Just as in any other field, there are good and bad attorneys. The ones I have in mind are worth their fees which are considerably higher than $2,500. You get what you pay for. When they go to trial they win because they know the Breathalyzer and the other instruments used to measure the blood alcohol levels better than the prosecution's expert witnesses. Their mere appearance in court will cause the offer on a case such as this to be substantially reduced, perhaps to as low as two tickets (which combined are only one point on the driving record).

Well, that's incorrect. A "wet" reckless is the same as a DUI for priorability purposes, but it does not carry the minimum mandatory jail sentence and a few other sanctions that a DUI conviction entails.

That isn't entirely correct-- in some states, 0.05% is caries a rebuttable presumption of intoxication. 0.08% is the per se limit, not the presumption level which varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

No, the prosecution doesn't have to prove intoxication because the legislature set a per se legal limit at 0.08%. What studies show is not relevant.

DUI (even a bona fide DUI) is not a CIMT. For immigration purposes, a minor drug charge is much more of an problem than a simple DUI.

Did you want to cite a law that supports your assertion? And why would nationality matter anyway?

To "drink and drive" is not illegal in the first place. Driving under the influence is illegal. If I have one drink and then drive home, I am not putting everyone else on the road in mortal danger, nor am I committing a crime.

***

The OP should consult a competent criminal attorney and a competent immigration attorney, but the tone of this thread-- that a DUI or similar is a death knell for immigration purposes-- has no basis in law or fact. It is serious, but not as serious as everyone here seems to think it is. An attorney (a real one, not a blogger) can set the record straight.

Probably depends on the state. I've known two people convicted of DUI (they didn't plea bargain) and they served no jail time.

By "law enforcement" I only meant police officers, CBP, and so on. I didn't mean the court system (which would impose jail sentences -- law enforcement doesn't do this). My point was that when a LEO/CBP/etc looks at your record and sees "wet reckless," they think "DUI."

Your advice on the quality of attorney is very true and very good advice (albeit expensive). It's the $2500 Drive-Thru Plea Bargainers that I was saying should be avoided.


+1

Everyone seems to be applying lessons from GE denials to immigration as a whole. That said, I believe Canada does treat DUI conviction as a death knell to immigration. (I think... I may be confusing it with Canada's stance on felonies.)

No jail time is standard for first-time DUIs except in a very few select states where there is a minimum of 24-48 hours.

That is my impression. People are confusing Canada's stance on DUIs and Global Entry criteria with US immigration law. It is quite possible that a simple DUI or a wet reckless has no immigration implications in the USA; I don't know. But I can gaurantee it isn't nearly as serious as poeple here make it out to be.

The OP's case is pending in California. I cited California law.
California requires all convicted DUI offenders to serve time in jail. For first offenders the mandatory minimum is 48 hours. The minimum increases to 96 hours for a second offense within 10 years and 120 days for a third offense. A fourth offense can be prosecuted as a felony.

First of all, I was responding to another poster who said that he knows two people who were convicted of DUI who served no jail time; I was saying that it is the exception that a first-time DUI offender serves jail time . . . except in a few states. It was a general statement and had no relationship to where the OP is alleged to have committed his DUI.

Second of all, you are incorrect in your understanding of the law. Section 23538 which deals with probation:

(emphasis added)

In other words, a judge can find a defendant guilty in which case the 48/96 hour minimum applies, but if a judge "grants probation to person punished under Section 23536," the judge can choose to impose jail time . . . or not. So jail time is not required if a person is granted probation. (The law is written in such a way that someone not familiar with California criminal law-- namely what a judge granting probation means under the law and how it differs from a standard guilty disposition-- could easily reach the same mistaken conclusion you reached). Bottom line: A grant of probation is the norm for first-time DUIs in California, and no jail time is the norm for that probation. If there are aggarvating factors, all bets are off, but in the case of your garden-variety DUI, probation with no jail time is the most likely outcome.

Wrong.

I practice in California courts and I am familiar with the sentencing practices here. Jail time is the norm for first time offenders who are placed on probation.

Yes, but the problem is "impairment" is purely in the eyes of the beholder and left completely to the interpretation of the officer. I had a friend who was arrested, charged, and convicted for blowing a 0.04. There was no dashboard cam, blood test was well below legal limit. Purely officers word against his. Reckless driving charges also fall in to this area. Unless you're are in an accident or there is video evidence, it is the officers word and their word only. There is almost no way to defend yourself in a court of law. I'm not trying to get off topic, but this reeks of the same nonsense that the TSA practices. Yet in these cases it can end up with you in jail, or in this case, deported.

For first time wet reckless driving and other DUI/DWI situations not involving harm to other persons/property? Given California's budget problems and over-filled jails/prisons, can they really manage to make it the state norm?

The fines for DUI would easily cover that. But there are a lot of jail alternatives anyway.

48 hours in jail as a condition of probation is the norm for a first time DUI, regardless whether there are injuries to other parties or property damage. A conviction of Vehicle Code Section 23153, DUI causing injury to another person, carries a mandatory minimum jail time of five days as a condition of probation or 90 days without probation.

Except for unusual circumstances or when bodily injury to other is involved, it is not the courts' practice to impose jail time as a condition of probation for a first time conviction of alcohol related reckless driving, the so called "wet reckless."

I agree with those who said to get an immigration lawyer involved. In many cases the interpretation and consequences under immigration law for the same offense to a non-Citizen (in terms of immigration status etc) is more severe than to a Citizen who may not face any consequences or minimal consequences such as a fine for the same offence.

Has that been bargained, or automatic from the DA?

It is the law, not the reality - which basically all first-time DUI offenders should be able to skip prison. If you have a question, see Lindsay Lohan's experience.