top of page

The Unconstitutional Administrative Per Se System that Has Been Double Punishing DUI Offenders

The Unconstitutional Administrative Per Se System that Has Been Double Punishing DUI Offenders Since the 1990’s Thanks to Dirty Politicians, and the Corrupted Lobbying Group Known as the California Association of DUI Treatment Programs that Pays Those Corrupted Politicians!


By: Joel Drotts Esq.



The Californian State Government has just decided that theft is such a social issue given the overwhelming economic effect theft has on the States economy that the State government has created an administrative program whereby those who are arrested for theft shall be made to pay a standard fine of $500 if they are found guilty by that program. The program shall consist of administrative hearings to determine the guilt of arrestees but will have no effect on the criminal prosecution of the alleged thieves. The hearings will be conducted completely separately from both the criminal prosecution and civil complaint systems of American jurisprudence. The hearings themselves will be conducted by a branch of the State Controllers Office which is in charge of collecting and accounting for the fines paid by only by those accused which the Hearing Masters find to be guilty.


The hearings themselves will be conducted by individuals with no legal training what-so-ever, whereby the civil servant in charge of the hearing shall act as both the neutral judge and prosecutor. The accused may have counsel represent them, which won’t matter any way as the prosecutor/judge/hearing masters will pay absolutely no attention to any legal procedures or fact-finding tools of evidence. Furthermore, the civil servants possessing no legal training shall have full authority to make rulings upon not only the relevancy of evidence but how much weight to accord certain types of evidence. Furthermore, at these administrative hearings all standard rules of evidence and legal procedure shall be ignored whenever the rules of evidence or procedure shall have been determined to inconvenience the finding of a guilty verdict by the Civil Servant Hearing Masters. These hearings are determined not to be criminal prosecutions, despite only being triggered by a violation of law, and utilizing exclusively the evidence collected by the arresting officers at the administrative hearings.


What is truly scary about this nightmare scenario above, is the Californian State Government has in fact already instituted this constitutionally devoid monstrosity of a system. Moreover, it’s been operating for years, and in exactly this manner. The only difference is the crime is not theft, it is DUI, and the agency isn’t the Controller extracting fines, but the DMV taking away people’s licenses. I know what some of or maybe all of you may say after being conditioned and propagandized by big money interests who have seen to it that millions of dollars are spent on advertising campaigns designed to make you equate those arrested for a DUI with murderers or worse. However, murderers and those arrested for a DUI are nothing alike. For starters, murderers actually get a fair trial in this state, while those accused of committing a DUI are instead shuffled off into a system of injustice designed to ensure they are unconstitutionally twice punished for the same crime, after being twice tried, and all done in the manner most profitable to those who own alcohol treatment and multiple offender programs (Hereinafter MOP system).


What most Californians don’t realize is that it has been a high-powered and well-funded lobbyist group which has been able to single-handedly shape the policies of DUI laws in California since the early 1990’s, and in a manner designed to generate the most profits for the members of that lobbyist group. The California Association of DUI Treatment Programs (CADTP) is a lobbying group and association dedicated to securing through unconstitutional statutes a legal monopoly on a per a county basis for its members which offer the multi-billion-dollar DUI rehabilitation market. What is truly disturbing is by watching the laws that CADTP has been able to get made into laws, one can see a clear and progressive increase of the erosion of the rights of the DUI offenders. At the same time, that same group of multi-millionaires has successfully convinced elected state legislatures to trample our constitutional rights in the name of ensuring their own profits, by creating into law an unconstitutional system of “punishing” DUI offenders by guaranteeing the companies owned by the CADTV members a steady increase of clients through the use of blatantly unconstitutional legislation and laws. The laws this group has been able to have enacted create an artificial market and client base which would not exist but for the enactment of these unconstitutional laws, by creating clients who are mandatorily required to purchase the unwanted and useless services of the multiple offender programs by law. In so doing, the CADTV members and lobbying group thereby ensure that DUI offenders do not receive the treatment or help they may require with drugs or alcohol, and instead are sent into the multiple offender programs offered only by those “DMV approved” programs which studies conducted by the DMV itself have proven to be of little to no proven benefit in preventing drug or alcohol usage and having no provable effect on levels of DUI recidivism.


Put it this way, you know something is not quite right when the studies conducted by the DMV itself in a report to the state legislature literally stated that multiple offender programs have no provable benefit or effect on recidivism numbers, and in the same year as that report came out the legislature chose to double down on the multiple offender program system by passing even more restrictive and unconstitutional legislation making the ability of people to regain their licenses without suffering the MOP system all but impossible. In reality all one really need do is stop and think about just how a DUI arrests and prosecutions are conducted in this state, and you quickly realize just how truly unconstitutional the system in place is. If you don’t believe me, simply replace DUI with any other crime and the shit seems wildly outrageous (See the example above!). They have literally created a parallel quasi-criminal justice system designed to fast-track and ensure guilty convictions and punishments, in a system that even if the criminal courts should find you not to be guilty of committing a DUI or otherwise drop or dismiss your charges for violating the DUI statutes, the system currently in place has the full authority to prosecute you via its own Soto-trial held at the DMV. At that “hearing” to determine your guilt of a violation of the DUI statutes the DMV employee with no legal training can and most likely will still find you guilty of a violation of State statutes and punish you by taking away your license until such time as you submit to an 18-month long CADTV member MOP, which costs a minimum of $2000.00. Remember this is even if the actual criminal justice system has determined your innocence.


And yes, this it is literally all true… The CADTP members alone have been able to get passed legislation which literally sentences people to programs which the government itself has determined to have little to no positive lasting effects or increase of lower recidivism rates and do so by completely ignoring some of the most basic and fundamental constitutional protections which we will discuss later in this article. However, before we go further into just how the government completely denies you your constitutional protections should you suffer a DUI arrest, let’s first examine the other equally important question. That question is WHY exactly has the legislatures passed unconstitutional laws forcing people to attend programs the DMV itself found to be little to no help to those sent to those programs? Why have judges done legal backflips that seemingly undo over 250 years of logic-based juris prudence dedicated to upholding the constitution in order to defend a public policy the DMV itself questioned the utility of?


The answer is literally political insiding, greed, and the egos and corruption of a few well-placed state legislatures, and the failure of all other state legislatures to act with any sense of reason, logic, or fairness. What is of little to no surprise is it has been the same handful of legislatures with investments into this very industry which have been able to craft the laws which make them rich by taking away the licenses of Californian citizens, creating a government-imposed monopoly system, and sending Californians to jail. Not for anything so noble as to better protect Californian drivers, but to secure the profits for this minority elite. But ultimately the entire system of suspension per ce demonstrates the undeniable truth of the matter, which is once the government is allowed to pass extra-constitutional laws that are outside the proven track record of over two-hundred and fifty years of American common law jurisprudence those in power will construct an increasingly draconian system which operates in ways that are increasingly offensive to the notions of fair play, justice, the rule of law, as they increasingly pass “laws” which are for a lack of better description anti-constitutional in every sense of the description of those “laws.”


For example, the first of many corrupted politicians who have repeatedly passed laws threatening the liberty of Californian citizens based upon false pretenses such as “Public Safety,” but which in reality are laws that ensure the personal wealth of the politician, and their friends was John Seymour. John Seymour was the first state legislature which introduced the legislation creating the unconstitutional secondary Soto-criminal justice system which DUI offenders are forced to suffer. What is truly just disgusting about that is that after his term in the state legislature he went on to be a highly compensated board member of a company which received government funds to do what? Create sober residential rehab facilities through-out the state! This is a verifiable matter of public record! After his Senate term, Seymour served as director of the California Housing Finance Agency for two years, and later served as CEO of the nonprofit Southern California Housing Development Corporation and on the boards of directors of several housing-related companies including IndyMac Bank, Orange Coast Title Insurance, Los Angeles Federal Savings Bank, and Irvine Apartment Communities. Well, the Southern California Housing Development Corporation built rehabilitation centers and/or sober living centers. So, what a surprise. John Seymour set the precedent by sponsoring and introducing legislation which sentenced those arrested for Dui to mandatory programs which he in turn was a member of the board of. So, we the citizens may suffer under his ill-conceived and unfair laws still to this day, so he could receive the multimillion-dollar position on the board of directors of a company that but for his legislation would not have any clients! It was his legislation that first made MOP’s a requirement. Just remember why you are being placed and punished in the manner in which you are if convicted for a DUI.


Next up to take utilize the demonization of DUI offenders for his own political gains was none other than good old “tough on crime” Bill Lockyer! For those of you too young to remember this mad-man Bill Lockyer is another politician who has shaped the DUI laws in California. Yes, the same “three strikes,” get tough on crime Bill Lockyer, who long championed the now defunct California Three Strikes law. The same three strikes law which has ended up creating a criminal injustice system in California which formerly could literally see Californians doing life sentences for petty crimes, depending on their past criminal history. The same “Three strikes system” that the people of California overwhelmingly voted to end, once the will of the people were asked by popular vote as opposed to the laws merely reflecting the personal beliefs of Mr. Lockyer on how crime should be punished. The same “Three strikes law” that saw the prison system of California become so overcrowded that a Federal Judge ruled to that to keep human beings in such accommodations to be cruel and unusual punishment in 2012. Those filthy and overcrowded prisons by the way, were the direct fault of Bill Lockyer more than any other Californian, as it was under his successive terms as Attorney General starting during the governorships of Pete Wilson and ending with Schwarzenegger which created the criminal justice system so dehumanizing, cruel, and devoid of fairness that Federal courts had to break up the system and order immediate changes to the system created almost exclusively by Mr. Bill Lockyer.

So, by just looking at two of the primary politicians who have worked either for or with CADTV in order to shape the DUI laws in this state in a highly profitable (For CADTV members) and constitutionally devoid manner, we get a corrupted self-serving greedy guy from southern California, and a completely vindictive sociopath whose views and opinions on crime and justice are so completely out of touch with those of a normal human that when he ran shit the Federal Courts literally called the Californian Penal System cruel and unusual punishment. Is it any wonder then why the laws and system are so unfair and why the Constitution has been completely ignored in the crafting of CA DUI laws? They were primarily crafted by a fantastic tough on crime psycho and a greedy businessman looking to profit him and his friends. Do you really think either of these two men cared anything about the constitutional rights of Californians? I’ll save you the time, the answer is “HELL MOTHERFUCKIN’ NAH!” They literally created a system that is designed to fast-track and guarantee guilty verdicts, which begins arguably the most harsh aspect of possible punishment (Loss of license) immediately upon arrest, without the benefit of a trial, which completely shits on the rule against double jeopardy by creating an entirely secondary quasi-judicial action by the government to determine your guilt, and a system which completely ignores constitutional law or otherwise pretends the constitution does not exist as explained below.


What I find truly disturbing is the manner this system has not only been allowed to begin and continue but actually grow in power and size. Mostly due to other equally as morally bankrupted politicians passing increasingly draconian DUI laws, and all in order to advance either their own political or financial standing. What is even more, is no sane person, except me of course, have ever taken the time to investigate into exactly why Californian DUI laws are so devoid of the usual and MANDATORY constitutional protections, or the many ways in which the MOP system is devoid of constitutional protections. However, by merely scratching the surface just a bit, and the true sociopathic nature and true purposes of the laws and why they are the way they are, or whose interest and beliefs the serve becomes clear. Which only makes sense, the DUI laws don’t help the DUI Offenders, and actually make roads more unsafe by pumping unlicensed drivers onto the roads of California at record levels. Therefore, the laws had to benefit someone, and there you have it. The laws serve a madman and a crook. Way to go California!



So dedicated to this concept of profits over justice, profits over rehabilitation, and profits above justice or fairness that recently the government rule making body which creates the administrative rules that MOP programs operate under has passed a rule that no credit is recognized for any amount of time an offender has undergone in a MOP program, if they wait to long to re-enroll in a MOP program. For those of you not following, what they basically have said is that you must be repunished and start back at the very beginning and redo any MOP program hours already completed if you fail to re-enroll in a program within the time allotted. This is literally the same thing as requiring you to serve days in jail you have already served for your failure to self-surrender upon the creation of a warrant. They literally take your time and credit away. So used to the notion of repunishing people regardless of the unconstitutional nature of such actions that they literally have passed laws that take away your time served credit in the programs. The level of unconstitutionality these people are allowed to operate under and inflict upon those unfortunate individuals unfortunate enough to get caught up in their carefully crafted constitutionally devoid arena of extraordinary punishment is absolutely unbelievable.

Administrative Per Se, means constitutional no way!

At present, the current suspension per se system runs counter to no less than four constitutional amendments located in what is commonly referred to as the bill of rights, most notably by violating the rule against double jeopardy and due process requirement for a government taking. For starters the fact that the corrupted legislatures have passed a “law” which sets up a secondary quasi-judicial system to determine the guilt of the individual in violating a statute in a criminal manner, which will result in a government-imposed deprivation of a property right (Your driver’s license), only to have you once again made to defend your innocence in a criminal court of law is so absolutely textbook violative of the rule against double jeopardy. In fact, so blatantly obvious is the afront to the constitution that as a part of the statute creating this system, itself the legislatures themselves felt the need to add the caveat inside the statute stating that “This law does not affect the constitutional rights against double jeopardy or res judicata.” In other words, so blatantly obvious is the constitutional violation against double jeopardy that the legislatures felt a need to state the obvious constitutional violation inside the statute itself. However, merely stating in a clearly unconstitutional law that the law is not unconstitutional in the manner which it clearly is serves as no defense to constitutional attacks for the violation of what is a fundamental right of the citizenry.


In other words, you can’t pass a law which says, “It shall be illegal to use the word fuck in public, and make it constitutional simply by adding at the end of the statute language stating “this law is not a violation of the First Amendment,” and then tell the citizenry “Oh… It’s not a violation of that constitutional fundamental right, because we told you it is not in the law itself.” That’s the most dictator like unconstitutional flawed logic I have ever heard of. What’s truly scary is that as one expects that having slipped that one complete revocation of a fundamental constitutional rights for all Californians with the act of merely stating they had done so in the statute, the legislature has expanded increasingly upon and in that particular vein of law whereby as I stated earlier now they have it so if you quit or get kicked out of a MOP and wait too long to return or go to a different MOP program, they will literally take away all you credit and time served. Meaning you can be in month sixteen of an eighteen-month program, stop attending for some reason for long enough a period of time, and boom you must start back at day one and redo it all. Somehow this is not double punishment though. Why? Because they already have gotten away with basically robbing us all of the right to avoid double jeopardy. Now, they’ll bloody hell do as they damned well, please, and we can all just go fuck off with any double punishment arguments or never see the return of your right to travel upon the highways or use public roads in a vehicle capable of achieving the mandatory required speed of 65 MPH.


What is even worse is the courts have continuously tried to run cover for the clearly unconstitutional laws by coming up with some amazingly farfetched legal wizardry like claiming that double jeopardy does not apply because one trial and punishment is civil in nature while the other one is criminal. However, changing the labels on laws does not change the fact that the same government is twice finding you guilty and twice punishing you for your commission of the same crime of driving while intoxicated. Does it really matter what the government wants to label the punishment for a violation of law? A punishment is a punishment, twice is twice, by the same single government, for the same single violation of statute of driving while intoxicated. So, then the courts have tried to cover up this obvious and glaring inconsistency by claiming that because the policy reasons for the punishments are different you are not being twice punished, by claiming the license suspension to be remedial in nature. This despite the fact that suspending one’s license has absolutely nothing to do with paying back or compensating the government for a loss, and in fact is a government taking of a recognized legal property right (Your license or any license once issued is a recognized property right in the eyes of the law btw.). As such, seizures of property for a violation of law have long been recognized as being purely penal in nature, and as stated earlier the seizure of a license in no way compensates the government for any alleged losses suffered by a violation of the statute. Furthermore, deterrence of any sort has long been recognized as a punitive effect of a statute, and as such the courts have routinely came up with the most flawed logic in order that they may further perpetuate this clearly extra-constitutional system to punish DUI offenders.


However, ultimately it is the effect upon the punished with which the double jeopardy rule was designed to protect. Therefore, whether the government imposes a detriment and loss upon the individual based upon their violation of a statute due to their violation of law because the government believes they are keeping the public safe, or because the government deems your actions punish worthy is of little difference to the convicted individual. From their point of view, the only point of view the double jeopardy constitutional ban is concerned with mind you, it is still the same single government has twice tried, twice found you guilty by way of two separate and exclusive government trials/hearings to determine guilt, and twice imposed its will upon you to your detriment as a consequence of your single violation of that same single law. As such, the courts imagined logic that one action is not a “punishment” and is remedial is completely devoid of any logic, and truly represents the courts trying to construct unworkable legal logic around bad law. However, as most individuals who experience such government deprivations are either not legally trained or otherwise are simply just trying to fight their way out of the system the necessary challenges to the laws are not nor have never been mounted in the proper courts of precedent with any serious strategy or effort at defeating the laws. Therefore, and thus far, the people of California are made to suffer the imaginative but ill-logical rulings of state level appellate judges clearly more interested in continuing a government policy created by a greedy businessman and a mad man than any true adherences to interpreting the true constitutionality of the current civil right destroying laws.


Another constitutional amendment which the system violates is due process, and there it violates due process in at least two separate ways. Due process is the constitutional promise that you will get your day in court and that the government will not take anything from you without fair compensation. This is protected by ensuring certain procedural rules are followed, mostly surrounding your right to a fair and neutral hearing as well as the sorts of evidence that can be utilized at such hearings. Here, the government fails on several counts as license suspensions represent a government taking of a property right requiring a hearing. However, the courts have allowed the nature of that hearing to become so biased and unfair one can hardly claim to have been given a fair and impartial hearing by any stretch of the imagination.


For starters, at such hearings your prosecutor and judge are one in the same. That’s right… The same person whose duty it is to prosecute you and make sure you are found guilty, is the same exact person who also somehow has the duty to act as the judge and ensure the fact that you receive a fair, unbiased, and open hearing based upon only the relevant and lawful evidence. What was that??? “Are not the very nature of the duties of a prosecutor-advocate and a neutral arbiter of any sort in conflicted opposition to one another based upon the expected actions and traditional roles of both the prosecutor-advocate and a neutral-arbiter?” The answer to that my friend is of course they are! One literally can not simultaneously be an unbiased judge and an effective prosecutor, as prosecution requires the upmost amount of bias within the procedural rules allowed to any such “legal” hearing. You literally cannot do both jobs and claim to effectively do either job to the best of your ability, because the two jobs are in conflicted bias by the duties one is expected to perform in either role. However, not in Californian DMVs apparently. There and there alone, the courts have decided exists a temporal magic capable of suspending logic and reason all at once, while seemingly convincing the general public both reason, logic, and above all fairness are regularly observed and practiced.

If this sounds like the most incredible conflict of interest, you would not be alone, unless of course you were the Supreme Court of California which has apparently determined such administrative actions and duality of roles to pose no hazard to the ability of the non-legally trained civil servants to be impartial in determining guilt. Not even the notion that one may become competitive and feel the need to win such adversarial hearings let alone the fact the same judge/prosecutor person is also hired and employed by the same party trying to find you guilty. No conflict of interest exists what-so-ever they have ruled. Well, if this be the case then may I suggest the next time anyone gets arrested that they instead are allowed to act as both defense and judge at the same time. Why should the government alone get to be the lawyer/judge person? The civil servants conducting the hearings have no legal or specialized training. Therefore, there is no reason why the judge-advocate mixed role should not be performed by the accused, being that there exists absolutely no conflict of interest what-so-ever in the combining of these two roles there is little to no reason what-so-ever that the Defendant should not be allowed the right to act as their own Defense/Judge mixed role. However, we all know the hypocrisy and unfair advantage in winning any such “fair” hearings will only be allowed to be utilized to favor one party and that’d be only the gubment’ dawg!


So, to recap quickly, the fact that you are not given a true fair hearing, but instead a hearing whereby the prosecutor and judge are one in the same party, being paid by the party trying to find you guilty (The DMV) makes the notion that the hearing is done in a fair and unbiased manner is laughable. However, as if to really rub our noses in the true authority of government and its ability to basically piss on the constitution at will, at your hearing held by the judge/prosecutor person paid by the party trying to find you guilty the courts have decided that the standard rules of evidence (especially concerning authenticity and hearsay) shall not apply, nor need not be followed. This quite literally means that the prosecutor-judge person paid by the party trying to find you guilty may hear and utilize such “evidence” to find you guilty as the unsworn statement by a police officer who claims to have taken a report from an unnamed witness that they saw you driving drunk to determine whether or not you are guilty of violating the law against driving while intoxicated. Then based upon such irrational hearsay evidence pronounce you guilty of a violation of the statute against drunk driving, and then punish you by way of taking your property (your license) for as long as the government apparently so choses without any end (ever). All of which the government has convinced itself to be what passes for a “fair” and “unbiased” hearing to determine your guilt in violating a law well enough to qualify as the same due process promised in the constitution. And no, I’m not lying, and yes this is all true and accurate!


The alleged logic which supposedly justifies this constitutional travesty also sees to it that, yet another fundamental right is stripped from those unfortunate enough to DUI offend. That right is the right to a speedy trial. See, the flawed logic and argument for this entire preposterous system is that the law presupposes those arrested for a DUI make the act of committing a DUI a regular habit. Now, this is a rather large leap and one with no evidence, but none-the-less it is the basis and reasoning behind the governments apparent need to pass laws that take away an individual right to drive a vehicle immediately as being an act which allegedly keeps the general public safer somehow. How exactly again is based upon the unproven notion that if someone is arrested for DUI, they must DUI all the time. Like everyday sort of thing. The law then cites the lag time between DUI arrests and the ultimate conviction as somehow being an immediate need and in fact evil which the State must somehow protect against. Here, the government has taken from the general public the right to a speedy trial. Here, if a defendant so wished to waive that right is it then up to the government to devise a secondary punishment in the meantime prior to an actual conviction? The answer is of course not, and is violative of the right the Defendant has to control the tempo and timing of his prosecution… His right to a speedy trial. Here again, the government states that this ability to waive a right to speedy trial must be guarded against and is an evil of such great magnitude that in fact a great many “other” constitutional protections (besides the right to speedy trial) must be stripped from accused offenders in the name of public safety? Where is the logic or evidence proving that being punished only after one is convicted (Even much later if the Defendant choses to waive the right to speedy trial) is an evil that endangers the public to such a point that the Administrative per se system along with its flawed and unconstitutional logic is somehow preferable or safer than the standard timing and rhythm of court proceedings? Oh… That’s right… It doesn’t exist because the right to a speedy trial is part and parcel with the very nature of our criminal justice system.


Does immediate and unwarranted punishment for an alleged crime make society safer? Of course not, BUT it does ensure that the CADTP members will have a steady flow of customers. In fact, that is clearly the only reason for the Administrative per se system at all, as the rest of the logic surrounding its creation and continuation really holds no water. Generally speaking, an arrest is quite a jarring experience, even for seasoned criminals. As such, a DUI arrest in its full ugliness and stress inducing consequences, shame, fear, and guilt is enough of a shock to most individuals to ensure they never DUI again in of itself. That is if it can be proven with any great accuracy that those who are arrested for committing a DUI do so on a regular basis or is a large enough portion of the time spent driving all together by an individual to take completely from people the right to drive completely. The ability to lawfully drive while wrongfully described as a privilege by the DMV is in reality an absolute necessity in our modern fast paced society for any living outside of large major urban cities with 24 x 7 municipal transportation lines and systems.


What’s truly questionable is the right of the state to even require licensing for the operation of a motor vehicle in the first place. The right to travel upon the public roads and highways both intra and extra-state is a recognized fundamental constitutional right. Therefore, why would one exchange a right for a privilege? The argument can no longer be realistically made that the right to travel upon public roads and highways does not make mandatory use of a vehicle. In fact, it is against the laws in many states to enter upon a highway or freeway not in a vehicle capable of achieving and maintaining 65 mph. If you do, you are subject to immediate removal and in fact fine by law enforcement. This fact alone does make the ability to drive a vehicle the same thing as the right to utilize and travel upon public highways. Therefore, the ability of the state to license and therefore deny this ability gets strict scrutiny analysis of the question of whether the DMV should even be allowed to issue license or therefore not issue licenses to citizens preventing them from utilizing their fundamental right to travel upon public highways. The DMV claims licensing is necessary to protect the safe usage of the public highways. However, a less restrictive manner of achieving that goal already exists in the large and voluminous amounts of vehicle codes the violation of any of which results in fine or even imprisonment in extreme cases. These vehicle codes which dictate the rules of the road for safety can be enforced upon the general public, and therefore ensuring safe travel upon public roads without the need or authority to license and therefore deny license to utilize one’s fundamental right to travel upon public roads and highways. Does one require a license to be pulled over and fined for failure to stop at a red light? Of course not. Therefore, a less restrictive manner in achieving road safety exists without the need for license. As such, the power of licensing travel upon the public roads must be found to be an unconstitutional action.

“So, what is the answer? What is the fix, Joel? I stuck with you reading all fifteen-odd pages about the fact that the current MOP system is corrupt and unconstitutional, but this isn’t GI Joe and simply “knowing isn’t half the battle.” Well, dear reader that’s not entirely true, because as I stated given the nature of the propaganda surrounding DUI’s no one really ever really stops to think about just how unfairly those who are arrested for DUI’s get treated. However, now that YOU know, you can write your elected state legislature and let them know that you think the current constitutional violations suffered by DUI offenders needs to be changed. The real issue or problem is Californian Vehicle Code 13352 which states:

CA Veh Code § 13352 (2017)

(a) The department shall immediately suspend or revoke the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle upon the receipt of an abstract of the record of a court showing that the person has been convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, subdivision (a) of Section 23109, or Section 23109.1, or upon the receipt of a report of a judge of the juvenile court, a juvenile traffic hearing officer, or a referee of a juvenile court showing that the person has been found to have committed a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, subdivision (a) of Section 23109, or Section 23109.1. If an offense specified in this section occurs in a vehicle defined in Section 15210, the suspension or revocation specified in this subdivision also applies to the noncommercial driving privilege. The commercial driving privilege shall be disqualified as specified in Sections 15300 to 15302, inclusive. For the purposes of this section, suspension or revocation shall be as follows:


(1) Except as required under Section 13352.1 or 13352.4, upon a conviction or finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section 23536, the privilege shall be suspended for a period of six months. The privilege shall not be reinstated until the person gives proof of financial responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code described in subdivision (b) of Section 23538 of this code. If the court, as authorized under paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 23646, elects to order a person to enroll in, participate in, and complete either program described in subdivision (b) of Section 23542, the department shall require that program in lieu of the program described in subdivision (b) of Section 23538. For the purposes of this paragraph, enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an approved program shall occur subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit shall not be given to any program activities completed prior to the date of the current violation.


As you can plainly see CVC 13352 clearly asks the DMV to punish an individual by removing their license as a punishment for an individual’s conviction of CVC 23152, which is a statute that the individual is already tried for and most likely punished for by the courts. What you can do is write your state legislature and tell them to make the DUI laws constitutional by striking or amending CVC 13352. Personally, I believe that the installation of breathalyzers in people’s cars for an amount of time to be way more fair, most likely to prevent DUI’s, and proper way to go about addressing DUI’s. MOPs are a joke. A weekly classroom where you make a bunch of people who are not supposed to be drinking talk about and think about nothing but drinking for two hours to be not only unhelpful but counterproductive. I personally realized I was fine not drinking but then after those stupid classes where all we talked about was alcohol for two hours that I would literally walk straight across the street from the program to the bar with my “class-mates,” all of whom felt the same way. Withholding peoples licenses forever until they agree to participate in these programs that were literally only started and are maintained in order that some assholes who happen to be friends with politicians and the corrupted politicians themselves can be millionaires a level of utter bullshit that no Californian should be made to choke on. Therefore, I encourage any reader to do their own research, and contact their elected representatives and tell them, to end the unconstitutional and unfair current MOP system! I’ve included below the laws which CADTV literally brags about having drafted and made law below, next to the names of the corrupted politicians that aid the CADTV by sponsoring the law for their millionaire vamperetic scumbag lobbyists group overlords by denying Californians their most fundamental constitutional rights. Remember politics is all about the squeaky wheel getting the grease, and therefore we must always aspire to squeak as loud as our talents, resources, and networks will allow! Squeak on my friends… Squeak on!


Some of the laws the CADTV has past hits are:

1988 – Senate Bill 1365 (Seymour) established the 30-month DUI program for those with a 3rd or subsequent DUI conviction.

1990 – Senate Bill 1344 (Seymour) required statewide implementation or the 3-month (30 hours of participation) education and counseling program for conviction of a 1st DUI offense.

1993 – Senate Bill 1650 (Leonard) includes provisions that allow those who have permanently resided in a state other than California to apply for a driver’s license in the state of their current residence (the so-called “Desert Storm” provision since it was prompted by military personnel transfers) as long as they meet that state’s requirements for someone convicted of a DUI offense. Also established that proof of (DUI) program completion be provided to DMV before license could be reinstated after DUI conviction.

1995 – Senate Bill 1295 (Lockyer) among other things, provided further detail (see SB1650) regarding proof of completion of DUI education and counseling program for those convicted of a 1st DUI offense and required DMV to suspend the individual’s driving privilege for failure to comply.

1998 – Senate Bill 1177 (Johnson) requires anyone who is convicted of a 2nd or subsequent DUI offense, and who is ordered to enroll in, participate in, and complete a DUI education and counseling program, to do so subsequent to the latest violation. Prohibits credit being given for prior program participation.

1999 – Senate Bill 1176 (Johnson) requires those convicted of an alcohol-related (“wet”) reckless driving offense to attend and complete the education component (minimum 12 hours) of a DUI education and counseling program.

2001 – Assembly Bill 803 (Torlakson) requires courts to order individuals who are at least 18 years of age who are convicted of a DUI offense with a BAC of 0.05% or more to attend and complete the educational component of a DUI education and counseling program. Requires those individuals to attend and complete the 30-hour first offender program for at second conviction.

2007 – Senate Bill 1756 (Migden) requires the license suspension period for those convicted of a 1st DUI offense with a BAC of 0.20% or higher to conform to the length of the required extended (9 month) DUI education and counseling program.


What is more is this same organization has been allowed to draft certain laws for itself, but which effect all the citizens of this state. Those laws are:

1990 – Assembly Bill 757 (Friedman) requires DMV to establish and maintain a DUI data and recidivism tracking system and evaluate efficacy of intervention programs for those convicted of DUI. Result: “Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information System”.

1994 – Senate Bill 126 (Lockyer) among other things, requires proof of DUI program completion for those convicted of a 2nd or subsequent DUI offense prior to license reinstatement.

1999 – Assembly Bill 1916 (Torlakson) among other things, requires those convicted a of a 1st DUI offense with a BAC of 0.20% or more to complete a 6-month DUI program.

1999 – Senate Bill 24 (Committee on Public Safety) was a “clean up” measure for Assembly Bills 762 and 1916 and Senate Bill 1186.

2004 – Senate Bill 1696 (Torlakson) among other things, requires DUI programs (not participants) to provide proof of enrollment and participation of convicted DUI offender directly to DMV.

2010 – Assembly Bill 91 (Feuer) establishes a “pilot” program in 4 counties to assess the efficacy of mandatory ignition interlock device usage for those convicted of a 1st or multiple DUI offense.


Comments


bottom of page