California Judge Rules that new IID-restricted License Eeligibility law includes DUI Offenders with Violation dates Eearlier than july 1, 2010

 Posted on October 30, 2010 in DUI

Mann County Superior Court Judge Verna A. Adams ruled in favor of a California man seeking the reinstatement of his driver’s lice nse following a second offense DUI conviction under law that went into effect on July 1, 2010. (client name redacted to preserve confidentiality)

40-year-old (name removed for confidentiality) was convicted of a second offense DUI on July 15, 2010, following his arrest on February 23, 2010. After having served 90 days of a license suspension, (name removed for confidentiality) sought the reinstatement of his license subject to his installing an ignition-interlock device (IID) in his vehicle. The IID prevents the operation of a vehicle if the driver has been drinking.

The DMV rejected (name removed for confidentiality) application for an IID-restricted license, contending that the new law does not apply to offenders with violation dates earlier than July 1, 2010. Finding that the legislative intent of the new law was to encourage all multiple offenders to install an IID in their car, Judge Adams ordered the DMV to grant (name removed for confidentiality) an IID ­restricted license.

The new law (Senate Bill 598) amends California Vehicle Code section 13352, making most second-time offenders eligible for an IID-restricted license after 90 days of suspension and most third time offenders eligible after 180 days. Those persons refusing a chemical test and individuals found to be impaired by drugs are ineligi bl e.

Comments by (name removed for confidentiality) attorney, Paul Burglin , which were echoed by his co-author, Barry T. Simons —the Co-Author of “ California Drunk Driving Law ": The California Legislature has studied the drunk driving problem and concluded that public safety is enhanced by encouraging multiple offenders to install an IID in their vehicles. Too often these individuals will simply transfer a car out of their name to avoid a court-ordered IID, but by providing an incentive to legally drive they are more inclined to actually install the device. This new law is not about being soft or sympathetic to drunk drivers—it is about implementing a new tool to combat this epidemic.