Call Law Offices of John A. Campanella today!

Blog Article Categories

EPD to fine DUI drivers for emergency response

October 2nd, 2009

Allison White/The Times-Standard

Posted: 10/02/2009 09:48:21 AM PDT

Updated: 10/02/2009 09:48:21 AM PDT

The Eureka Police Department began a cost recovery program Thursday that will charge drivers a $350 fee if they create the need for an emergency response due to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

The EPD has been working on the details of the fee for about three months, said Police Chief Garr Nielsen.

”People who drive under the influence and are involved in a traffic accident end up costing us an inordinate amount of resources,” Nielsen said.

The fee isn’t expected to add much to the city’s general fund, but it should help offset the resources used for emergency situations involving DUIs.

The new fee will be assessed immediately and those fined will have 15 days to pay the amount in full, even though their case will not have gone to court yet. After debating how long people should be given, 15 days seemed reasonable, Nielsen said.

”We feel like it’s imperative that people are held accountable,” he said.

If the fee is not paid within 15 days, it will go to a collection agency. Insurance policies cannot pay the fine, according to an EPD press release.

California Government Code allows police departments to collect fees for specific situations, including emergency responses resulting from a DUI driver’s actions.

Eureka City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner said that because the fee is civil and not criminal, the threshold for evidence is not as great. The stakes are also different.

”Civil


Advertisement

consequences are generally money; it’s not going to cost you your liberty,” she said.Generally, substantial evidence is required to charge the fee, such as a blood-alcohol test or a breathalyzer test. However, it does not have to be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

If in court the DUI charge is changed to reckless driving, the driver would not be eligible to receive the fee back. If they are found not guilty of the charges, it is unclear how someone would contest the fee, but there is usually an administrative appeal process though EPD, Schaffner said.

Other agencies, including the Redding Police Department and the California Highway Patrol, have taken advantage of the California code to collect fees.

CHP Sgt. Hal Rosendahl said the cost recovery program only applies to situations where the driver was under the influence of drugs or alcohol and causes a collision that requires an emergency response.

The state does the billing for the fees, so Rosendahl said he is unsure how much CHP fees are, but California code allows up to $12,000 to be levied on the intoxicated driver.

”Quite frankly, I’ve never seen one that high,” he said.

The EPD began the cost recovery program Wednesday.

Defense attorney Manny Daskal said the restrictions on when police departments can administer fees helps regulate police stops. Since the law requires the fees to be for an emergency response, pulling people over for swerving a little isn’t going to net the city any more cash.

”It’s limited as far as we can tell, and CHP has had limited success with it,” he said.

However, the fee does make sense from a financial point of view, Daskal said. Intoxicated drivers do take up a significant amount of emergency resources that could be used for other purposes.

Allison White can be reached at 441-0506 or awhite@times-standard.com.

ARTICLE SOURCE:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_13470904

http://www.sacramentoduiinformation.com

Ignition Interlock Devices in Jeopardy Published September 21st, 2009

September 22nd, 2009

Ignition Interlock Devices in Jeopardy

Published September 21st, 2009



As if evidence of the state’s fiscal straits wasn’t stark enough, consider
Assembly Bill 91, which would create pilot project in Alameda, Los Angeles,
Sacramento and Tulare counties where persons convicted of drunk driving
would be required to install an interlock device on their vehicles.

New Mexico, Texas, Washington, among other states, use the devices which the bill’s author, Assemblyman Mike Feuer, a Los Angeles Democrat, says can reduce DUI recidivism by as much as 95 percent.

The length of time the device would stay on a vehicle varies depending on
the number of offenses. A first offense would require the device stay on for
five months. The device would stay on for three years for four or more
convictions. Drivers would pay a fee, estimated at $50 to cover the costs.

Several law enforcement groups as well as automakers support Creation of the pilot program.

The Department of Motor Vehicles estimates a start-up cost of $300,000 for
the pilot plus annual costs of $500,000 to $800,000 until the program ends
in 2016 These costs could eventually be covered by the proposed although
final Assembly analysis of the measure says it’s not clear if a “sufficient
number of offenders could or would pay the fee.

Here’s the catch:

Even if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs the measure, the bill says the
start-up costs of the program must be paid with non-state dollars.

If that outside money doesn’t materialize by January 31, 2010, the pilot
program won’t be implemented.

Call Law Offices of John A. Campanella at 1.877.384.5646 for a free consultation today.


The Law Offices of
John A. Campanella
Now with offices in
Sacramento and Vallejo.
Phone: 1.916.213.4200
Fax: 1.916.476.6350
Get Your
FREE Consultation!
Name:
Email:
Phone:
 

Click here to find out about your rights!