Ignition Interlock Devices (also known as IIDs) are breath alcohol detection systems used to prevent/deter selected drivers from operating motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol. Essentially, IIDs work like breathalyzers, but they are connected to the dashboard and linked electrically to the ignition system. Before a driver can start the engine, he or she must blow into the device, which then analyzes the ethanol alcohol content of the breath using an electrochemical fuel cell to detect concentration. If the device reads that concentration is greater than a preset limit (usually between 0.02% and 0.04% BAC), it triggers the ignition system to lock and prevent the car from starting. If the fuel cell system does not detect a strong alcohol trace, the ignition will trigger without a problem.

To deter people from cheating the IID system, manufacturers employ something called a rolling retest. At random intervals after the ignition has been started, the device will require the driver to retest by blowing into the breathalyzer again. (This prevents drunken drivers from having friends take the test for them). If the driver fails the retest or refuses to take the retest, the device records this information and triggers the car horn to beep and the lights to flash. The only way to silence the horn and get the lights to stop flashing is to turn the car off and to retake (and pass) another breathalyzer test. (For obvious safety reasons, the IID never actually shuts down the car engine.)

Ignition Interlock Devices must be maintained and calibrated periodically. Drivers who have been court ordered to install these devices must pay for installation and maintenance. IIDs also record and log noteworthy events. If for instance, a driver attempts to remove the IID device or to circumvent it somehow or to impair fuel cell operation, authorities will be alerted and will set punishments accordingly.

California law empowers the courts to impose that IIDs be installed in cars driven by individuals who have been convicted of a DUI in California. These stipulations set out in Vehicle Code Section 14601.2, give the California courts the power to require that said individuals drive with IIDs for up to three years.

These intrusive devices can make day-to-day living exceptionally difficult. Particularly in California, where it is nearly impossible to work or do errands without a working motor vehicle. The sentencing practices vary widely depending upon the specific court your case is pending in and variables like the circumstances behind your DUI and the county you are facing charges in can have a substantial impact on whether or not you will be required to have an IID installed on your car.

Ignition Interlock Devices (also known as IIDs) are breath alcohol detection systems used to prevent/deter selected drivers from operating motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol. Essentially, IIDs work like breathalyzers, but they are connected to the dashboard and linked electrically to the ignition system. Before a driver can start the engine, he or she must blow into the device, which then analyzes the ethanol alcohol content of the breath using an electrochemical fuel cell to detect concentration. If the device reads that concentration is greater than a preset limit (usually between 0.02% and 0.04% BAC), it triggers the ignition system to lock and prevent the car from starting. If the fuel cell system does not detect a strong alcohol trace, the ignition will trigger without a problem.

To deter people from cheating the IID system, manufacturers employ something called a rolling retest. At random intervals after the ignition has been started, the device will require the driver to retest by blowing into the breathalyzer again. (This prevents drunken drivers from having friends take the test for them). If the driver fails the retest or refuses to take the retest, the device records this information and triggers the car horn to beep and the lights to flash. The only way to silence the horn and get the lights to stop flashing is to turn the car off and to retake (and pass) another breathalyzer test. (For obvious safety reasons, the IID never actually shuts down the car engine.)

Ignition Interlock Devices must be maintained and calibrated periodically. Drivers who have been court ordered to install these devices must pay for installation and maintenance. IIDs also record and log noteworthy events. If for instance, a driver attempts to remove the IID device or to circumvent it somehow or to impair fuel cell operation, authorities will be alerted and will set punishments accordingly.

California law empowers the courts to impose that IIDs be installed in cars driven by individuals who have been convicted of a DUI in California. These stipulations set out in Vehicle Code Section 14601.2, give the California courts the power to require that said individuals drive with IIDs for up to three years.

These intrusive devices can make day-to-day living exceptionally difficult. Particularly in California, where it is nearly impossible to work or do errands without a working motor vehicle. The sentencing practices vary widely depending upon the specific court your case is pending in and variables like the circumstances behind your DUI and the county you are facing charges in can have a substantial impact on whether or not you will be required to have an IID installed on your car.

By: Paul J Wallin
Our law firm has offices from San Diego to Ventura and our experienced California DUI defense attorneys know the procedures in the local court where your case is pending. The firm of Wallin & Klarich boasts a tremendous track record helping DUI defendants. Contact us today to get your questions answered and to have a case evaluation.

Everyone knows that speeding or running a red light or stop sign can result in being pulled over and given a traffic ticket for your momentary lapse in judgment. But did you know there are literally hundreds of California Vehicle Code sections you can violate every single time you get in your car? And some, even, that you don't even require you to be driving? Here is some information on the most common accident and insurance traffic violations.

Proof of insurance

You are required to carry proof that the vehicle you are driving is insured. Anytime you are questioned by an officer for proof of insurance, you must produce it or you may be cited. However, an officer may not pull you over simply for the purpose of asking if you are insured. There are two ways to be cited for breaking this law:

* If you have insurance but no proof - If you actually do have insurance but merely weren't carrying the card with you when you were pulled over, this is relatively easy to have dismissed by giving a copy of your current insurance policy or card to the court clerk. Don't forget to do this, however, as failing to provide proof of insurance is punishable by a fine of over $1,700!
* If you didn't have insurance when you were cited - If you are cited for violating this section and you simply do not have insurance, you have a big problem. Fines are extremely expensive for this infraction and if you have no proof that you do have insurance, there is not much you can do. However, if the vehicle you are driving is insured by someone else, such as your employer, it is possible to get this sort of violation dismissed. Never give wrong information to an officer about your insurance. This crime is a misdemeanor and is punishable by an even larger fine and up to five days in jail.

Mandatory Reporting of Certain Accidents

In any accident involving personal injury or damage of at least $750, all drivers must file an accident report and provide evidence of insurance. Failing to do so can result in the suspension of your license for one year. In fact, even if you are driving someone else's vehicle, you must comply with this section.

Exchange of Information at Accidents

Even if the accident in which you were involved is very minor and less than $750 worth of damage is involved, you are still required by law to exchange information with other drivers involved. If you fail to disclose your name, address, driver's license number, vehicle identification number, or insurance information, you can be found guilty of an infraction with another hefty fine. However, it is important to realize that this violation must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

By: Paul J Wallin
If you've been cited for one of the many violations dealing with accidents and insurance, it could end up costing you thousands of dollars in fines, an increase in your car insurance premiums, and even a suspension of your license. With a skilled criminal defense attorney experienced in defending traffic tickets, like those at Wallin & Klarich, however, you can fight your traffic ticket and win. Often, these sorts of tickets can be reduced to much less expensive violations or even completely dismissed. Call us today at 1-888-280-6839.

In most unlawful arrest or imprisonment cases, private security is involved. While the law in California allows for any private person to make a "citizen's arrest", there are restrictions and limited authority to do so. Compared to a police officer, a security officer has far less authority in detaining individuals. When a person has been detained or arrested unlawfully, that person becomes a victim and has a right to be compensated for any physical harm or emotional upset that results.

To protect their property and maintain business peace, most retailers and large property owners hire guard and agents. These are generally uniformed guards from a security service patrolling the location. Their primary function is to ensure certain rules are obeyed (relative to parking and other activities), and they rarely have the chance to capture suspected law violators. When guards detain or arrest a person, they are taking a chance of violating that individual's right to be free of unlawful imprisonment. For instance, if someone is detained by a guard for breaking into a car, which happens to be that individuals own car, that person has the right for compensation for any unlawful use of force in the arrest. In the worst case scenario, a guard can use his weapon and hurt someone that he wrongly believes committed a crime. For this situation, there may be some liability issues for substantial damages and injuries, and the employer and guard may be legally responsible.

Agents in retail security and loss prevention probably come into contact with more suspected law violators than others in the field of private law enforcement. It is not unusual for an "undercover" shoplift agent to catch an alleged shoplifter and follow through with criminal prosecution. If the agent is not reasonably sure that the shoplifter really stole something from a shop, compensation may be given to the victim for emotional and physical harm that he suffered. It is possible for the agent to be immune from liability if there is "probable cause" to believe the suspect did in fact take or attempted to take store merchandise unlawfully. This is called "merchant's privilege" and, although not absolute, it can be called into play to protect a retailer in the even of a lawsuit.

Not only may the retailers and property owners be held responsible for false arrest and imprisonment, they may also be held liable for malicious prosecution of a criminal case if the accused is found not guilty in the end. Sometimes, an inexperienced or overzealous guard or agent will unlawfully apprehend or arrest an individual and then add to the trouble by insisting on a criminal prosecution. If the case goes to court resulting in an acquittal, the falsely accused person has a right to be compensated for the initial detention and arrest, as well as the criminal prosecution. They will not impose liability on the guard or agent until it can be proven that said guard was not acting with probable cause. Because most private law enforcement employees do not have the same training or education as police officers, it is common for these errors to occur.

There is an endless amount of harm that can be caused if someone is falsely arrested or imprisoned. A trial lawyer with experience will assist you in sorting through the truths and the legal system to achieve a fair outcome.

By: Paul W Ralph
As an Orange County Personal Injury Attorneys, Paul W. Ralph has seen his fair share of false imprisonment cases. From wrongful arrest to improper detainment, Mr. Ralph knows that sometimes mistakes are made and the arresting party needs to be held responsible. That's why, as an Orange County false arrest lawyer, he works hard to see the victims compensated.

When a person has been lawfully arrested for a DUI, the Implied Consent provision of the California Vehicle Code mandates that they take a chemical test in order to determine their blood alcohol content (BAC). Although a person may refuse to submit to a chemical test, law enforcement is authorized to take a "forced blood draw." A forced blood draw can be either the incapacitation of a person by law enforcement officers (physically holding him down) or the threat of doing so, while trained medical personnel draw the blood for use in the later prosecution for DUI.

The United States Supreme Court decided the forced blood draw issue in the seminal case of Schmerber v. California, in 1966. This case held that it is permissible for the police to take a warrantless taking of a person's blood for the purpose of chemical testing to determine intoxication, provided that the taking of the sample is done in a medically approved manner, incident to a lawful arrest, and based upon the reasonable belief that the person is intoxicated. If these guidelines are followed, then a forced blood draw does not violate the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Due to the temporary nature of alcohol in the blood and the relatively short time it takes for it to dissipate (several hours), courts have held it to be unreasonable to mandate a warrant to invade the person's body with a needle in order to extract their blood. The opposing view holds that a forced blood draw is an invasion of privacy, a violation of the right against self-incrimination, and an act of violence.

In California, a forced blood draw is considered a "refusal." A refusal has many repercussions, including fines, jail time, and suspension of driving privileges. Therefore, a forced blood draw may result in both a conviction for DUI plus added penalties. Some police agencies have a tendency to state that the DUI suspect "refused" even when they did not. Some common issues include misunderstandings resulting from language barriers, over-reactive police officers, or the fear of needles (where a breath test is not available).

In order to withhold the forced blood draw results, a suppression motion may be instituted. A suppression motion is a motion usually made before the start of trial, where the court is asked to exclude evidence because it was not gathered in a constitutionally valid way. As mentioned previously in this article, the Supreme Court stated that the proper protocol to be followed in a forced blood draw. If these protocols are not followed, then the DUI defendant may validly claim a violation of his or her 4th Amendment right. Thus, it is not only proper, but mandated, to suppress this evidence. Suppressed evidence may not be considered by the judge or heard by the jury. According the legal principle of "fruit of the poisonous tree," any evidence gained as a result of the unconstitutional evidence must also be suppressed. This is a serious and necessary weapon in the fight for constitutional rights and one of the few safeguards the law offers where a person's rights have been violated.

By: Darren Kavinoky
www.nocuffs.com
Darren Kavinoky is a Los Angeles-based criminal defense lawyer who practices throughout California. He is the Managing Shareholder of The Kavinoky Law Firm, an 11-lawyer criminal defense firm that handles criminal defense matters exclusively.

Featured as a California Law resource, by California Personal Injury Attorneys - Accident Lawyers, a California personal injury attorney / accident lawyer directory, listing hundreds of links to California personal injury attorney / accident lawyer websites and over 1,500 non website courtesy listings.

Are you interested in politics? If so visit Politics In America - Political Viewpoints

Feeling down or stressed out? Take a break have a few laughs. Visit Legal Humor, a selection of legal, lawyer and attorney jokes, humor and satire.

The information contained in the above post is not intended as a source of legal advice. You should not act upon or rely on information in this or any other post without the advice of competent legal counsel.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include that link.