DUI Defense

California Vehicle Code section 23152 (opens in new window) contains several DUI theories, and a complaint may allege more than one. Under section 23152(a), the prosecution alleges that alcohol impaired the person's mental or physical abilities enough that the person could not drive with the caution of a sober person using ordinary care. Under section 23152(b), the central allegation is that the person drove with a blood-alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 percent.

Those theories overlap, but they are not the same. An impairment allegation may draw on driving, statements, physical observations, roadside tasks, video, medical facts, and the sequence of events. A 0.08-percent allegation places added importance on the reported result, the collection time, the testing procedure, and the evidence used to relate a later sample to the time of driving. A qualifying sample obtained within three hours can support an inference about the earlier BAC, but the jury is not required to accept that inference (opens in new window).

Drug and combined-influence allegations raise different questions. Section 23152(f) does not set a numeric drug threshold comparable to the alcohol limit. The presence of a medication, cannabis, or another substance and proof of impaired driving are not the same proposition. The substance, amount, timing, observed behavior, driving, examination, and toxicology interpretation may all matter. A lawful right to use a drug does not, on its own, defeat the charge. When alcohol and a drug are alleged together, the evidence must be considered as a whole rather than treating either finding as a complete answer.

Identifying the actual subdivision matters because it directs the defense review. Counsel can match each allegation to the facts the prosecution must prove and then determine which records genuinely bear on those facts.

The investigation begins before a sample is collected. Who was driving, when the vehicle moved, and how that timing is established can matter, especially if the officer didn't see the original driving. The stated basis for a stop can be compared with dispatch information, reports, witness accounts, and any available recording. The legal effect of a conflict depends on the facts; no single discrepancy guarantees that evidence will be excluded.

Officer reports may describe speech, balance, eyes, odor, admissions, or performance on divided-attention tasks. Video may support that description, contradict it, or supply context the report doesn't capture. Road surface, lighting, instructions, footwear, fatigue, injury, disability, and language comprehension can also affect how roadside tasks should be interpreted.

Body-camera, dash-camera, traffic, business, residential, collision, or phone video may exist, but availability and retention periods vary. Identifying a possible recording early gives counsel a better chance to pursue it before it's overwritten. The point is not to collect every imaginable item. It is to find the sources that can answer a disputed question in your case.

A recent arrest doesn't tell you the exact sentence, license result, or long-term effect. Exposure can change based on the charged subdivision, an alleged refusal, a qualifying prior matter, a collision or injury allegation, the reported BAC, and whether the prosecution pursues a misdemeanor or felony theory. Prior events require record review; a date or label on a background report may not answer whether the event legally qualifies.

An injury allegation also requires more than the combination of DUI and an injured person. Under Vehicle Code section 23153 (opens in new window), the prosecution must connect an unlawful driving act or neglected legal duty to bodily injury suffered by someone other than the driver. These cases can be charged as misdemeanors or felonies depending on the applicable law and facts; an injury-related arrest should not automatically be described as a felony.

Possible court consequences can include custody, probation, a DUI program, driving restrictions, and other conditions. The practical priority may be different for someone who drives for work, holds a professional or commercial license, cares for a family member, or has an immigration concern. Tell your lawyer which issue could disrupt your life most. That information doesn't predetermine a consequence, but it helps counsel address decisions with your actual responsibilities in view.

You don't need to assemble a perfect case file before asking for help. If possible, bring or send photographs of the DMV order and temporary license, the envelope if it was mailed, your citation or court notice, and any breath, blood, or refusal paperwork. Be ready to identify when you received each notice, what testing was requested or completed, and any work, licensing, immigration, or caregiving concern that needs prompt attention.

Keep your documents and any existing recordings; do not alter or discard them. A short private timeline written while events are fresh can help, but the absence of reports, video, or a test result shouldn't keep you from calling.

Initial consultations with Boyadzhyan Legal Shield are free and confidential, with no obligation to hire the firm. The consultation can focus on which deadline applies, how the court and DMV matters differ, what evidence may answer the important questions, and what you can do next.