Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog

Homeless Outreach Court, a "collaborative court" run by Orange County Superior Court Judge Wendy S. Lindley, offers resources and services to homeless people who find themselves in criminal trouble as an alternative to jail or traditional probation. Lindley, who also runs the Combat Veterans' Court in Orange County, dismisses tickets and citations if defendants can complete a series of services and perform community service. Orange County has anywhere from five thousand to eight thousand homeless people living on the streets every night, according to the Orange County Register. The Homeless Outreach Court, with an active load of about nine hundred cases, offers a good service but still barely scratches the surface of the problem. It also relies on the continued criminalization of, essentially, the fact of being homeless, even if the intent is to get help for people.

The most common alleged offense that lands people in Homeless Outreach Court is "camping," a low-level misdemeanor offense that simply consists of sleeping in a public place. The OC Register article looks at the Santa Ana Civic Center, long a gathering place for homeless people after dark. Police have increased their patrols of the facility in recent months, and the number of tickets issued for illegal camping has increased as well. One ticket carries a maximum penalty of $500, which few people would have the resources to pay. Further offenses could lead to jail time.

Advocates for the homeless population in Orange County note the absurdity of ticketing a person for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go. The Homeless Outreach Court, they argue, gives people an opportunity to access resources that can help get them on their feet. In order to be accepted into the program, a defendant must demonstrate a "willingness to change," such as to find a job and get off the streets, as well as to avoid drugs and alcohol. A public defender quoted by the OC Register calls the court "an incredibly intelligent way to deal with a very complex problem."

At least thirty percent of the defendants in Lindley's court are military veterans. A significant number of participants suffer from mental illness, substance abuse, and other conditions. The court clearly offers a way for them to obtain help that they might not have otherwise had, but it seems unfortunate that criminal laws are viewed as the best way to get people into a position where help is available. No evidence seems to exist indicating that "camping" homeless people pose any great threat to the public.

Continue reading "Homeless Outreach Court in Orange County Tries to Divert Homeless Defendants Out of the Criminal Justice System" »

Police in Sacramento arrested a man, 55 year-old Jesse James Thomas, after he allegedly displayed signs of public drunkenness. Public intoxication arrests are a common occurrence in California, typically punishable by a fine or probation. This case is newsworthy because the man, according to witnesses and news reports, put on quite a show and probably made the prosecution's case against him easier.

The Miranda warning, which police must recite to a person at the time of arrest, includes a warning that police and prosecutors may use the person's own statements against him or her. This applies to both verbal statements and actions. Sometimes a person's behavior, demeanor, or even posture can offer evidence a prosecutor can use. If a police officer suspects public intoxication, they will observe the person's behavior. Thomas' case demonstrates this principle quite well.

In the early morning of Wednesday, March 28, 2012, around 12:30 a.m., Thomas allegedly encountered a Sacramento police officer, who suspected that Thomas was intoxicated. The officer's basis for this belief was his alleged observation that Thomas, dressed in a "dark puffy jacket" and wearing a sombrero and a single boxing glove, jumped onto the hood of the police cruiser, yelled his own name, and ran away. The officer reportedly located Thomas, after a brief search, lying in the street. Thomas was arrested for public intoxication and taken to the Sacramento County Jail, where he was booked on $1,000 bail. The story enjoyed a brief viral run on the internet. Thomas' unconventional mug shot was particularly popular.

California treats public intoxication as a form of disorderly conduct in Section 647(f) of the Penal Code. It is not the intoxicated state itself that constitutes a crime, but how a person behaves because of their intoxicated state. A person commits an offense if they are in a public place under the influence of alcohol, drugs, toluene, or some combination thereof, and their intoxicated state makes them a danger to themselves or others. It is also an offense if the intoxicated person is interfering with, obstructing, or preventing "the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way."

Continue reading "California Man Acts As Though He Is Drunk in Front of Police, Is Arrested for Public Intoxication" »

A feature of the popular social media site Facebook that was intended to help users find their friends online has served a different purpose for a Seattle man. After Facebook's automated feature suggested that Alan L. O'Neill's wife become friends with a woman who turned out to also be married to O'Neill, prosecutors charged O'Neill with bigamy. Bigamy is a little-discussed feature of the Penal Code, as it is rarely ever prosecuted. It is still considered a criminal act, though, and every so often someone gets charged.

O'Neill married his first wife in 2001, when his name was Alan Fulk. In 2009, they separated, but never divorced. O'Neill petitioned to change his name in December 2011. Later that month, he married again. He has worked as a corrections officer for Pierce County, Washington, for about five years.

At some point after the second wedding, O'Neill's first wife received a notification on Facebook recommending the second wife as someone she might know, reportedly based on their mutual connection to O'Neill. According to news reports, the two women had met before. The first wife was reportedly arrested in 2010 in connection with an altercation with the future second wife. When the first wife clicked on the second wife's profile, she apparently found pictures of the two of them with a wedding cake.

At this point, wife number one contacted O'Neill's mother, who reportedly told O'Neill. According to the first wife, O'Neill told her that they were in fact still married, but that he would "fix it." He asked the first wife not to tell anyone. Instead, she notified authorities, using copies of various official documents to demonstrate their marriage.

Prosecutors charged O'Neill with bigamy. The information filed against him states that, on or about December 19, 2011, he married someone while he still had a living spouse. His employer put him on administrative leave while the criminal case is pending. He could spend up to a year in jail if convicted.

Washington's bigamy statute defines the offense as intentionally marrying or purporting to marry someone when either person still has a living spouse. The statute therefore does not distinguish between a married person marrying someone else and an unmarried person marrying a married person. It does allow a defense if the defendant had a reasonable belief that they could legally enter into a new marriage, either because they believed their prior spouse to be deceased or the prior marriage to be dissolved.

Continue reading "Corrections Officer Convicted of Bigamy After One Wife Finds the Other on Facebook" »

A fundamental principle of our legal system is that everyone is entitled to due process of law, no matter how bizarre or unsettling their alleged offense may be. California criminal defense lawyers, after practicing long enough, see cases that range from the critically serious to the laughably strange. As we enter a new year, it is worth taking a moment to look at the more unusual side of criminal law, and the editors of the Rancho Santa Margarita Patch have helped us by publishing their review of Orange County's strangest "minor crimes of 2011." Several common themes emerge from their list, broadly summarized as public nudity, strange threats, unusual sights, and unfortunate bathroom behavior (a topic perhaps best left alone).

Laws relating to public nudity vary from place to place in California. Generally speaking, a person does not get into serious criminal trouble unless and until their conduct causes a public disruption or nuisance, but California law treats "indecent exposure" as a misdemeanor, defined as public exposure of one's "private parts" when other people who might be "offended or annoyed" are present. Punishment could be as much as a year in prison for a first offense, depending on the circumstances. Notable cases of 2011 included a report of a San Clemente couple taking nude pictures of one another in public, and a nude middle-aged man in San Juan Capistrano watching traffic in a shopping center parking lot. The winner, however, is clearly the report of a naked man driving a Toyota Corolla up and down the street in Aliso Viejo, repeatedly turning the dome light on and off.

Making a threat to harm another person, even a very strange threat, is considered a crime if it puts the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury. For the woman in Laguna Niguel who found fish heads on her porch, a quick internet search convinced her that it was a death threat. Her fear of imminent harm was alleviated when she learned that the fish heads were intended to go to a different porch, and eventually into a soup. A woman in Mission Viejo found her house bombarded with oranges one night, followed by grapefruit the next, in an attack the Patch editors thought might be a message about her vitamin C intake.

Continue reading "Strange Crimes of Orange County: 2011 in Review" »

The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced last week that they will not file felony charges against Elizabeth Macias, who made headlines the day after Thanksgiving for allegedly pepper-spraying fellow shoppers at a Wal-Mart in Porter Ranch. The case gained worldwide attention when video of the incident appeared on the news and online. The DA's office has referred the matter to city prosecutors, who may decide to bring misdemeanor charges against her.

The alleged pepper spray attack occurred as part of the chaos of what is commonly called "Black Friday," the day after Thanksgiving and widely considered the biggest shopping day of the year. Retailers offer a variety of sales, and shoppers often line up in the middle of the night so as not to miss out on deals. This year saw a number of outbreaks of violence, but the case in Porter Ranch got a particularly large amount of attention. On Thanksgiving night, Macias allegedly used pepper spray on a crowd of people who were attempting to get half-price Xbox 360 video games. At least fourteen people were directly sprayed or came into direct contact with the substance, while another ten people suffered symptoms of exposure. Symptoms include sore throats and eye irritation, while direct contact can cause intense pain. No serious injuries were reported, but at least twenty people reported irritation to the nose and throat.

Macias turned herself in the day after the incident. Police did not take her into custody. She refused to answer any questions about her involvement. She later threatened to sue Wal-Mart for failing to provide adequate security on Thanksgiving, characterizing her actions as self-defense. She was in the store with her two teenage children. She claims that shoppers attacked her children while they were attempting to get Xbox video game consoles, punching and kicking both of them.

Police reportedly interviewed at least a dozen witnesses, getting an overall account of people screaming, getting shoved into shelves and displays, and pushing and pulling at each other. In this environment, people then encountered pepper spray, resulting in what police called "total pandemonium." Police had originally described Macias as a "competitive shopper" who used the pepper spray to keep shoppers away from merchandise she had claimed. Eyewitness accounts and other evidence led them to revise their characterization of Macias. The resulting uncertainty likely played a role in the district attorney's decision not to file felony charges.

Continue reading "Los Angeles District Attorney Declines to Prosecute Wal-Mart Pepper-Sprayer" »

A life-size statue of former president Ronald Reagan in a Newport Beach park sustained damage in a theft attempt. A witness reported seeing a man attach a rope or chain to the base of statue and attempt to pull it out with a pickup truck. The man only succeeded in breaking the bronze statue off of its foundation. Authorities found it tilting forward at about 5:30 the morning of Sunday, November 6, 2011, but lost the alleged perpetrator. The attempted theft occurred some time during the night. A Newport Beach police sergeant noted, "Either someone really didn't like Reagan or they tried to steal it so they can sell it for scrap metal." The City of Newport Beach has offered a $5,000 reward for information on the incident.

The statute was dedicated in Bonita Canyon Sports Park in Newport Beach on October 9, 2011, in honor of the 100th anniversary of the former president's birth. Nearly a year of controversy preceded the dedication, with dispute among residents about whether to rename the park for President Reagan. The $60,000 statue was financed entirely by private donations. Authorities have not said how much it will cost to repair the statue. City work crews removed the statue from its base in order to perform repairs.

Since the statue was a donation to a city park, it is publicly-owned property. The reward offered by the city certainly indicates that they wish to find the alleged culprit. The question then pertains to what crime was actually committed. California identifies theft of most types of property valued over $950 as "grand theft." At a cost of $60,000 and unknown repair costs, the statue certainly fits this definition. The penalty of up to one year imprisonment would not apply in this case, because no actual theft occurred. The Penal Code allows for a lesser punishment, usually one-half of the punishment prescribed for a specific offense, for an attempted offense. With the statue itself and witness testimony, a prosecutor may feel confident in bringing attempted theft charges, if the alleged perpetrator is ever found.

Continue reading "Statue of Ronald Reagan in Orange County Park Endures Theft Attempt" »

Irvine, California's City Council voted unanimously on October 26, 2011 to allow the Occupy Orange County demonstrators to camp overnight on the lawn of the city's Civic Center, agreeing with the protesters' arguments that their tents are a form of free speech more than they are a public nuisance or safety issue. The decision came after several weeks of wrangling over the legal status of the encampments in Irvine and larger disputes nationwide about the intersection of First Amendment rights and state and local law. Regardless of how one feels about the issues presented by the now-global protests, the situation presents important issues for criminal defense attorneys to understand.

Occupy Orange County began in mid-October in Irvine with a group setting up an encampment in front of the Civic Center. In most cities with "Occupy" groups, city governments have made various attempts to move protesters (or occupiers, depending on how you view them) away from certain areas, sometimes temporarily and sometimes permanently. The legal justifications given by cities usually involves city ordinances or state laws relating to public health or cleanliness and public nuisances. The Irvine City Council's decision is one of the first to explicitly grant authority to an Occupy group to continue an overnight presence in a public space.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to peacefully assemble, but courts have consistently held that governments may reasonably restrict that right as to the "time, manner, and place" of assemblies or demonstrations. Cities enforce these restrictions with a permitting system, which might deny a permit to a demonstration that would, for example, significantly block traffic or cause excessive noise at 4:00 a.m. Cities can also restrict access to public spaces, such as parks or sidewalks, at specific times for health or safety reasons. Some cities have attempted to clear demonstrators from an area in order to have sanitation workers clean the area, or they have cited protesters for health code violations relating to food or waste disposal.

Continue reading "City of Irvine Allows Occupy Orange County Protesters to Stay" »

Washington D.C. police officers Andrew Zabavsky and his partner Jose Rodriguez spent many years making the streets safe. Both officers have registered hundreds of DUI arrests. With a record like this, the Washington Regional Alcohol Program recognized them for their outstanding commitment for the period of 2006-2009. Was the city happy? No.

The two officers were subjected to investigation, harassment, demoralization and recommendations for termination by the city's police chief and others.

Why would the powers that be so aggressively persecute two decorated veteran officers? Because they refused to lie about a breath tests' improper calibration.

It appears, in 2010, a reliable technician told these two police officers that the breath tests had been improperly calibrated for a very long period of time. These faulty calibrations could affect hundreds of cases.

When defense attorneys began to cross examine these officers about the discrepancies, lawyers with the Attorney General's Office wanted the officers to act dumb. When the officers were not willing to do this, the Attorney General's Office started an investigation against them. In addition, the Attorney General's Office forbade them from testifying in court. The police department also tried to fire Officer Rodriguez.

Ultimately, both officers were cleared of all of the spurious claims. However, as of this date, Zabavsky and Rodriguez have ceased working DUI cases.

This story clearly shows how easy it is to go from being one of the "good guys" to being one of the "bad guys". Many people in this country do not believe it is possible for them or their family to innocently get caught up in the judicial system. These officers were simply doing their job. Instead of correcting any problems with the calibration of the breath test device, it seems the Attorney General preferred to keep it quiet. Once the officers refused to go along with this, they became the "bad guys".

It is understandable parties in a criminal prosecution have different interests. The People want a conviction and the defense wants an acquittal. There are, however, rules. If a defense attorney were to inappropriately coerce a witness, he/she would be disbarred.
Prosecutors do not appear to have these fears. Since they act under the color of their authority, they are given more leeway. The problem with this leeway, though, is the potential for abuse. If police officers are subject to this abuse, what hope is there for the rest of us?

A Florida judge known for his creative sentences is trying to find a way to educate, and not just punish, DUI defendants. Judge Carmine Bravo is ordering defendants convicted of misdemeanor traffic offenses to write a 500 word article about individuals who are memorialized on roadside markers.

Since the late 1990s, the Florida Department of Transportation has been providing small aluminum signs, at no charge, to families of crash victims. The office which controls North Orange County, Florida as well as Seminole County receives about 20 sign requests per year.

The assignment given by Judge Bravo requires the convicted offenders to research 5 crash victims, including obtaining police reports, visiting the memorial sites and taking pictures. Over the years, many hundreds of reports have been made.

In addition to being 500 words long, the reports must also include details of the accident, how it could have been avoided as well as the impact on the victim's family. Many of the authors actually interview members of the victim's family and include statements regarding their own feelings.

One problem with criminal defense is the lack of creative and educational sentences. Many judges and prosecutors use the "cookie-cutter" approach. That is, each penalty is generally the same as the last. For DUI cases, this means a very high fine, maybe jail, an alcohol school and 3 years of probation. A few of the less knowledgeable believe they are being innovative by just increasing penalties, such as requiring a high number of AA meetings, forcing the defendant to post bail or adding more jail time.

As a criminal defense attorney for nearly 30 years, I have seen dozens of new ideas for punishing DUIs. These usually come in the form of offers from new prosecutors which are simply more punitive than previous offers. It appears this is their way of showing their superiors how tough they are. When all of these extra penalties are added to the loss of a driver's license, and maybe a job, the effect is a disaster for the defendant.

It always struck me as ridiculous to deprive a person of their money, driver's license, liberty as well as livelihood and, then, ask them to stop drinking.

As long as this type of program is not just piled on top of already extreme penalties, there is a possibility people can be educated away from potentially dangerous conduct.

The Law Office of Barney B. Gibbs has consistently fought for the rights of the criminal defendant. I will tirelessly work to find ways to protect them from unfair sentences.

A new Arizona law which takes away a defendant's right to a jury trial for first time DUI offenses is now in effect. A last minute effort by an Arizona attorney to put the question before the voters in 2012 failed because there were an insufficient number of signatures on the petition to get it on the ballot. Attorney Clifford Girard said the effort to put the issue on the ballot failed because volunteers were not able to gather enough signatures.

Senator Linda Gray, who pushed the new law through the legislature, said there is no need for the expense of a jury trial in such a minor crime. Arizona law only allows a trial by jury for crimes carrying a penalty of more than 6 months in jail.

It is hard to imagine anyone these days calling a DUI, even a first offense, a minor crime. Citizens are constantly bombarded with stories of DUI arrests, convictions and recidivism. It is the only misdemeanor crime I am aware of that allows peace officers to set up checkpoints. First offense DUIs generally carry high fines, probation, alcohol school as well as ignition interlock device installations in some jurisdictions, including Arizona. This doesn't even include the cost of increased insurance, suspended driver licenses, etc. Further, there is a group, MADD, dedicated solely to the prosecution of these types of cases.

If a defense attorney were to go on the air and proclaim first offense DUI cases are minor crimes, he would probably be hanged for being ignorant and uncaring.

As a criminal defense attorney, I am always shocked by the argument that incarcerations of less than six months should not require a trial by jury. Although a number of jurisdictions besides Arizona are considering this law, I have yet to find one person who believes 6 months in jail is a minor penalty.

The defendant in a DUI case starts off at a disadvantage because of the constant media sensationalism associated with this misdemeanor crime. It is difficult to think of a crime, short of some sexual offenses and murder, which produces such a negative opinion in the public at large. By doing away with jury trials for first time DUIs, the State is further interfering with its citizens' rights to adequately defend themselves.

The case of a Jefferson City, Missouri man convicted of driving under the influence raises an important issue for DUI defendants. James Wilson was found behind the wheel of his pickup truck sleeping it off. Although this case is odd because of the jail time Wilson received, 12 years, the fact he was asleep on the side of the road is important for this blog.

It used to be common practice for those who had consumed too much alcohol to pull to the side of the road in order to "clear their head." Police officers did not issue citations for DUIs to these people because, among other things, the driver was doing the right thing. By pulling off of the road, the impaired driver was making the road safer for all of us. Maybe he shouldn't have started driving in the first place, however, once he determined he should pull over, he was given the benefit of the doubt.

Allowing an impaired driver to sleep it off was also important because the simple fact was - if people realized they were going to be charged with a DUI while parked, they might just as well keep driving. This is not what anyone wants.

Even though the courts have held driving requires volitional movement of the vehicle, proof required in trial can be circumstantial. In other words, the officer does not actually have to see you driving. Circumstantial evidence of driving can be many things. Suppose an officer drove past a location at 10:00 p.m. and did not see a car but, when he came back at 10:15 p.m., he saw a car. This could be circumstantial evidence the car parked there between 10:00 p.m. and 10:15 p.m. Likewise, some officers feel the hood of the car to see if it is warm. They say this is circumstantial evidence the car was recently operated. Such an assumption, however, might be objectionable because it is unlikely the officer can lay proper foundation as to heat emission and heat dissipation.

Although there is an important public safety requirement to get drunk drivers off of the roads, allowing individuals to pull off of the road without fear of being arrested for a DUI may be a good idea. If, instead of arresting for a DUI, an officer merely takes the driver's keys to the station, all drivers might be safer.

Breathalyzer machines are coming under attack in Ventura, California and Athens, Ohio.

In California, more than 120 Alcosensor 5 machines have been sent back and redesigned after the crime lab obtained faulty readings. The District Attorney's Office said they won't object to defendants withdrawing their pleas. Over 300 people received
DUIs in Ventura County this year.

In Ohio, the Intoxilyzer 8000 is coming under fire because accuracy may be degraded by heat.

These two incidents are but a few of many which have occurred across the United States over the past 10 years. Various types of devices have been created to test a person's breath and, often times, their performance does not live up to expectations.

The reason this issue is important is because of the weight the public gives breath testing devices. If any person is told a person's blood alcohol level is over .08 percent, they immediately assume the person is under the influence of alcohol regardless of any other facts. I have always found this interesting as most people do not have the faintest idea how these machines function.

Over the years, the Law Office of Barney B. Gibbs has tried a great many breath cases and, without exception, jurors have difficulty grasping the inner workings of a breath machine. This is not because they are not smart, but because the process is complicated.

If a person was charged with a crime and the main piece of evidence against him/her was the time on a clock, everyone would clearly be able to see that the clock might be wrong. This does not happen with breath tests because of the appearance of infallibility given these devices in the testimony of some crime lab experts. Some of these experts are loathed to even admit they have ever heard of the malfunction of one of these machines.

A chemical test is just one piece of the puzzle in a DUI case. Driving, field sobriety tests and a myriad of other factors need to be considered before reaching a judgment.

A Santa Rosa woman was arrested for possible DUI when the vehicle she was traveling in ran off the road and ended up in a ditch. In the car were also the woman's children, ages 6, 4 and 2. The woman and her two oldest children were ejected from the vehicle while the 2-year-old remained strapped in his carseat. The woman and her two children were taken to the hospital. None of the injuries were believed to be life-threatening.

Police believe the vehicle, a large SUV, was traveling at a high rate of speed because the wooden posts of the guardrail were sheared off and the metal barrier was twisted in a loop in the ditch where the SUV came to rest.

In these types of cases, it is typical for the prosecution to file child endangerment charges in addition to the driving under the influence [usually felony] charges. The Penal Code section often used for these charges is California Penal Code section 273a, subsections (a) and (b).

§273a. Abusing or Endangering Heath of, Child - Punishment; Conditions of Probation.
(a) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, four, or six years.
(b) Any person, who under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

As can be seen, the punishment, state prison versus local jail, is the difference in these two sections. This is because one deals with great bodily harm or death and the other does not. When child endangerment charges are added to DUI cases, the exposure to substantial incarceration is greatly increased. In addition, if the case proceeds to trial, it must be anticipated the defendant will not generate a great deal of jury sympathy.

Arizona is one of the toughest states in the country when it comes to punishing DUI offenders. One of the penalties is a one year ignition interlock device [IID]. This device will not allow a vehicle's engine to start unless an alcohol-free breath sample is received. The device is very expensive. Unlike Arizona, California does not require first offenders to install IIDs.

There is now a move underway in Arizona to decrease, or even eliminate, the requirement of an ignition interlock device for first offenders. SB1000 would decrease it from one year to 6 months, while HB2371 would eliminate it altogether. SB1000 is an effort by Senator Linda Gray to defeat HB2371, which is much less punitive.

The issue present in Arizona is consistently litigated across the United States. The issue is not the IID but the search for just punishment. Many people believe in harsh penalties for people convicted of driving under the influence. This is true even if there was no injury or aggravating factors. The problem with this type of logic, however, is that it is often counterproductive. It is important to remember a first offense DUI is a malum prohibitum misdemeanor; which means it is wrong because a law makes it so. It is not a robbery or theft. Further, DUI is a general intent crime, thus, no specific intent is necessary.

When a person is arrested in California for a DUI, he/she faces the suspension of his/her driving privileges, a very substantial fine, alcohol school, termination of his/her auto insurance as well as the cost of retaining counsel. These penalties do not include loss of time from work, assuming he/she still has a job after the arrest.

When an IID is added to the above list of penalties, the punitive nature of the present law is obvious. Not only is the person punished, but so are his/her spouse and/or children. In a time of such economic turmoil, it is the height of folly to disrupt a citizen's livelihood simply to carry out some type of social experiment. The requirement of an ignition interlock device for first time DUI offenders should be deleted.

Two recent news events featured individuals driving a commercial vehicle while possibly under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. The first incident involved a woman driving a commercial vehicle hauling hazardous waste, while the second involved a woman driving a school bus, without children aboard, allegedly under the influence of alcohol.

Any individual arrested for driving under the influence while operating a commercial vehicle faces certain unique problems. These individuals may apply for a Class C restricted license through the DMV just like those individuals with a regular, non-commercial license; however, there is no work-related driving restriction available. I would think this inability to have a restricted license probably wouldn't matter because the individual will, in all likelihood, be fired from his/her job as a result of the conviction.

Few people would have any sympathy for someone who hauled hazardous materials while under the influence. In fact, driving any large commercial vehicle under the influence of alcohol must be considered far more dangerous than operating a regular vehicle.

It must be understood, however, a person with a commercial license who gets a DUI in their personal vehicle will probably never again get another job driving for a living. Company concerns regarding insurance and financial liability would see to this.

In closing, it can clearly be seen that driving under the influence in a commercial vehicle can be very dangerous indeed. However, the penalty suffered by commercial drivers for DUIs, even those sustained in their personal lives, is extreme. These individuals become unemployed and, as such, must seek a different career.