This year California's legislature passed a zero tolerance law for DUI offenders on probation, decreased the Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) level that initiates the use of ignition interlock devices and mandated DUI programs to even those on probation for a lesser DUI offense known as a "wet reckless."

Effective 2009, Vehicle Code §23154 states that any driver who is on probation for a DUI conviction may not operate a motor vehicle with a BAC of 0.01 or higher. In addition, under the implied consent law, if there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver is violating this law, they can make the driver submit to a preliminary blood alcohol screening test. If the driver's BAC is 0.01 or higher, or the driver refuses the test, the police will issue a notice of an order to suspend the driver's license and then snatch the driver's valid license and issue a temporary license valid for 30 days.

As for Ignition Interlock Devices or IID, drivers with a BAC of 0.15 can be required to install an IID into their vehicles in order to receive restricted driving privileges. A second IID law transfers the administration of IID programs from the courts to the DMV and it grants the DMV the power to require any driver that has been convicted of a DUI to install an IID in any vehicle they own or drive.

Another change in 2009, requires those that are on probation for a lesser DUI charge known as a "wet reckless" to attend a mandatory DUI program. If the driver fails to enroll, participate or complete this program, the driver faces having their probation revoked.

Since DUI laws are constantly changing, it is best to contact an experienced DUI attorney if you come across any DUI issues.

On June 22, 2009, The California Supreme Court, reversed a decision by the Court of Appeal, stating that a person who knowingly aids and abets criminal conduct is guilty of the intended crime and any other crime the perpetrator actually commits that is a "natural and probable consequence of the intended crime." The aider and abettor is not required to have actually foreseen the perpetrator's crime but "whether judged objectively, it was reasonable foreseeable."

On June 15, 2009, The California Supreme Court, in a case entitled People v. Dykes, upheld a decision of the trial court with the jury convicting him of first degree murder, attempted murder, and robbery, sentencing him to death. Under Miranda, a suspect may not be interrogated unless he knowingly and intelligently waived the right to remain silent and to an attorney. After the waiver, interrogation may proceed unless the suspect clearly asks for an attorney. The prosecution must prove the defendant's waiver by a preponderance of the evidence. In the instant case, the trial court applied the stricter "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. The court gave credit to the officers' testimony that they had advised Dykes of his rights and that he did not ask for counsel.