Los Angeles NHTSA Attorney

Impaired driving casts a long shadow over the roadways of Los Angeles and the entire state of California. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) stands as a pivotal force in the ongoing effort to combat this danger. For decades, this federal agency has dedicated itself to meticulous research into the patterns and consequences of impaired driving. Its work extends to the development of standardized protocols for law enforcement officers tasked with identifying and apprehending individuals driving under the influence. Furthermore, the NHTSA plays a crucial role in shaping national policy recommendations, influencing everything from the precise methods officers use during roadside evaluations to the very definition of legal intoxication as measured by blood alcohol concentration (BAC). For anyone facing the serious allegations of driving under the influence in Los Angeles, or for those seeking a deeper understanding of California's DUI laws, a skilled DUI defense attorney will help you grasp the significance of the NHTSA's involvement and the specific legal framework in place to achieve a favorable outcome in your case.

In California, the vast majority of DUI offenses are prosecuted under the California Vehicle Code, specifically sections like Vehicle Code §23152(a), which prohibits driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination thereof, and §23152(b), which makes it unlawful to drive with a BAC of 0.08 percent or higher. While standard DUI charges reside within the Vehicle Code, it is crucial to understand that certain related offenses and sentencing enhancements can intersect with the California Penal Code, particularly when the circumstances of a DUI incident involve more serious outcomes.

For instance, a tragic consequence of impaired driving, the causing of a fatality, can lead to charges of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated under Penal Code §191.5(a). This statute applies when an individual driving under the influence acts with gross negligence, resulting in the death of another person. Gross negligence, in this legal context, signifies more than ordinary carelessness; it implies a reckless disregard for human life or the probable consequences of one's actions. A conviction under Penal Code §191.5(a) carries severe penalties, including significant prison time. Similarly, Penal Code §191.5(b) addresses vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated but without gross negligence. While still a serious offense, the penalties associated with this subsection may differ from those involving gross negligence.

If a DUI incident involves aggravating factors, such as causing serious bodily injury to another person, the initial misdemeanor DUI charge under the Vehicle Code can escalate to a felony under Vehicle Code §23153. In such cases, prosecutors may also invoke Penal Code provisions to seek sentencing enhancements. A particularly relevant example is when a minor child is present in the vehicle while the driver is under the influence. This can lead to additional charges or enhanced penalties under Penal Code §273a, which addresses child endangerment. This statute criminalizes placing a child in a situation where their health or safety is endangered, and driving under the influence with a child passenger falls under this umbrella. Moreover, individuals with multiple prior DUI convictions may face enhanced penalties rooted in both the Vehicle Code and potentially referenced within the context of Penal Code sentencing guidelines. These enhancements can include dramatically increased jail or prison sentences, substantial fines, and extended periods of probation.

While the foundation of most DUI prosecutions in California lies within the Vehicle Code, a comprehensive understanding of the relevant Penal Code sections is indispensable for individuals facing DUI-related allegations, especially when those allegations involve injuries or, tragically, fatalities. Being charged under a Penal Code provision typically signals a far more severe legal situation with the potential for lengthy incarceration, substantial financial penalties, and extended periods of court supervision.

One of the most enduring and impactful contributions of the NHTSA to the field of DUI enforcement is the development and dissemination of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs). Before the 1970s, law enforcement agencies across the country employed a diverse and often inconsistent array of tests to assess a driver's potential impairment. This lack of uniformity raised concerns about the reliability and fairness of these evaluations. In response to this issue, the NHTSA embarked on a rigorous research endeavor in 1977, conducting a series of controlled studies involving hundreds of volunteers. These studies meticulously evaluated the effectiveness of various tests, including the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, the Walk-and-Turn (WAT) test, the One-Leg Stand (OLS) test, as well as other less scientifically validated methods.

The culmination of this exhaustive research led the NHTSA to identify three specific tests as demonstrably reliable indicators of impairment when administered and scored according to standardized protocols: the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) Test, which involves observing involuntary eye movements as the suspect follows a moving object; the Walk-and-Turn (WAT) Test, which requires the suspect to take nine heel-to-toe steps along a straight line, turn, and take nine steps back; and the One-Leg Stand (OLS) Test, which requires the suspect to stand on one leg and count aloud while holding the other leg approximately six inches off the ground. These three tests are now universally recognized as the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs), and their adoption has profoundly shaped DUI enforcement practices not only in Los Angeles but throughout the United States. While California law enforcement officers may still utilize other non-standardized tests during a DUI investigation, only the three SFSTs endorsed by the NHTSA are considered scientifically validated by federal research. Consequently, the precise manner in which these tests are administered and scored is frequently scrutinized in court by experienced DUI defense attorneys. These attorneys often challenge the prosecution's case by highlighting any deviations from the strict NHTSA guidelines, pointing out potential errors in the officer's administration or scoring, or offering alternative explanations for a suspect's difficulty in performing the tests successfully.

In California's legal system, criminal jury instructions play a vital role in ensuring that juries have a clear and accurate understanding of the law they must apply when deliberating a case. In DUI prosecutions, California utilizes the CALCRIM (California Criminal Jury Instructions) to provide this essential guidance. These standardized instructions are designed to ensure consistency and legal accuracy in how jurors are informed about the elements of the charged offenses and the standard of proof required for a conviction, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. Two CALCRIM instructions are particularly relevant in the context of DUI trials: CALCRIM No. 2110 and CALCRIM No. 2111.

CALCRIM No. 2110 specifically addresses the offense of driving under the influence. This instruction provides the jury with the legal definition of being "under the influence," explaining that it means a person's physical or mental abilities are impaired to such a degree that they can no longer drive a vehicle with the caution characteristic of a sober person using ordinary care under similar circumstances. This instruction emphasizes that impairment can result from the consumption of alcoholic beverages, prescription medications, illegal drugs, or any combination of these substances. The instruction guides the jury on evaluating the evidence presented to determine whether the defendant's impairment met this legal threshold at the time of driving.

CALCRIM No. 2111 focuses on the distinct offense of driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 percent or higher. This instruction deals with the "per se" violation, meaning that it is illegal to drive a vehicle if a person's BAC measures 0.08 percent or more at the time of driving, regardless of whether their driving exhibited outwardly impaired behavior. Jurors are instructed on the legal significance of chemical tests, such as breath or blood tests, which are used to determine a person's BAC. The instruction also explains the permissible inferences that the jury may draw from the results of these chemical tests, emphasizing that a BAC of 0.08 percent or higher creates a presumption of intoxication for this specific offense. These CALCRIM instructions serve as a critical roadmap for the jury as they engage in their deliberations. Any errors or omissions in how these instructions are presented to the jury can have significant implications for the outcome of the trial and may even form the basis for an appeal or a motion for a new trial if they prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial.

The sentencing phase following a DUI conviction in California is a multifaceted process where the penalties imposed can vary considerably based on a range of factors. These factors include the number of prior DUI convictions the defendant has, whether the current offense resulted in any injuries to other people, and the presence of any additional aggravating circumstances. The NHTSA's extensive research into the effectiveness of various sentencing components, such as driver's license suspensions and mandatory alcohol education programs, has undoubtedly influenced how California structures its penalties for DUI offenses. For a first-time misdemeanor DUI conviction under Vehicle Code §23152, typical sentencing components can include the imposition of fines, a period of probation, mandatory enrollment and completion of a DUI education program, and the possibility of jail time, which can range from two days to six months depending on the specific circumstances and the court's discretion. Additionally, the court may order a suspension of the defendant's driver's license, although the defendant has the right to challenge this suspension in a separate administrative hearing conducted by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

If a defendant has one or more prior DUI convictions within the past ten years, the penalties upon a subsequent conviction become significantly more severe. A second DUI conviction can lead to longer mandatory jail sentences, substantially higher fines, an extended period of probation with more stringent conditions, more intensive and lengthy DUI education programs, and an extended suspension or even revocation of the driver's license. Upon a third DUI conviction within ten years, the penalties escalate further, with even longer potential jail sentences, increased fines, prolonged probation, and a continued suspension or revocation of driving privileges. Once a driver faces a fourth DUI conviction within ten years, or if the current DUI offense resulted in injury or death to another person, the offense can be charged as a felony. A felony DUI conviction carries the potential for a sentence in state prison, as well as other severe consequences. In specific situations where the DUI incident results in great bodily injury to another individual, prosecutors may allege sentencing enhancements under Penal Code §§12022.7 or 1192.7, depending on the precise nature and severity of the harm inflicted. These enhancements can add significant additional time to a prison sentence.

Judges in Los Angeles County tend to treat DUI offenses with considerable seriousness, given the region's notoriously congested roadways and the inherent high risk of traffic collisions. Sentencing decisions often reflect a dual intent: to punish the individual offender for their actions and to serve as a deterrent to prevent future instances of impaired driving. This approach aligns closely with the NHTSA's overarching mission of reducing recidivism among DUI offenders and ultimately lowering the rates of DUI-related fatalities through the implementation of stringent, research-based sentencing practices and interventions.

Ignition interlock devices (IIDs) have become an increasingly prevalent component of DUI sentencing in California, a trend that has been significantly influenced by the NHTSA's ongoing research demonstrating the effectiveness of these devices in reducing repeat DUI offenses. An IID is essentially a breath-testing device that is directly connected to a vehicle's ignition system. Before the vehicle can be started, the driver must blow into the device, and if it detects the presence of alcohol above a pre-set limit, the vehicle will be prevented from starting. In some more advanced systems, the device may also prompt the driver to submit to random re-tests while the vehicle is in operation to ensure continued sobriety.

Los Angeles County was among the pioneering locations in California to implement pilot programs requiring the installation of IIDs for certain individuals convicted of DUI. By meticulously gathering data on the rates of re-offense among those mandated to use IIDs, the NHTSA, in collaboration with various state agencies, continues to rigorously evaluate the efficacy of these devices in preventing subsequent DUI incidents. Many policymakers and traffic safety advocates view IIDs as a crucial element of comprehensive DUI reform efforts. As a result, California has progressively expanded its IID requirements so that repeat DUI offenders, and in some specific circumstances, even first-time offenders, are now required to install these devices in their vehicles for a designated period as a condition of regaining or maintaining their driving privileges.

As the legal landscape surrounding marijuana continues to evolve across the nation, with more states legalizing recreational or medicinal use, the NHTSA has increasingly focused its attention on the issue of drugged driving. California's legalization of recreational marijuana has led to a noticeable increase in the number of drivers being accused of impaired driving based on the consumption of THC, the psychoactive compound in cannabis. Unlike alcohol, where a specific per se legal limit for BAC exists in California, there is currently no comparable statewide legal threshold for THC. This presents unique challenges for law enforcement and the courts. To determine whether a driver is under the influence of marijuana, officers may utilize the same Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) that are used in alcohol-related DUI investigations. Additionally, law enforcement agencies often employ specialized Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) who are trained to conduct more comprehensive evaluations to assess impairment caused by various types of drugs, including marijuana.

In the absence of a definitive legal THC limit, prosecutors in California DUI cases involving marijuana typically rely on a combination of observational evidence, the results of field sobriety tests, and expert testimony to establish impairment. This can involve testimony from the arresting police officer regarding the suspect's driving behavior, demeanor during the traffic stop, and their performance on the SFSTs. Toxicology reports indicating the presence and levels of THC in the driver's blood are also crucial pieces of evidence. However, the interpretation of THC blood levels can be complex, as THC can remain detectable in the body for a significant period after impairment has subsided. Because the legal and scientific understanding of marijuana-impaired driving is still developing, the NHTSA's ongoing research findings and policy recommendations are likely to play a significant role in shaping future legislation and enforcement strategies related to marijuana-related DUI offenses in California. Attorneys who specialize in defending individuals accused of drugged driving remain particularly vigilant in scrutinizing the administration of field sobriety tests and the interpretation of toxicology results, looking for any inconsistencies or weaknesses in the prosecution's case.

Constructing a robust defense to a DUI charge in Los Angeles necessitates a multifaceted and strategic approach. This often involves a thorough examination of the circumstances surrounding the traffic stop itself, questioning the legality of the initial stop, and scrutinizing whether the field sobriety tests and any subsequent chemical tests (breath or blood) were administered properly and followed established protocols.

At Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers we will meticulously review the maintenance and calibration records of breath-testing devices to ensure their accuracy, assess the integrity of blood samples to rule out any potential for contamination or mishandling, and carefully examine whether the arresting officer fully adhered to all applicable legal and constitutional procedures throughout the entire process. Given the NHTSA's establishment of specific parameters for the administration and scoring of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, any deviation from these federally recognized protocols can potentially weaken the prosecution's case and provide grounds for challenging the evidence.

A DUI conviction can trigger a cascade of life-altering consequences, including the suspension or revocation of your driving privileges, the imposition of significant fines and court costs, the potential for jail or even prison time, the creation of a permanent criminal record, and serious repercussions for your current and future employment prospects, as well as any professional licenses you may hold. California courts often apply DUI penalties strictly, and prosecutors may adopt an aggressive stance, particularly if the defendant has prior DUI convictions or if there were aggravating factors involved in the current offense, such as a traffic accident or injuries to another person.

For more in-depth information about the intricate relationship between Los Angeles DUI law and the influence of the NHTSA, and to schedule a confidential and free consultation to discuss your specific situation, please do not hesitate to contact Michael Kraut at the Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers available to provide immediate assistance 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and we can be reached directly at 888-334-6344 or 323-464-6453 or by filling out our online form.

Remember, when facing DUI charges in Los Angeles, an informed and proactive defense is the most effective strategy for protecting your fundamental rights, safeguarding your record, and securing your future. By understanding the complex legal framework that has been significantly shaped by the NHTSA's influence, and by mounting a strong and well-prepared defense that takes into full account any potential scientific and procedural flaws in the prosecution's case, individuals can significantly improve their chances of achieving more favorable outcomes, even in the most challenging of DUI cases.