Litigation
Jul. 24, 2002
DUI Defendants Object to Paying
SAN FRANCISCO - Drunk drivers shouldn't foot the bill for their own arrests, claims a federal lawsuit that asks several small Bay Area cities to refund millions of dollars to drunken driving defendants.
Defendants in Cotati, Alameda, Dublin, Pleasanton, San Jose, Santa Clara County and Los Gatos have received improper bills for police services, according to the suit. Some cities have hit defendants with a bill and a criminal fine for the same service, said Matthew Witteman, the lawyer who filed the suit.
The problem isn't limited to the Bay Area, he said. Traffic lawyers have complained about such billing practices for years, and have written letters to cities contending the practice is illegal. Witteman has filed a federal lawsuit, seeking class status, on behalf of all defendants who receive such bills.
"They are billing for any sort of law enforcement costs associated with a DUI," said Witteman, a San Francisco lawyer who represents a group of DUI defendants turned civil plaintiffs. "It's a way of generating income, but we think it's a gross misinterpretation of statute."
The lawsuit was filed Friday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. It seeks a court order stopping such bills, the return of money to the class members and clearing their credit in some cases. Christopherson v. Cotati, 02-3481SBA.
At issue is California Government Code Section 53154, which allows public agencies to charge drunken drivers with the "expense of an emergency response." Some cities cite the code when sending drunken drivers a bill for the costs of investigation, transport to jail, report processing, blood tests and booking the defendants.
State courts have never tested the definition of "emergency" expenses under the statute, but Witteman argues they can't include the cost of basic police work, especially if there has been no accident.
San Jose City Attorney Rick Doyle disagrees. The Legislature specifically decided that cities could recover the cost of police work from drunken drivers, he said.
"Is it an emergency response when someone's drunk driving requires police response?" he said. "That's clearly what the Legislature intended. ... The fact that other cities agree with our interpretation is evidence that we read the statute correctly."
Lawyers for other municipal entities named as defendants either did not return phone calls Monday or declined to comment because they had not seen the lawsuit.
Cities can also recover money for booking fees and blood tests through criminal fines if a defendant is convicted. Witteman claims that's the proper procedure for recovering police costs. He said cities that send a bill have circumvented the courtroom altogether, violating defendants' constitutional right to due process and criminal process.
Witteman also argues that the cities have violated the defendants' equal protection rights, as DUI defendants are treated differently than other criminal defendants.
"Can you think of any other defendant that gets charged straight up?" he said. "Murderers? Crack dealers? Of course not. DUI defendants are the only ones."
Witteman also added that the suit is in no way an attempt to condone drunken driving.
"We're not defending their right to drink," he said. "Clearly not. This is about their basic entitlement to a correct interpretation of the law."
Tyler Cunningham
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com