The implications of failing to comply with the driving-under-the-influence (DUI) program requirements, specifically as outlined under California Vehicle Code section 13352.4, subdivision (f).
Getting firearms back from law enforcement after an arrest.
Recent DUI defense case results.
Recent Felony DUI, nursing DUI, and DMV refusal case results.
Recent case results involving DUIs dismissed following suppression motions, felony DUIs with no jail time, etc.
Court of Appeal Rules DMV DUI Hearings Unconstitutional
Court of Appeal opinion that DUIs are not eligible for diversion is on shaky legal ground.
Recent victories on DUI defense cases.
Attorney Lara Gressley Quoted in OC Register Regarding DUIs and Diversion under Penal Code section 1001.95
California Supreme Court orders briefing on DUI Diversion under Penal Code section 1001.95.
On June 11, 2021, our firm was scheduled to argue one of many cases regarding whether DUIs are eligible for diversion under the new judicial diversion law Penal Code section 1001.95. The case was set for argument in the Riverside County Superior Court, Appellate Division. The Appellate Divisi...
Bartell, Hensel & Gressley releases 6th Edition of DUI Defense Attorney Practice Guide
In 2020, a new misdemeanor diversion law - Penal Code section 1001.95 - took effect in California, allowing for diversion on most misdemeanor offenses. Diversion allows people to avoid a criminal conviction if they participate in a pre-conviction rehabilitation program and successfully complete t...
Recent criminal defense lawyer and DUI defense attorney case results.
Drug Recognition Evaluations have not been demonstrated to reliably indicate whether someone is impaired by marijuana for purposes of driving.
Recent DUI defense and criminal defense case results.
Bartell, Hensel & Gressley wins DUI appeal regarding legality of police stop.
California law on DUIs on electric scooters explained by DUI attorney.
Frequently asked questions for marijuana DUI attorneys regarding marijuana DUI arrests.
On June 27, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Mitchell v. Wisconsin. In its decision, the Court declined to hold that implied consent statutes are a valid exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Instead, the Court held that when an officer has probable cause to believe an unconscious person has committed a DUI offense, and the person is taken to the hospital or similar facility due to their unconsciousness, and the police had no reasonable opportunity to administer an evidential breath alcohol test, the warrantless seizure of the person's blood “almost always” does not offend the 4th Amendment.
Attorney Donald Bartell Interviewed Regarding United States Supreme Court Decision in Mitchell v. Wisconsin
Our firm is pleased to share some of our recent successes in a string of DUI defense cases. Please take a look at our case results. If results matter to you, contact the most experienced and successful DUI defense attorneys in Riverside and Temecula.
Riverside DUI defense attorney discusses DUI defense perspective with Hemet Police Department.
Consequences of refusing a breathalyzer test or blood test in DMV in California.
