Sometimes I will get calls from people convicted of a DUI-1^st offense wanting to know why the DMV took their license for one year instead of the 90 days that the court, or their attorney told them would occur when their DUI-2^nd offense was reduced to a DUI-1^st offense.  Under Nevada law, a DUI-1^st conviction carries a 90-day loss of driving privilege where a DUI-2^nd conviction carries a one year loss of license.  So, some clients charged with a DUI-2^nd who had their case reduced to a DUI-1^st don’t understand why their attorney or the court did not explain they would still receive a one year loss of driving privilege.

In the 2009 case of DMV v. Terracin, the State charged Terracin with a DUI offense, and convicted of DUI-1st.  Yet, DMV took Terracin’s license for one year, not 90 days. The Supreme Court agreed with Terracin that DMV acted improperly and reduced the suspension to 90 days.

Unfortunately, the Nevada Legislature changed our DUI laws so that DMV now only considers the amount of DUI convictions within 7 years, not whether you were convicted of a DUI-1^st or subsequent conviction.  Alas, another example of how the deck is stacked against an alleged DUI offender.

So, if you are charged with a DUI-2^nd, you need to know that the reduction to a DUI-1^st may be good, just not great.

My client, Ruth (not her real name), enjoyed her day at a federal recreation area.  She and her husband planned on her husband driving home that night.  So, Ruth had a few drinks.  But, around dinner time, her husband became very ill.  They had no cell phone service at this recreation area.  Worried and desperate, Ruth packed her husband in the back seat and drove towards the nearest city.  Driving somewhat erratically, a Park Ranger pulled over Ruth’s car.  The Ranger called for an ambulance to transport Ruth’s husband.

Continue reading →