Hermosa Beach DUI, Client Age 20, 0.16% BAC, Crash, Refusal

Our client, age 20, and his girlfriend were heading south on Pacific Coast Highway.  It was Labor Day weekend and about 9:00 p.m.  Our client was driving a 2002 BMW 325i.  Our client was driving fast in the lane along the right side of the road, just next to the sidewalk.

As Pacific Coast Highway reached Second Street, near Skechers’ headquarters, the rightmost lane ended due to road construction.  Our client had no choice but to change lanes to the left.  He was going too fast to stop. 

Unfortunately, the traffic light at Second Street was red and there were cars stopped in the lane to the left.  Our client consequently rear-ended another car stopped for the light.

Fortunately, no one was injured seriously, although our client said he had some right hip pain from the crash. 

The Hermosa Beach Police Department came to the scene and found drug paraphernalia in our client’s car and could smell the odor of alcohol from our client.  They asked him if he had been drinking and he said he had not. 

Despite telling police that his hip hurt from the car crash, police then asked him to perform field sobriety tests at the scene, on a section of the sidewalk that was sloping to the side.  The client allegedly failed all the tests.

It merits mention that after a car accident, one’s equilibrium can be affected, but police apparently ignored this fact.  They then asked our client to submit to a breath test at the scene and he refused.

Police then took our client to Bayside Medical Clinic only for a blood test after calling in for a warrant under McNeely (a “McNeely Warrant,” which is required under Missouri v. McNeely (2013) 569 U.S. 141). 

The McNeely case is significant in the “DUI World” insofar as in the case, Mr. McNeely was arrested for DUI.  He refused to submit to a breath or blood test.  He was then taken to a hospital where the officer had office staff hold him down and a blood sample was taken without a search warrant.  McNeely’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was well above the legal limit. 

McNeely then moved to suppress the evidence of his blood’s BAC, arguing it was the fruit of an illegal search.  The State of Missouri argued that such a warrantless search was legal under an exigent circumstances exception since the suspect’s blood alcohol level was decreasing with time.  The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with McNeely that a warrant was required and it was not so difficult or time consuming to get a warrant so as to require a forced blood draw.

In our client’s case, the blood was drawn and later measured, weeks later, at 0.16% BAC, well above the 0.0% level allowed for a person under age 21 and double the legal limit for DUI for those who are 21 or older. 

After our client had been released from jail, he called Greg Hill & Associates and told Greg what had happened.  He also asked what could happen to his driver’s license and if he’d spend any time in jail.

Greg answered the client’s questions, explaining that he would most likely be charged simply with DUI (Vehicle Code §§ 23152(a) and 23152(b)), along with a charge that he refused to submit to a breath or blood test under Vehicle Code § 23577, although the client also could be charged with violations of Vehicle Code § 23136 (“Driving With a Blood Alcohol Content of 0.01% or Higher when Under Age 21”) and Vehicle Code § 23140 (“Driving with a Blood Alcohol Content of 0.05%.or Higher When Under 21).

The client then retained Greg Hill & Associates and Greg appeared at the arraignment in Torrance Superior Court for our client, who had since then moved to Texas.

Greg was able to negotiate with the Redondo Beach City Prosecutor to eventually reach a plea bargain wherein our client pleaded no contest to a violation of Vehicle Code § 23152(b) and was placed on three years of informal probation with an obligation to pay a court fine of $390, plus penalties and assessments, attend the six-month alcohol awareness program (called the AB 762 program) online through Tom Wilson Counseling, attend the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Victim Impact Panel (also online through Tom Wilson Counseling) and pay any restitution to the owner of the other vehicle damaged for any amounts insurance does not cover.

The prosecution agreed to strike the refusal allegation, which was significant because otherwise such an admission in the plea would trigger an obligation from the California DMV to attend the nine-month alcohol awareness program, called the AB 1353 program.

As the client was living outside California and would need a Texas driver’s license, Greg explained to him how to file a 1650 waiver with the California DMV to be excused from California’s DMV requirement that he attend the DUI class in person.

For more information about underage DUI and a 1650 Waiver, please click on the following articles: