California Administrative Per Se- Facts (Zero tolerance for intoxicated drivers - except Judge H. James Ahler!)
For either law, due process is allowed by the issuance of a 30-day temporary license intended to provide the driver with sufficient time to challenge the suspension through DMV administrative review. (Oh, yeah. Ahler was DMV staff attorney before becoming a quasi-judge) The time allowed to challenge the suspension was reduced from 45 days on July 1, 1993. As of January 1, 1993, offenders who are dismissed for insufficient evidence or are never charged by the court may request an APS dismissal hearing to consider setting aside the associated APS action. Under the .08% APS law, when a driver submits to and “fails” a BAC test and has no prior DUI convictions or APS actions (within 7 years prior to September 20, 2005 and within 10 years thereafter), a 4-month license suspension is imposed. Following 30 days of “hard” suspension, and providing they first demonstrate proof of insurance, show proof of enrollment in an approved alcohol treatment program, and pay all penalty fees, the law provided for such drivers to obtain a 5-month restricted license that allows only driving to and from an alcohol treatment program, and to, from, and during the course of employment. A 1-year suspension is imposed on drivers having one or more prior DUI convictions or APS actions within 7 years prior to September 20, 2005 and within 10 years thereafter, with no provision for a restricted license.
Under this law, for offenders refusing a BAC test, a 1-year license suspension is imposed for a first offense, a 2-year revocation is imposed for a second offender refusal, and a 3-year revocation is imposed for a third-or-subsequent offender refusal (within 7 years prior to September 20, 2005 and within 10 years thereafter). There are no provisions for issuance of a restricted license following a BAC test refusal.
Administrative Per Se (DUI) Background
Prepared by DMV Research and Development Branch
In 1990, California became the 28th state to implement an
immediate driver license suspension law for alcohol-impaired drivers, also
referred to as an “Administrative Per Se (APS)” or “on-the-spot” license
suspension law. The California APS law requires the Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) to suspend or revoke the driving privilege of persons who are
arrested for driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08% or more,
or who refuse a chemical test upon arrest. In January 1994, California
implemented a companion driver license suspension law, known as the “zero
tolerance law,” which requires DMV to suspend for one year any driver under age
21 with a BAC of .01% or more as measured by a preliminary alcohol screening
test, or who refuses or fails to complete the test. These administrative
actions are independent of any criminal penalties imposed in court for
conviction of the driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offense. Upon arrest,
or detention (as applicable in the .01% APS law), the driver’s license is
immediately confiscated and an order of suspension or revocation served.
For either law, due process is allowed by the issuance of a 30-day temporary license intended to provide the driver with sufficient time to challenge the suspension through DMV administrative review. (Oh, yeah. Ahler was DMV staff attorney before becoming a quasi-judge) The time allowed to challenge the suspension was reduced from 45 days on July 1, 1993. As of January 1, 1993, offenders who are dismissed for insufficient evidence or are never charged by the court may request an APS dismissal hearing to consider setting aside the associated APS action. Under the .08% APS law, when a driver submits to and “fails” a BAC test and has no prior DUI convictions or APS actions (within 7 years prior to September 20, 2005 and within 10 years thereafter), a 4-month license suspension is imposed. Following 30 days of “hard” suspension, and providing they first demonstrate proof of insurance, show proof of enrollment in an approved alcohol treatment program, and pay all penalty fees, the law provided for such drivers to obtain a 5-month restricted license that allows only driving to and from an alcohol treatment program, and to, from, and during the course of employment. A 1-year suspension is imposed on drivers having one or more prior DUI convictions or APS actions within 7 years prior to September 20, 2005 and within 10 years thereafter, with no provision for a restricted license.
Under this law, for offenders refusing a BAC test, a 1-year license suspension is imposed for a first offense, a 2-year revocation is imposed for a second offender refusal, and a 3-year revocation is imposed for a third-or-subsequent offender refusal (within 7 years prior to September 20, 2005 and within 10 years thereafter). There are no provisions for issuance of a restricted license following a BAC test refusal.
The .01% BAC law requires a 1-year suspension and provides
for a hardship restriction only if a BAC test was completed and the driver can
demonstrate a critical need to drive.
As of September 20, 2005 commercial drivers arrested in a
noncommercial vehicle and having no
prior DUI convictions or APS actions (within 7 years prior to September 20, 2005 and within 10 years thereafter) are handled no differently than other first offenders and are no longer granted an automatic restriction to drive to, from, and during the course of employment following a 30-day “hard” suspension as they originally were. (A noncommercial vehicle is one not requiring a commercial driver license, or heavy-vehicle operator’s license, to drive.)
prior DUI convictions or APS actions (within 7 years prior to September 20, 2005 and within 10 years thereafter) are handled no differently than other first offenders and are no longer granted an automatic restriction to drive to, from, and during the course of employment following a 30-day “hard” suspension as they originally were. (A noncommercial vehicle is one not requiring a commercial driver license, or heavy-vehicle operator’s license, to drive.)
The prospects for healthcare reform may be chillier than DC weather, but Democrats in the House and Senate are turning their attention to another warmer but still significant national issue: the increasing number of runaway and throwaway youth who are being forced into prostitution. In response to the growing concerns that desperate, runaway teens will be forced into prostitution in a sluggish economy, Congress is pushing several bills to improve how runaway kids are tracked by the police, fund crucial social services, and prevent teens from being caught in sex trafficking. Here's the gist of what the new legislation is trying to accomplish:
