Facing charges for a third offense DUI can be an overwhelming and challenging experience. This is because the legal consequences of a DUI become increasingly severe with each subsequent offense.

At California Criminal Lawyer Group, we understand the challenges that individuals charged with a 3rd offense DUI encounter. Our team of criminal defense lawyers in Fresno is here to help you build a solid defense strategy.

The Legal Definition of 3rd Offense DUI

In California, a 3rd offense DUI refers to the situation where an individual is arrested and charged with driving under the influence (DUI) for the third time within a specified period. A 3rd offense DUI involves a history of prior DUI convictions, making the consequences more severe compared to first and second offenses.

California employs a ten-year "lookback period," meaning that law enforcement and the court consider DUI convictions within the past ten years when determining the severity of penalties for a new DUI offense. If an individual is arrested for DUI and has two prior DUI convictions within the past ten years, the current charge will be treated as a 3rd offense.

What the Prosecutor Must Prove

In a 3rd offense DUI case in California, the prosecutor must establish several elements to secure a conviction. These elements generally include the following:

  • Driving under the influence
  • Prior convictions

Here is a brief discussion of each of these elements:

Driving Under the Influence

This element focuses on establishing that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both. Here are key considerations regarding this crucial element:

  • Observable impairment — Prosecutors often rely on the observations of law enforcement officers to establish that a driver was under the influence. This can include erratic driving behavior, slurred speech, impaired motor skills, and other signs of intoxication. Witness statements, dashcam footage, and officer testimony may be presented as evidence of observable impairment.
  • Field sobriety tests — Law enforcement officers commonly administer field sobriety tests, such as the walk-and-turn or one-leg stand, to assess a driver's coordination and balance. The results of these tests may be used to demonstrate impairment and support the DUI charge.
  • Chemical tests — Breath, blood, or urine tests are often conducted to measure the driver's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) or the presence of drugs. In California, a BAC of 0.08% or higher is considered illegal for most drivers. The results of these tests can serve as strong evidence of impairment.
  • Implied consent laws — In California, drivers are deemed to have given their consent to chemical testing when they obtain a driver's license. Refusing to undergo such tests may lead to consequences, such as automatic license suspension, and the prosecution may use a refusal as evidence of guilt.
  • Expert testimony — Prosecutors may call upon expert witnesses, such as toxicologists, to explain the effects of alcohol or drugs on an individual's ability to operate a motor vehicle. Expert testimony can strengthen the prosecution's argument regarding impairment.

Note that even without a high BAC, impairment can be established based on the totality of the circumstances. Skilled defense attorneys may challenge the validity of field sobriety tests, question the accuracy of chemical tests, or challenge the legality of the traffic stop to undermine the prosecution's case.

Prior Convictions

To secure a conviction for a third DUI offense, the prosecution must establish that the defendant has two prior DUI convictions within the past ten years. California utilizes a ten-year "lookback period" to determine whether prior convictions can be considered in the current DUI case. This means that the court considers DUI convictions within the past ten years when assessing the severity of penalties for a new DUI offense.

The prosecution typically presents official court records or other legal documents as evidence of the defendant's prior DUI convictions. These records must be accurate, up-to-date, and legally admissible.

The prosecutor is responsible for verifying the authenticity and validity of prior convictions. This may involve obtaining certified copies of court records, plea agreements, or other legal documents to demonstrate that the defendant has indeed been convicted of DUI on two prior occasions within the specified timeframe.

The presence of prior convictions significantly affects the potential penalties for a 3rd offense DUI. While first and second offenses may result in lesser consequences, a third offense triggers more severe penalties, including increased fines, longer license suspension, mandatory participation in a multiple-offender DUI program, and the possibility of an extended jail sentence.

Defense attorneys may challenge the accuracy or admissibility of prior convictions. This could involve questioning the legality of the prior convictions, arguing for the exclusion of certain evidence, or challenging the identification of the defendant in previous cases.

The Penalties for a 3rd Offense DUI

In California, a 3rd offense DUI carries severe penalties due to the increased number of prior convictions. The specific consequences may vary based on the details of the case and the individual's prior criminal history, but common penalties generally include the following:

  • Extended jail time — A third-offense DUI conviction often results in a longer jail sentence compared to first and second offenses. The length of the sentence can range from 120 days to one year, and in some cases, the court may allow alternatives such as electronic monitoring or work release.
  • Fines — The fines associated with a 3rd offense DUI are substantially higher than those for earlier offenses. Individuals convicted may face fines ranging from $2,500 to $3,000, not including additional court fees and penalties.
  • License suspension — A third offense DUI typically leads to a lengthy driver's license suspension. The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) may suspend the individual's license for three years, with the possibility of applying for a restricted license after 18 months, contingent upon completing a DUI program.
  • Mandatory DUI program — Individuals convicted of a 3rd offense DUI must enroll in and complete a multiple-offender DUI program, which consists of an extensive education and counseling component. The duration of the program is usually 30 months.
  • Ignition Interlock Device (IID) — In some cases, the court may order the installation of an IID in the offender's vehicle for up to two years. This device requires the driver to provide a breath sample before starting the car, and the vehicle will not start if alcohol is detected.
  • Probation — Probation is often a part of the sentence for a 3rd offense DUI. The probation usually ranges between three to five years. While on probation, individuals must adhere to specific conditions, such as regular alcohol testing, attending counseling or treatment programs, and avoiding further legal trouble.
  • Vehicle impoundment — The court may order the impoundment of the offender's vehicle for a specific period, and the associated costs for impoundment are the responsibility of the individual.

Note that various factors, including the presence of aggravating circumstances or the successful completion of rehabilitation programs can influence the penalties for DUI offenses. Consulting with an experienced criminal defense attorney is crucial for individuals facing a 3rd offense DUI to understand their specific situation and explore potential legal strategies to mitigate the consequences.

Legal Defenses to a 3rd Offense DUI

Defending against a 3rd offense DUI charge in California involves a thorough analysis of the specific details of the case. While each case is unique, here are some common legal defenses that may be applicable:

  • Challenging the traffic stop
  • Questioning field sobriety tests
  • Examining chemical test procedures
  • Miranda rights violation

It is crucial to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney to assess the specific circumstances of a 3rd offense DUI case and determine the most effective defense strategy. An attorney can evaluate the evidence, identify potential weaknesses in the prosecution's case, and work to achieve the best possible outcome for the defendant.

Below, we briefly discuss each of these defenses:

Challenging the Traffic Stop

Challenging the traffic stop is a common defense strategy in DUI cases, including 3rd offense DUI charges in California. This defense revolves around questioning the legality of the initial traffic stop that led to the DUI arrest.

Here are key considerations and potential arguments when challenging the traffic stop:

  • Lack of reasonable suspicion — Law enforcement officers must have a valid reason to initiate a traffic stop, known as "reasonable suspicion." This might include observed traffic violations, erratic driving behavior, or other factors that suggest a potential violation of the law. If the officer lacked reasonable suspicion, the entire stop may be deemed unlawful.
  • Failure to observe an actual violation — If the officer cannot identify a specific traffic violation or observed behavior that warranted the stop, the defense may argue that the stop was arbitrary and lacked a legal basis.
  • Pretextual stops — A pretextual stop occurs when law enforcement uses a minor traffic violation as a pretext to investigate other suspicions, such as DUI. If the defense can demonstrate that the stop was primarily intended for investigating DUI without a valid traffic violation, it may challenge the stop's legality.
  • Unlawful extension of the stop — Once a traffic stop is initiated, the officer's authority is limited to addressing the reason for the stop. If the stop is prolonged without a valid reason, such as waiting for a drug-sniffing dog or conducting unrelated questioning, the defense may argue that the extension was unlawful.
  • Challenging probable cause for DUI — Even if the initial traffic stop was lawful, subsequent observations and tests conducted by the officer must establish probable cause for a DUI arrest. If the officer's observations or field sobriety tests are deemed unreliable or undertaken improperly, it can weaken the prosecution's case.
  • Video evidence and witnesses — Video footage from dash cams or body cameras, as well as statements from any passengers or other witnesses, can be crucial in challenging the legitimacy of the traffic stop. Inconsistencies or discrepancies in the officer's account may be highlighted to cast doubt on the legality of the stop.

Questioning Field Sobriety Tests

Field sobriety tests are subjective assessments of a driver's physical and cognitive abilities, and challenging their accuracy can be a crucial aspect of building a defense. Here are key considerations when questioning field sobriety tests:

  • Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) — The three SFSTs commonly used by law enforcement are the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), Walk-and-Turn (WAT), and One-Leg Stand (OLS) tests. The defense may challenge the standardized nature of these tests, arguing that individual factors, such as physical conditions or medical issues, can influence performance.
  • Officer training and administration — Officers must be properly trained to administer field sobriety tests accurately. The defense may scrutinize the officer's training records, questioning whether the administering officer was adequately trained and followed proper procedures during the tests.
  • Environmental factors — Various environmental factors, such as uneven terrain, poor lighting, or adverse weather conditions, can impact the accuracy of field sobriety tests. The defense may argue that these external factors contributed to an inaccurate assessment of the defendant's performance.
  • Physical limitations and medical conditions — Certain physical limitations or medical conditions, such as injuries, balance issues, or neurological disorders, can affect an individual's ability to perform field sobriety tests. The defense may present medical evidence to demonstrate that factors unrelated to alcohol impairment influenced the test results.
  • Subjectivity of officer interpretation — Field sobriety tests rely on the subjective interpretation of the administering officer. The defense may argue that the officer's judgment is influenced by personal biases or expectations, potentially leading to an inaccurate assessment of the defendant's performance.
  • Alternative explanations for poor performance — Poor performance on field sobriety tests does not necessarily indicate intoxication. The defense may present alternative explanations for a defendant's inability to perform certain tasks, such as fatigue, nervousness, or unfamiliarity with the testing process.
  • Lack of standardization in non-SFSTs — In addition to the standardized tests, officers may use non-standardized tests, such as counting backward or reciting the alphabet. The defense may argue that these non-standardized tests lack scientific validation and are, therefore, unreliable indicators of impairment.
  • Video evidence — Video footage of field sobriety tests can be a powerful tool for the defense. If available, the defense may use video evidence to highlight any discrepancies between the officer's observations and the actual performance of the defendant.

Challenging the reliability of field sobriety tests requires a detailed examination of the specific circumstances surrounding their administration. An experienced criminal defense attorney can analyze the evidence, consult with experts if necessary, and develop a defense strategy that aims to cast doubt on the accuracy of the tests and the overall DUI case.

Examining Chemical Test Procedures

Examining the procedures related to chemical tests, such as breathalyzer or blood tests, is a crucial defense strategy in DUI cases. Challenging the accuracy and reliability of chemical tests can be a key element in building a defense.

Here are key considerations when examining chemical test procedures:

  • Breathalyzer calibration and maintenance — Breathalyzers must be regularly calibrated and maintained to ensure accurate results. The defense may inquire about the calibration records of the specific device used in the case, looking for any irregularities or gaps in maintenance.
  • Administration by trained personnel — Only trained and qualified personnel should administer breathalyzer tests. The defense may challenge the qualifications of the officer who conducted the test, questioning whether they were properly trained and adhered to established procedures.
  • Observation period — Before a breath test, there is typically an observation period during which the individual must not eat, drink, or regurgitate. If the observation period is not properly conducted or if the individual was not monitored as required, the defense may argue that the test results are unreliable.
  • Rising Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) — The defense may present evidence to establish that the defendant's blood alcohol content (BAC) was rising at the time of the traffic stop or arrest. If this can be demonstrated, it may challenge the prosecution's assertion that the defendant was above the legal limit while driving.
  • Blood test contamination and chain of custody — In cases where a blood test is administered, the defense may scrutinize the procedures involved in drawing, handling, and storing the blood sample. If there are issues with contamination, mishandling, or a break in the chain of custody, it may cast doubt on the reliability of the test results.
  • Medical conditions and medications — Certain medical conditions or medications can potentially affect the accuracy of chemical tests. The defense may present evidence that a medical condition or prescription medication, rather than alcohol or drugs, influenced the test results.
  • Retrograde extrapolation — Retrograde extrapolation is a method used to estimate a person's BAC at the time of driving based on the test results. The defense may challenge the validity of retrograde extrapolation calculations, especially if there are factors that could influence the accuracy of these estimates.
  • Independent blood test — In some cases, defendants have the right to request an independent blood test. If the defense can show discrepancies between the results of the official test and an independent test, it may raise questions about the accuracy of the prosecution's evidence.
  • Expert testimony — The defense may call upon expert witnesses, such as toxicologists, to challenge the reliability of the chemical test results. Expert testimony can provide a scientific perspective on the potential sources of error or uncertainty in the testing process.

Examining chemical test procedures requires a meticulous review of the specific details of the case, including the circumstances surrounding the administration of the test and the maintenance of testing equipment. An experienced criminal defense attorney can leverage this information to build a strong defense strategy aimed at challenging the reliability and admissibility of chemical test results in court.

Miranda Rights Violations

The defense of Miranda rights violations is a legal strategy used in DUI cases when law enforcement fails to properly inform a suspect of their Miranda rights. These rights, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Miranda v. Arizona case, include the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

For Miranda rights to be valid, law enforcement must properly inform the suspect of their rights before conducting a custodial interrogation. If the suspect is not informed of these rights or if the warnings are incomplete, any statements made during subsequent questioning may be challenged as inadmissible.

Miranda rights are triggered when a suspect is in custody and subjected to interrogation. If the suspect is not in custody or is not being subjected to interrogation, Miranda warnings may not be required. The defense may argue that the defendant was not in custody or was not being interrogated when potentially incriminating statements were made.

Even if Miranda rights were read, the defense may challenge the voluntariness of the suspect's waiver of those rights. If the suspect did not fully understand their rights or if there was coercion or intimidation during the questioning, the defense may argue that any statements made were not voluntary.

If the suspect invokes their right to remain silent or requests an attorney, law enforcement must cease questioning. Failure to respect this request can lead to Miranda rights violations. The defense may argue that continued questioning after the invocation of rights renders subsequent statements inadmissible.

The presence of recorded interrogations can be crucial in assessing the proper administration of Miranda warnings. If there is a discrepancy between what is recorded and what law enforcement claims occurred, the defense may use the recording to challenge the accuracy of the prosecution's account.

When Miranda rights are violated, the prosecution may be prohibited from using the suspect's statements made during custodial interrogation in court. This can weaken the prosecution's case, as crucial evidence may be excluded.

Suppose evidence or statements obtained as a result of Miranda rights violations lead to the discovery of additional evidence. In that case, the defense may argue that this subsequent evidence is tainted and should also be excluded under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine.

Find a Fresno Criminal Defense Lawyer Near Me

Facing charges for a 3rd offense DUI is undoubtedly a challenging and serious situation. At California Criminal Lawyer Group, we understand the complexities and the stakes involved in 3rd offense DUI cases.

Our experienced legal team is ready to assess the unique circumstances of your case, challenge evidence, and craft a defense strategy tailored to your specific situation. We are dedicated to safeguarding your rights and pursuing the best possible outcome for your case. Call us at 559-712-8377 for a free consultation.