nonetheless, officers were on “auto pilot” and decided to administer the field sobriety tests when their top priority really should have been whether our client was injured and needed medical care from the car accident.
Bouncers from the Fantasy Castle walked over to the crash scene and told officers that our client had been in the bar and that he had been asked to leave due to his intoxication level and rowdy behavior.
Our client was then asked if he would submit to a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) test and he declined, which is his legal right under Vehicle Code § 23612(i).
The client was then arrested on suspicion of DUI and taken basically across the street to the Signal Hill Police Department, where he refused a breath test. Police did not take our client at all to the hospital to even have him seen for injuries.
Our client was then put in a jail cell (it was only about 9:30 p.m.) and he fell asleep, only to be roused awake and released the next morning after signing a promise to appear in the Long Beach Superior Court about three months later.
The client immediately called family members and asked what he should do. One of his brothers had suffered a DUI arrest years earlier and had retained Greg Hill & Associates. He told his brother to call Greg, as Greg had resolved his DUI as a wet reckless.
The client called Greg and explained the facts of the case, as best he could recall. He asked Greg if Greg though he could resolve the case as a “wet reckless” like he had for his brother. Greg candidly told him probably not, as there was a car accident and a refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test. Greg also told the client that the case most likely would resolve with a DUI and a nine-month alcohol awareness program due to the refusal.
However, Greg told the client that DUI’s in Signal Hill are handled by District Attorneys in Long Beach, not the Long Beach City Prosecutor’s office and not the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, so that was good because the District Attorneys were often more likely to listen and consider defense arguments about the case.
Greg then appeared at the arraignment on the case on the client’s behalf (the client stayed at work). The first offer from the District Attorney’s office was indeed three years of informal or summary probation, with no jail, but an obligation for our client to pay a court fine of $390 plus penalties and assessments (less credit of $250 toward the $390 fine for two actual days of custody), attend the nine-month alcohol awareness program and pay restitution to Southern California Edison for the damaged light pole.
At the second appearance, Greg explained the problems in police procedures with the crash investigation and DUI investigation and the DA lowered the offer for our client to a three-month alcohol awareness program and struck the refusal allegation (Vehicle Code § 23577).
This was as low as the offer could be without being a wet reckless, so our client accepted the offer, happy that it was resolved for the statutory minimums despite rather bad facts.
For more information about DUI, please click on the following articles:
Client Reviews
★★★★★
"Thank you so much for putting so much effort in this case. We really appreciate it and we are happy that all turned out well." S.A., Torrance
★★★★★
"Greg Hill did an outstanding job on every level. He was efficient, thorough, knowledgeable, courteous, responsive & brilliant. He welcomed my input and my concerns. . . from the first conversation to the last - I always felt 'it mattered' to him." S.C., Rolling Hills Estates
★★★★★
"Thanks again for your hard work. We want you to know that we are very appreciative of all that you have done [on our son's] behalf. With warmest regards." L.H., Torrance
★★★★★
"Dear Greg, Thank you again for all your help. Your professionalism and thoroughness is greatly admired. I will definitely recommend you to my friends if they ever need legal help." V.L., Carson
★★★★★
"Thanks for investing in my case. I talked to other attorneys out there and they had an arms-length of attitude, but not you. Your intensity and interest helped a lot." C.R., Pomona