 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Perkins10/19/1981
invoke the statutory presumption. There is no showing, nor could there reasonably be, that a driver cannot tell when his or her sobriety has been affected to such an extent as to significantly impair driving ability. In addition, we point out that this code section has been determined not to be unconstitutional on the theory that there was no rational connection between the fact proved and the fact presumed or because the presumption procedure failed to fix an ultimate time as to a period in which the prescribed test must be taken or because the presumption violated or infringed upon a defendant's presumption of innocence or right to remain silent. (People v. Sohrieber (1975) 45 Cal. App. 3d 917 [119 Cal. Rptr. 812].) Further, the presumption statute satisfies the constitutional requirements of due process because there is a long-recognized and scientific relationship between a drunk driving suspect's blood alcohol levels and the degree of intoxication of a suspect. People v. Lachman (1972) 23 Cal. App. 3d 1094 [100 Cal. Rptr. 710].
The judgment is affirmed.
Foster, J., and Jones, J., concurred.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|