Part 4: CHP bills for “Accident Investigation”

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION CHARGES:   No Conviction Required

 

We got the first demand letter from the CHP in October, 4 months after the accident and 2 months after the DMV returned my husband’s drivers license.
The Demand letter is for Accident Recovery Costs, pursuant to Government Codes 53150 and 53158. The bill is to pay the salary of the CHP for his time spent working a DUI case. 7 hours and 40 minutes were billed at the officer’s 2007 salary (with benefits) of 73.00 per hour.
It was broken down just like a normal bill:

• Incident Investigation (response time, on scene investigation, follow-up investigation report, writing):

6 Hours, 20 Minutes

• Vehicle Storage:

0 Hours, 00 Minutes

• In Custody (field sobriety test, transportation, booking, chemical tests):

 1 Hours, 20 Minute

• Traffic Control

0 Hours, 00 Minutes

• Other

0 Hours, 00 Minutes

Total: 7 Hours, 40 Minutes @ $73.00/hr = $559.67

My husband had never been arraigned or heard anything from the courts, regarding the arrest. We had no idea exactly what this meant. We naiively thought that maybe they had decided not to persue it.
The 2nd Demand letter came in November;   I wrote a letter disputing the charges, saying my husband had not been convicted of a DUI and, in fact, the DMV had returned the license the CHP had confiscated at the scene.
In the mean time my husband was arraigned in Santa Cruz Superior Court for the DUI.
I’m going to try to wrap up the court stuff quickly, because it’s not central to my fight with the CHP.
Most people probably just plead guilty, when they get a DUI.  It is hard to win if you don’t have a lawyer, and even if you do, I suspect.  Lawyers often attack the BAC evidence, sometimes bringing in experts.  It is expensive to defend against a DUI and expensive to be convicted of one.  I don’t think that many people get out of a DUI, once they’ve been arrested for it.

I want to make one thing clear here: I do not want to be on the road with drunks any more than you do. They are dangerous and scary. Strict penalties for DUI have made our roads much much safer than they used to be.  The consequences of drunk driving are so steep, that they have acted as a deterrent .  I am all for that.
I am also for something called Due Process. The CHP and the DMV are able to collect Accident Investigation Charges, and Reinstatement Fees from people who have not been convicted of Drunk Driving. Remember the Constitution? The part where it says “you are innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law”.  Is there anyone out there who thinks this should apply to most crimes, but not to DUI? REALLY?   Our constitution is here to protect us. Every exception to it hurts us, collectively.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

At his arraignment, in late December of 2007 my husband pleaded not guilty.  Before things wrapped at the end of April, 2008. there had been 3 or 4 pretrial conferences.

At the arraignment, because my husband pleaded not guilty, the Judge asked him if he was being represented by council. He told the court he would be representing himself. The Judge then called him back into chambers, where the DA was present, to discuss it.

In chambers the Judge asked if he was below the income threshold required to have the court appoint him an attorney. He replied that he made too much money to qualify, but not so much that he could afford an attorney.

My husband, clearly not understanding the rules of court,  kept trying to tell the Judge and the Prosecuting Attorney that he was innocent. He was trying to make it clear to the Judge, that the  witnesses would testify that the CHP Officer had lied on the report.

The Judge kept waving him off, saying he didn’t want to hear about that right now. My husband was indignant that the Judge didn’t want to know why he was innocent. I assume this went on for a few minutes with my husband and the Judge getting more and more frustrated with each other.

(In case you, like my husband, do not know the rules of court: The arraignment is to get the business stuff out of the way.  The Judge never hears a defense against the charges, unless the case actually gets to trial. You also would not want to be telling the DA your defense strategy at this point, and a Judge is probably expected to protect an ignorant defendant from himself, by keeping him from making a huge mistake.

Finally the Judge, fed up with my husband said, “YOU CANNOT REPRESENT YOURSELF IN MY COURT”. To this, my husband replies “ISN”T THAT MY RIGHT?” The Judge threw up his hands and said to the court administrator, “I’ve had enough of this… Give him an attorney.”

RESOLUTION OF THE LEGAL CASE

In the end, after 4 pretrial conferences, his court appointed attorney suggested he plea to a (dry) reckless driving ( A dry reckless means no alcohol or drugs were involved.) and Pay a fine of 300.00. She would represent him to have it expunged in a years time.

She had told my husband early on she could win if it went to trial. She had interviewed all the witnesses and had excellent statements from them. As time went on and meeting after meeting with the DA took place my husband says she got really busy and she seemed to just want to get it over with. He agreed to take a plea to the reckless driving (dry), at the urging of his attorney, even though he was not driving at the time of the accident. He regrets it to this day.

When they went back to court a year later the DA argued against an expungement, but the Judge, ruled in my husband’s favor saying he would allow it. The attorney then needed to file the paper with the court. I don’t know if that was done or not, but it never came off his record, something we found out just recently.

My husband regrets taking a plea, as do innocent people all over the country. There is a lot of pressure, for guilty and the innocent to take a plea.  It isn’t really a great system; but it greatly reduces the cost of prosecution and it brings in all kinds of money, in fines.

INTERCEPTION

In the meantime, my letter to the CHP disputing the Accident Investigation Charges got a response in February, 2008. In summary it said:

The Santa Cruz Area office of the CHP has concluded that your invoice is appropriate.
Below is a brief explanation as to why you are liable and responsible to reimburse the State of California for these Charges under Government Code Sections 53150 and 53158.
Government Code Sections 53150 through 53158 authorizes the California Highway Patrol, under the DUI Cost Recovery Program to seek reimbursement for the full costs incurred in responding to alcohol or drug related traffic incidents. The Legislature has set aside driving under the influence as a behavior which taxpayers should not have to subsidize. These charges are not based on a conviction of driving under the influence. Reimbursement is based on Government code Section 53150 which says in part:

Any person who is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug… whose negligent operation of a motor vehicle caused by that influence proximately causes any incident resulting in an appropriate emergency response,…. is liable for the expense of an emergency response by a public agency to the incident.

We received a 2nd demand letter for $559.67 in February and a FINAL NOTICE at the beginning of March. The letter said if they had not received payment within 30 days they would be turning the invoice over to a collection agency and The Franchise Tax Board for offset.
In May they intercepted our tax return, taking the entire amount of 361.95, which was not enough to cover the full amount of the bill. It was, however enough to infuriate me that they could do this without a court order or a conviction for an alcohol related offense.  I wasn’t even there, but the tax return was half mine.

I decided to sue the CHP in small claims court to get our money back.

Silly me, I thought I had a right to do that.
I was about to learn that exercising your constitutional right, might not be a good idea. In fact, it could be a very bad idea.

If I thought it was unfair to intercept a tax return without a court order, I was about to learn that the big boys don’t have to play fair.  The laws that govern the rest of us, don’t apply. And as for the CHP….. you can check that box N/A.
Stay tuned… You now have all the background information. Everything to come, is the reason I tell the story in the first place.

NOTE TO READERS

I’ve had no feedback, for the last 4 posts. The link to my site, when I copy it online, looks like gibberish, instead of what it should be.    https://justifiablydisturbed.wordpress.com/

Email was changed to go to a mailbox I don’t own. Due to my subject matter, I am understandably a bit uneasy.  So feedback, please.

Thank you,
SceneNSantaCruz