WOODLAND, Calif. — A judge denied release for a man accused of driving under the influence, siding with prosecutors despite defense arguments challenging the reliability of sobriety testing and emphasizing the accused’s efforts to address substance use issues.
Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt argued for the release of a man accused of driving under the influence (DUI) but was met with heavy opposition from the prosecution, to the detriment of the accused. Witness statements provided by the officer who made the arrest highlighted issues with the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) and how the officer’s judgment resulted in what the defense characterized as hasty affirmations of criminal charges.
Judge Stephen L. Mock sided with the prosecution, denying release on the accused’s own recognizance.
California’s Impaired Driver’s Plan recognizes the need for increased road safety in incidents involving alcohol consumption, addressing alcoholism as a basis for care rather than punishment, while the California Office of Traffic Safety maintains its position to prevent and decrease opportunities for road deaths involving alcohol and drug use.
The Office of Traffic Safety states, “When an individual is arrested and convicted of a DUI, they should be screened and evaluated at the earliest possible opportunity for the extent of alcohol and/or drug abuse and any relevant mental health issues present.” If it is determined that the accused has substance abuse or mental health issues, they could be recommended for ancillary treatment.
Van Zandt argued that the qualitative analysis of the sway test is not congruent with the standards of a breathalyzer or blood alcohol concentration (BAC) screening.
According to the California Highway Patrol, officers must receive training to adequately perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, noting, “Students in this class learn how to recognize and document the presence or lack of clues from each test that indicate impairment in suspected DUI subjects.”
The witness statement from the arresting officer indicated that the police academy does not have a strict standard stating that any amount of swaying means a person is under the influence. The statement also noted that exam results can depend on the physical health of the driver performing the sway test.
Van Zandt stated the accused did not use his arms for balance, did not hop, and did not place his foot down during the examination. He added that the accused answered officers’ questions and followed instructions before and after the SFSTs and was cooperative for over an hour.
According to Deputy District Attorney Aloysius Patchen and the testifying officer, the accused failed the SFST during the one-leg stand, showing unsteadiness for 16 out of 29 seconds, along with the faint odor of alcohol and results from an alcohol test. The officer concluded the accused was under the influence based on those observations.
DDA Patchen also argued that the accused has a history of domestic violence and DUI charges that make him a danger to the public and maintained that he is a high-risk repeat offender. The accused has a history of domestic violence and DUI charges that could be attributed to alcohol use.
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism states that drinking over time can change the mental and behavioral aspects of a person’s brain, noting, “These changes can motivate further drinking and cause an individual to become stuck in an unhealthy cycle of alcohol consumption.”
Van Zandt argued that alcoholism has impacted the accused’s behavior and that it is not a matter of choice. He said the accused has made efforts to overcome addiction by participating in Comunicare treatment programs. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism also states, “Alcohol consumption is linked to many health and social consequences, including interference with personal relationships, heart and liver diseases, cancers, motor vehicle collisions and other accidents, alcohol overdose, violence, homicide, and suicide.”
DDA Patchen opposed release, arguing that the accused’s prior DUI convictions suggest familiarity with sobriety testing and could indicate attempts to evade detection. The accused also received a blood alcohol concentration test approximately one hour after the SFST, which measured 0.08%, according to the testifying officer.
Van Zandt countered that it is prejudicial to assume the accused had practiced cheating DUI testing to evade charges. He also argued that the BAC result was barely at the legal limit and noted that the accused was compliant with the arresting officer and was upfront about driving with a suspended license.
Van Zandt further argued that denying release on one’s own recognizance after the accused had secured a home address and completed Comunicare treatment undermines efforts to address past behavior linked to substance use.
Judge Mock ultimately sided with the prosecution, maintaining the accused’s felony status and declining to set an affordable bail amount. The accused will remain in custody until his arraignment date of April 16.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
