5 Common DUI Myths That Could Cost You Your License in California

5 Common DUI Myths That Could Cost You Your License in California – Insights from a Former Prosecutor

August 7, 2026

As Christopher Lucero, founder of Lucero, PC and a criminal defense attorney with extensive experience in California courts, I’ve seen firsthand how misconceptions about DUI laws can lead to devastating outcomes. Having served as a former Deputy District Attorney before transitioning to defense work, I understand both sides of these cases intimately. My passion lies in providing aggressive, knowledgeable representation to protect clients’ rights and futures in San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Inland Empire courts.

Here are five of the most common DUI myths I encounter—and the realities that could make all the difference if you or a loved one is facing charges.

Myth 1: “I only had a couple of drinks—I’m fine to drive.” Many people believe that a few beers or glasses of wine won’t put them over the legal limit of 0.08% BAC. The truth is that alcohol affects everyone differently based on weight, food intake, metabolism, and other factors. What feels like “just a couple” can easily result in a DUI arrest. California’s “per se” law means a chemical test showing 0.08% or higher is enough for charges, regardless of how sober you feel.

Myth 2: Field sobriety tests are infallible science. Officers often present standardized field sobriety tests (walk-and-turn, one-leg stand, horizontal gaze nystagmus) as foolproof. In reality, these tests are highly subjective and influenced by factors like medical conditions, fatigue, anxiety, uneven surfaces, or even footwear. As a trial attorney who has cross-examined officers in numerous DUI cases, I know how to expose the limitations and unreliability of these tests in court.

Myth 3: Refusing a chemical test has no consequences. Some drivers think they can simply refuse a breath or blood test to avoid providing evidence. California’s implied consent law means refusal can lead to an automatic DMV license suspension (often longer than a DUI conviction itself) and can be used against you in court. However, there are strategic defenses available in refusal cases, which is why immediate legal guidance is critical.

Myth 4: “It’s just a first offense—it won’t be a big deal.” Even a first-time DUI in California can result in significant fines, jail time (up to six months), license suspension, mandatory DUI school, and ignition interlock device requirements. The collateral consequences—job loss, higher insurance rates, and professional license issues—can last for years. I’ve helped many clients achieve reductions to wet reckless charges or even dismissals by challenging every aspect of the evidence.

Myth 5: All DUI attorneys are the same. Not every lawyer has the trial experience or prosecutorial background needed to navigate complex DUI cases effectively. My background prosecuting cases before switching to the defense side gives me unique insight into how the state builds its cases—and where those cases can be dismantled.

If you’ve been arrested for DUI, time is of the essence. The California DMV gives you only 10 days to request a hearing to protect your driving privileges. Don’t rely on myths or hope things will work out—get experienced representation early.

At Lucero, PC, we approach every case with thorough investigation, aggressive defense strategies, and genuine compassion for the stress our clients face. Whether your case involves alcohol, drugs, or a combination, we fight to protect your license, your record, and your future.

< Older Post

Two men face off across a table in a sparse interrogation room.

When Discretion Meets Diligent Defense: Lessons from the Garver Sentencing

July 30, 2026

In felony cases, the difference between a life sentence and a fixed term can turn on preparation, timing, and the willingness of both sides to engage in negotiation.

Mandatory Ignition Interlock Device after DUI Convictions

By Lucero, P.C. • June 11, 2025

The California State Assembly recently passed Assembly Bill 366 which would mandate the installation of Ignition Interlock Devices for all persons convicted of driving under the influence, including first-time offenders. An Ignition Interlock Device prevents a car from starting unless and until the driver blows into the device with no detectable amount of alcohol on his or her breath. The devices' manufacturers would be required to adopt a specified fee schedule for the costs of the device, relative to and commensurate with, the convicted driver's income. Interestingly, the Ignition Interlock Device provider is responsible for absorbing the remaining costs not paid by the convicted driver. The mandatory installation of an Ignition Interlock Device and its concomitant costs to even first-time DUI convictions is a hefty penalty that drivers should be aware of. If passed in the Senate, which should be expected, the law could go into effect as early as January of 2026. Contact our office at 213-668-7569 to discuss how to handle your DUI matter.

"The Safer Communities Through Opportunity Act"

By Lucero, P.C. • June 11, 2025

The California State Assembly recently voted on and passed AB-1231, "The Safer Communities Through Opportunity Act". The bill must still pass through the Senate, but, if signed into law, would offer defendants charged with felonies the opportunity to enter into a term of diversion. Upon successful completion of the term of diversion, the defendant's case would be dismissed and the arrest for the alleged felony offense would be deemed to have never occurred. The maximum length of felony diversion is twenty-four months from the date of admission. The Court would impose certain requirement upon the defendant, which would be expected to be satisfied. If not satisfied, the Court may reinitiate criminal proceedings. Certain enumerated offenses are excluded from eligibility into diversion, including, but not limited to, offenses that would require the defendant to register per section 290 of the Penal Code, felony DUI, and felony domestic violence. As it stands, only felonies that are punishable by up to three years' imprisonment are eligible for diversion. The law could go into effect as early as January, 2026. If you are facing a felony charge and interested in diversion for your felony matter, contact our office to discuss.

Judicial Diversion for Misdemeanors

By Lucero, P.C. • April 24, 2025

In California, defendants charged with misdemeanors may file a motion for what is colloquially referred to as "judicial diversion". Beginning in 2021, judicial diversion permitted bench officers to divert misdemeanor cases. In so doing, the judge will require the defendant to complete several tasks over a specified period of time. Upon completion of the terms, the judge is required to dismiss the case; the dismissal will happen even if the District Attorney or other prosecuting agency disagrees or objects. Judicial diversion provides great benefits to defendants as they do not have to plead guilty or no contest to any crime. Certain misdemeanors are precluded from judicial diversion, including: 1. domestic violence charges; 2. any charge requiring the defendant to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290; and 3. driving under the influence. Judges are not required to grant a defendant's motion for judicial diversion. In the event such a motion is granted, however, the maximum term length is two years from the date of admission. If you are facing misdemeanor charges, contact our office today to discuss a possible grant of judicial diversion.

Requests for Admissions in California

By Lucero, P.C. • April 17, 2025

In civil matters, Requests for Admissions are a form of written discovery that require the responding party to admit or deny certain facts that are pertinent to the lawsuit. The party propounding the Requests for Admissions may serve them by way of e-mail (assuming the parties agree to this form of service) or U.S. Mail. If the responding party has an attorney, the subject discovery must be served on the party's attorney. Within thirty (30) days of service of the Requests for Admissions, the responding party must serve written responses under oath. If the responding party fails to respond within the thirty-day timeline, the Court may deem the matters contained in the Requests for Admissions admitted. This has severe impacts on the party as it may preclude the party from offering certain defenses or evidence favorable to them, or cause them to lose the lawsuit, altogether. As the issues involved and information sought in Requests for Admissions are particularly sensitive, you must have an attorney assist with this form of discovery.

Early Termination of Probation

By Lucero, P.C. • April 2, 2025

After being placed on probation, a defendant may file a motion with the court to have his or her probation terminated pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.3. The reviewing magistrate is permitted to grant the motion "when the ends of justice will be subserved thereby, and when the good conduct and reform" of the probationer warrants it. If the motion to terminate probation early is granted, the probationer is discharged from probation, ending his or her probation sentence early. When negotiating a matter with the prosecutor, it is important that the defense attorney keep this is mind. Many times, when fashioning a plea agreement, the parties can agree that the prosecutor will not oppose a defendant's motion for early termination of probation; the non-opposition is usually conditioned upon completion of all of the terms of probation and payment of fines. The early termination of probation may then warrant the matter's expungement and dismissal per Penal Code section 1203.4. With so much riding on the outcome, it is necessary that early termination of probation be considered when litigating a criminal case. Contact our office to discuss terminating your probation early.

Domestic Violence: No Contact or No Negative Contact.

By Lucero, P.C. • March 26, 2025

When charged with domestic violence, a judge will typically address the issue of whether a criminal protective order should be issued at the time of arraignment. A criminal protective order may be issued in two forms: 1. No contact; or 2. No negative contact. A "No contact" criminal protective order prohibits the defendant from contacting the person identified in the order, whatsoever. A "No negative contact" criminal protective order will permit the defendant to have contact with the person identified in the order, but prohibits negative contact such as harassing, annoying, stalking, threatening, and striking that person. Because there is usually a pre-existing relationship as between the parties identified in the criminal protective order (for example, husband and wife), the issuance of a "No contact" criminal protective order will have drastic consequences, including, but not limited to, forcing the defendant to move out of the home. After the issue is litigated by the parties' attorneys, the judge uses his or her discretion as to what type of criminal protective order to issue. With the stakes being so high, it is necessary to have a trained attorney at arraignment to guide a defendant through these issues. Contact our office at 213-668-7569 to strategize for arraignment and issuance of a criminal protective order.

Can Police Search my Phone After it is Taken

By Lucero, P.C. • February 19, 2025

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects people against unreasonable search and seizure. A search or seizure is presumed unreasonable unless it is done pursuant to a warrant authorized by a magistrate. However, in California, law enforcement officers may seize a person's cellphone if they have probable cause to believe that it contains evidence of crime. At that point, because they are merely seizing, as opposed to searching, such seizure will oftentimes be deemed Constitutional. However, should the police wish to search the phone, ie., open it up and peruse its contents, such search will require a search warrant. Courts have indicated that because the seizure is less intrusive than a search, the seizure of the cellphone is acceptable assuming the officer does indeed have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of crime. Thus, even if the officer waits for a period of time to obtain a search warrant, the seizure will not later affect the officer's ability to search. The longer the officer waits to obtain the warrant to search, the greater the likelihood the seizure and subsequent search are tainted. If your cellphone has been seized by the police, contact our office today to discuss your plan of attack.

Is a Private Lawyer Necessary in a DUI Case

By Lucero, P.C. • February 4, 2025

Oftentimes we are asked whether a privately-retained lawyer is necessary in a DUI case. Predictably, our answer is "It depends." For one, budgetary restrictions may make it difficult for a person accused of DUI to retain a private lawyer. With respect to the criminal case that arises out of a DUI arrest, the defendant is entitled to the appointment of a lawyer on their behalf if they cannot afford one. The appointed lawyer will represent the defendant throughout the case from arraignment through trial. The problem for many people in that scenario, however, is that a DUI case is broken down into two portions: the administrative portion and the criminal portion. The Court-appointed attorney will not assist the DUI recipient with the administrative portion of the case and will be limited to the criminal case. For many, having a lawyer represent the accused for the administrative hearing with the DMV is the greatest advantage to retaining private counsel. Because these matters are complex, you need someone who speaks the language necessary to defend you. Losing the APS hearing with the DMV comes with serious consequences including suspension of the person's drivers license. If you are unsure whether you need a private attorney for your DUI case, contact our office at 213-668-7569 to discuss whether our office is right for your situation.

Bail Bonds

By Lucero, P.C • January 29, 2025

When a person is arrested, the arresting officer must identify the law violation justifying the arrest. Once the officer has identified the law violation, bail is usually set according to the county's Bail Schedule. The Bail Schedule lists the provisions of the Penal Code and identifies a set bail for the offense. By cross-referencing the bail schedule, one can estimate what the arrestee's bail will be. If the arrestee cannot make bail according to the bail schedule, in California, bail is subject to judicial review at or near the time in which the arrestee is arraigned for the offenses. Thus, even if the bail schedule provides some guidance, the judge reviewing bail is not beholden to that amount; he or she can set whatever bail they feel appropriate. When faced with a bail decision, the judge will consider several factors, such as: -the defendant's prior criminal history; -the seriousness of the charges alleged; and -whether the defendant has any prior failures to appear for prior court cases. Arguments must be made by a skilled a skilled defense attorney highlighting the good facts for the defendant notwithstanding the criminal charges. If you or someone you know is in custody, contact our office at 213-668-7569 to schedule a bail hearing.