Authorities have arrested a suspect in the Halloween hit and run that left three teenagers dead last Friday, October 31, 2014.. The incident occurred on Friday at around 7:00 p.m. at the intersection of Grand Street and Fairhaven Avenue in Santa Ana, California. Twins Lexia and Lexandra Perez were crossing the street with their friend Andrea Gonzales when they were hit by a car. The driver left the scene and police later found the car at a parking lot. The Honda CR-V had front end damage; the police do not know if the driver had been under the influence at the time of the accident. They did know that there were passengers in the Honda. Later that weekend on Sunday, police made several arrests but only kept the suspect, Jaquinn Bell. His mother, half-sister, daughter and son were arrested, but only he was held and charged with a felony hit and run charge (Vehicle Code Sections 20001 to 20003). Currently he is facing an additional charge of voluntary manslaughter and looking at up to 17 years in prison. (Penal Code Sections 192, 192.5 and 193).

Bell has a record in Orange County for driving related offenses. In 2009 he was charged with DUI and driving with a suspended license. In August of this year he was convicted of a misdemeanor hit and run and driving under the influence and was sentenced to 10 days jail. His license has been suspended since October. Felony Hit and Run causing death can cause a person to be sentenced for up to 4 years in prison.

Notably, the actual accident which caused the death of the children is NOT the crime in this instance; the crime is leaving the scene. Many accidents occur with the unfortunate result of people dying but that does not make it a crime. Making a mistake also known as simple negligence that results in someone dying is not a crime and is usually handled through the insurance companies like any other car accident as a civil matter.

Oftentimes people flee the scene of the accident because they are under the influence. In that case, if the authorities find them to have killed someone, while under the influence, they can also be sentenced to state prison. Importantly, people with prior convictions for drunk driving who commit another drunk driving offense and kill someone may now be charged with murder under the Watson Rule, referring to the case of People v. Watson. A conviction in that instance can lead to a sentence of 15 years to life.

ABC Eyewitness News Channel 7 provided an update on this story on November 23, 2013. You can see the video here.

On April 18, 2013, the United States Supreme Court made a ruling that directly affects Drunk Driving Cases in California and across the country. The Supreme Court case is Missouri v. Mcneely, 2013 DJDAR 4918. Previous to this court ruling it was generally held that if a driver suspected of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol refused a chemical test then he could be forced to give blood without requiring a warrant from a judge. In its most extreme, the driver could actually be forcibly strapped to a chair and blood drawn from his body, all without a warrant. This meant that the officer involved in the arrest would make the decision on whether to conduct a “search” of the driver’s blood by piercing his skin to extract the blood.

It is well established that a search inside one’s body is a search protected under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. As such, a warrant must issue from a judge to allow the search to occur. There are various exceptions to the warrant requirement to include if the person consents to be searched or if exigent circumstances exists. Exigent circumstances refers to a situation that requires an immediate search out of fear that the evidence may not be available if law enforcement has to wait for a warrant.

In drunk driving cases the exigent circumstance that commonly exist is the dissipation of alcohol (or drugs) from the blood of the suspect as time passes. There is no debate that the liver will eliminate alcohol from the suspect’s blood at about the rate of one drink an hour for a 175 lb man. So, the more time that passes between the time of driving and the blood test may cause law enforcement to lose evidence needed to make their case.

In the Mcneely case, the Supreme Court decided that from now on, the natural dissipation of alcohol from the blood is no longer an automatic exigent circumstance making a warrant unnecessary. Each case must be decided on its individual merit when deciding if a warrant should have been procured. The court noted that technology is such that a warrant could be issued by telephone and therefore relatively quickly without unduly compromising law enforcement’s ability to gather evidence. Until the Supreme Court’s decision, alcohol dissipating from blood was considered an exigent circumstance where no warrant was required in California. That is no longer the law.

Practically speaking however, this decision may not change how drunk driving cases are handled. Most people will probably still consent to a chemical test (blood or breath) because a refusal can lead to a 1 year license suspension by the DMV irrespective of what happens in court. To most people the license suspension is worse then a misdemeanor conviction for drunk driving, especially in far flung, car dependent Southern California. In order to accommodate the Supreme Court decision the county courts will probably designate judges to be on 24-hour call in order to evaluate whether a warrant should issue in a drunk driving case. In fact, Orange County already has a 24- hour judge on call for the purpose of deciding bail. While judges will certainly not be happy about having to deal with making a warrant decision at 3:00 am because a Newport Beach reveler drank too many and got in his car, it will probably be considered only a minor inconvenience in the end.

Downtown Fullerton, California, will be getting more of a police presence in an effort to combat drunk driving according to the Orange County Register. There will be more officers and operations placed in the area in order to check drivers for alcohol consumption.

The police department received two grants from the State Office of Traffic Safety. One grant was for $146,222 “for programs related to drunken-driving suppression” and a second of $50,000 to be used for sobriety checkpoints. The grant was set for sobriety check points by the state Office of Traffic Safety.

According to the O.C. Register the City Council initially declined the $50,000.00 but later the State Office of Traffic Safety indicated the city must take the $50,000.00 if it accepts the $146,222.00. With this grant there has been one check point so far and four more planned by the end of September. More officers were placed in the bar dense area of Fullerton to patrol for drunk drivers.

Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of Orange County Defense Attorney William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636.

Related Articles

• Fullerton police put DUI grants to use (ocregister.com)

Here is an Associated Press video regarding this story.

Here is the AP video covering the verdict:

Sobriety checkpoints continue to be the trend in Orange County as deputies from the Sheriff’s Department were conducting DUI roving patrols the weekend of April 16, 2010. Funding was been provided through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration grants. The patrols targeted areas with high incidences of DUI-related arrests and collisions in the cities of Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano, and San Clemente. In Costa Mesa, police were to conduct a DUI and driver’s license checkpoint on Friday evening, April 16th. All vehicles are open to inspection at a check point and can be checked for drivers who are under the influence of any alcohol or drugs. Cypress, in Western Orange County, were also to be conducting a DUI and driver’s license checkpoint on Saturday starting in the evening and going into the late night hours. See Vehicle Code Sections 23152 (a), (b); 23153(a) (b).

The Orange County Sheriffs Department is investigating one of their own for suspicion of driving under the influence and crashing into a vehicle. On Monday of this week Orange County Sheriff’s Deputy Allen Waters was involved in two collisions. The first incident happened in front of City Hall in Dana Point where deputies were called and took an incident report. It was not explained if the Lexus was parked or what the damage was, but Deputy Waters and the driver were able to go on their way. Within the hour CHP was called to a collision again involving Waters in Laguna Niguel. The California Highway Patrol reported that Waters made an unsafe turn to the right, and the resulting impact sent his car off multiple curbs and then into a Toyota with an elderly couple inside. One of the victims was taken to the hospital. At this collision the CHP reported that the unsafe turn was “…due to Waters’ level of intoxication” according to the Orange County Weekly. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department will conduct a full investigation. Driving under the influence can be filed as a misdemeanor or a felony. If a driver has three previous convictions and picks up a fourth case in a ten year period then the fourth case can be filed as a felony. Or, if a driver has never had a DUI previously but while driving drunk causes bodily injury to another then that case may be tried as a felony.

A first time misdemeanor DUI carries a maximum punishment of 6 months but most people do no jail time although they must pay a fine, attend an alcohol school and are put on three years of informal probation. A second time DUI within 10 years of a previous DUI has the same punishment except the maximum jail time is 1 year; the actual punishment varies from county to county. In Orange County an individual is looking at between 45-60 days in jail on a second DUI. On a third DUI the minimum punishment is 120 days by law and on a fourth DUI within 10 years of three previous convictions the maximum is 3 years in state prison. There are many possible defenses to driving under the influence. (See Vehicle Code Sections 23152(a), 23152(b), 23153(a), 23153(b).)

AB 576- Agencies will be identified as “victims” of graffiti vandalism. This gives the agency eligibility to seek restitution from those convicted.

SB 492- Raises fines and jail time for registered gang members loitering near a school within 72 hours of being told to leave.

SB 135 chopping off a cow’s tail is considered a misdemeanor and can only be done when medically relevant.

A total of 17 arrests were made for suspicion of drunk driving at two checkpoints in Orange County in the city of Garden Grove over the weekend before Christmas. Police have impounded 38 vehicles for drunk driving to include drivers who were driving without a valid license.

California Vehicle Code 23152(a) [VC 23152 (a)] prohibits any person from driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Note that an amount of drugs is not specified so any amount of drugs or alcohol that impairs one driving as determined by the arresting officer and/or eventually a jury, can cause one to be convicted of that crime. Drugs can include prescription drugs taken as directed! This is distinct from California Vehicle Code 23152 (b) [VC 23152 (b)] which prohibits driving a vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 0.08. The driver must be at or over the legal limit for vehicle code section 23152 (b) to apply. Also, it only applies to drivers under the influence of alcohol. A first time DUI carries a maximum sentence of 6 months in jail and a $1500.00 fine; however, most first time DUI offenders do no jail time as long as there was no accident or other aggravating factor.

In order for a “stop” to be valid at a DUI checkpoint, the police must follow certain rules. If they fail to follow the rules the stop can be ruled invalid and the evidence collected excluded which can cause the case to be dismissed regardless of the blood alcohol level or other evidence. The Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo has substantial experience working with checkpoint/DUI cases.

California Vehicle Code Section 12500 (a) states: “A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver’s license issued under this code, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code.”

Driving without a valid driver’s license in California is a “wobbler” – meaning, depending on the circumstances, prosecutors can charge this offense as a misdemeanor or infraction. The police can charge you with a violation of this vehicle code section for any of the following: (1) never obtaining a driver’s license, (2) failing to renew your driver’s license after expiring, (3) failing to obtain a California driver’s license after establishing residency, or (4) being ineligible for a drivers license in this state (for example, being an illegal immigrant).

The main factor that prosecution looks at in deciding whether to charge you with a misdemeanor or an infraction is your driving record. If this is your first offense or if you subsequently obtain a valid driver’s license, they may charge you only with the infraction or even go on to dismiss the case with the help of an experienced criminal defense attorney.

One can receive up to six months in jail for the above misdemeanor offense as well as informal probation for up to three years and a maximum fine of $1,000.

As the New Year Holiday begins, remember don’t drink and drive, use a designated driver. Happy New Year!