Can You Be Fired For a DUI Charge in California?

California is an “at-will” employment state. Lacking an agreement to the contrary, employers can terminate employees for any reason at any time. Unless the termination is retaliatory or discriminatory, you have no legal defense. Therefore, if your employer finds out that you have received a DWI, you can be fired as a result.

How Do Employers View DUIs?

Many employers equate DWIs with poor judgment and irresponsibility. A DUI charge can be a red flag for a high-risk employee who can potentially harm the company.

What Are the Implications of a DWI for an Employer?

A physician, nurse, teacher, police officer or anyone entrusted with public responsibility is more likely to be fired for a DUI because the employer may be liable for the employee’s errors in judgment.

An employee who drives a company vehicle may be fired for a DWI. If you lose your license because of a DUI, you will be unable to maintain your position. When you get your license back, your employer may be unable to insure you because of the DWI. If you get into an accident in a company vehicle and injure others, your employer could be sued as a result.

If the employee has been a positive addition to the company in the past and has no prior DWIs, the employer may offer an opportunity to get treatment or suspend the employee instead of firing them.

Must I Tell My Employer About a DWI?

In most cases, your employer will have no way of knowing that you received a DUI charge. There is no reason to share this information unless you are required to do so by company policy. Before taking action, it’s a good idea to consult a DUI attorney to protect your rights. Sometimes the consequences for not reporting a DWI are worse than reporting it.

If you have received a California DWI and are worried about losing your job, contact an experienced DUI attorney.A qualified DWI defense lawyer can advise you of your rights and counsel you on how to proceed.

Continue Reading...

Another Shot Fired Over the Constitutionality of Minnesota's DWI Test Refusal Law

Home > Fourth Amendment > Another Shot Fired Over the Constitutionality of Minnesota's DWI Test Refusal LawPosted on May 19, 2014 by Dan Koewler

Minnesota is one of very few states that make it a crime to refuse to submit to a DWI test - the vast majority of states simply impose a longer license revocation against drivers who refuse. Minnesota's rare and troubling practice - making refusal to submit to a warrantless search an independent crime - appears to be unconstitutional. That appearance is causing a major conflict between defense attorneys and prosecutors, between prosecutors and cops . . . and also between Minnesota judges and other Minnesota judges.

Is it constitutional to put someone in jail for refusing to submit to a warrantless search and seizure? This is the question that has plagued Minnesota courts for over a decade, and it is a question that is quickly coming to a head. The Minnesota Supreme Court is in a position to answer that question once and for all later this year.

But in the meantime, Minnesota's DWI law is in a state of pure turmoil. In the past year, many district court judges around the state have concluded that the crime of test refusal is unconstitutional. After judges started declaring the law unconstitutional, the Minnesota Court of Appeals stepped in and in the case of State v. Bernard, crafted a brand-new doctrine that appeared to make the crime of test refusal legal. This Bernard decision was famously ignored by at least one judge who was completely unpersuaded by the newly crafted "inevitable warrant" doctrine.

Today, the Court of Appeals issued another decision finding the test refusal law constitutional, in the unpublished case of State v. Mawolo. And while it was completely expected for the Court of Appeals to follow the logic of the recently issued Bernard case, what was completely unexpected was to see another judge step up and proclaim, in effect, "we are getting this wrong, and we need to fix it before it's too late."

That is a paraphrase from the dissent in the Mawolo case, where one member of the three judge panel made it clear that "the analysis in Bernard" was "flawed" because it "creates an exception that renders the Fourth Amendment meaningless . . ." I highly suggest reading the whole dissent - it is both scholarly and very much to-the-point.

This likely will not be the last judge to openly defy the holding in the Bernard decision, and with every new voice in opposition, the constitutional crises in Minnesota deepens.

Continue Reading...

The Cop Who Can’t Be Fired

I’ve often written in the past about the "Blue Code" — that is, the double standard we apply to police officers and their apparent immunity from suffering any consequences for their actions.  See, for example, Guarding the Guardians, The Blue Code, The Blue Cover-Up and Crossing the Thin Blue Line.

Have you ever noticed how hard it is today to get rid of a bad cop?

The South Florida Cop Who Won’t Stay Fired

Miami, FL.  June 30 – Opa-locka has the dubious distinction of employing the cop who can’t be fired. Though the city keeps on trying.

Sgt. German Bosque of the Opa-locka Police Department has been disciplined, suspended, fined and sent home with pay more than any officer in the state.

He has been accused of cracking the head of a handcuffed suspect, beating juveniles, hiding drugs in his police car, stealing from suspects, defying direct orders and lying and falsifying police reports. He once called in sick to take a vacation to Cancún and has engaged in a rash of unauthorized police chases, including one in which four people were killed.

Arrested and jailed three times, Bosque, 48, has been fired at least six times. Now under suspension pending yet another investigation into misconduct, Bosque stays home and collects his $60,000-a-year paycheck for doing nothing.

Before he was ever hired in Opa-locka 19 years ago, Bosque, whose nickname is GB, was tossed out of the police academy twice and fired from two police departments. Each time he has faced trouble he has been reinstated with back pay. He boldly brags about his ability to work a law enforcement system that allows bad cops to keep their certification even in the face of criminal charges….

By no means is Bosque the only police officer in South Florida to straddle both sides of the law, but his disciplinary record and his city’s inability to get rid of him are a study in how legal loopholes allow troubled cops to stay on the street…

I can just imagine cops like this out there filling their DUI quotas….

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 1st, 2012 at 11:00 pm and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...