effery B. was accused of a .27 BAC on a second time DUI resulting from a traffic accident and hit and run. He was also charged with a violation of probation for the 1st DUI. RESULT: The 2nd time DUI was dismissed based on the 6th Amendment and his probation on the 1st DUI was terminated. Eric V. was charged with a .33 BAC on a 3rd time DUI. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing on a Title 17 violation and saved his license from a minimum suspension of 6 months. Results like these are obtainable with a DUI lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Joe B. was charged with a .29 BAC on a 1st time DUI. We filed and heard a motion to suppress under penal code 1538.5. RESULT: The judge ruled in our favor and dismissed the case Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Hass E. was charged with a 2nd time DUI while he was still on probation for his first. The DA alleged that he had a .28 blood BAC, an accident at over 100 mph, and charged him with a VOP. Before trial the DA wanted Mr. E to do 120 of county jail, 90 days of a SCRAM braclet, and a $2000 fine. TRIAL: We started trial and after we excluded some evidence through the Motion in Limine process the DA re-evaluated their case. RESULT: DUI dismiss, Mr. E pled to a wet/reckless, NO jail time, NO scram, NO VOP, and a $800 fine. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. . Daniel S. was charge with a .20% BAC after he had a solo car crash. Based on my highly regarded skills as a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer I was able to get his case DISMISSED IN COURT AND I WON THE DMV HEARING. This was the result of skill and hard work and of course I found a 4th Amendment violation. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Christopher B. was charged with a 3rd time DUI. His 2 priors were in another state. We filed a "Motion to Strike the Priors" asserting that the out of state dui's did not meet the California equivalency test. RESULT: His out of state of priors were stricken from the record, so instead of facing a 3rd time DUI in California, he is now only facing a 1st time DUI. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Angelina T. was charged with a DUI with an alleged BAC of .17 after she had crashed into a police station. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved her license. The court issues was resolved for a no-jail time plea. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Samuel T. was charged with a DUI with an alleged .14 BAC after he was stopped for swerving while exiting the freeway. RESULT: We subpoenaed the dash cam video which helped up win the DMV hearing and we were able to get the entire court case dismissed based on an illegal stop. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Joe M. was charged with a .079 PAS and a .06 blood BAC after he had a solo accident on the freeway. This was a 2nd time DUI. RESULT: The DUI charges were dismissed after he pled guilty to 2 traffic violations. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Wesley C. was accused of a .19 BAC, having a loaded gun in the car and was pulled over for allegedly weaving. RESULT: We filed a 1538.5 motion to suppress. On the day of the hearing we got the DA to dismiss the DUI and gun charge in exchange to a plea of reckless driving under cvc 23103.5. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Melissa W. was charged with a .23 BAC on a 2nd time DUI. We filed a motion challenging the officer's reason for the stop after he alleged she "straddled" the lanes. RESULT: Case Dismissed. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Joel D. was charged with a .18 blood BAC after he had a car accident on the freeway at 2:00 in the morning. Joel had poor field sobriety test and allegedly a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved his license and his ability to get back and forth to work. We showed that the BAC result was ambiguous as to the date of testing and the date of reporting. Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. ~~Dennis H: was charged with a .10 BAC after he allegedly failed the field sobriety tests and had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. RESULT: ALL DUI charges dismissed. Dennis plead guilty to a moving traffic violation. We also overturned his loss at the DMV and got his license back. ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Jacob Q: was charged with a DUI after he had a solo car crash. The police arrived and after investigation they arrested Jacob. RESULT: At the DMV hearing I was able to show that the police officer could NOT establish that Jacob drove a vehicle within 3 hours of the blood test. Thus, I saved his license, the increased cost of auto insurance, and the 10 year mark on his driving record. ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Danielle M: was charged with a .18 blood BAC after she was stopped for weaving. After some considerable time and effort we were able to plead it down to a wet/reckless under 23103.5 ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Diana L: was charged with a .10 blood BAC. During the discovery process we found out that the phlebotomist had done 2 blood draws at once and may have mixed up the vials during the labeling process. What was also odd was that our client blew a .06 at the station after the blood draw on a PAS breath unit. RESULT: case reduced to a dry reckless and the dui charges were dismissed. We were also able to overturn the previous loss at the DMV and reinstate her full license. ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Michael T: was charged with a DUI MARIJUANA: RESULT: We filed a motion to suppress the blood result on a 4th Amendment violation of Michael's constitutional rights, we also did extensive discovery for the Gas Chromatograms on the blood test results. We finally got the DUI charges dismissed in exchange to a plea on a "dry reckless". ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Marcus A. was charged with a .15 blood BAC after he had a 3 car accident on the freeway and after he was alleged by the other drivers to have been the cause of the collision. RESULT: We won the DMV because they could not prove the allegations under vehicle code 23152(b) as having the blood test performed within 3 hours of the time of driving. This saved his license and his job. ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Elke C. was charged with a .25 BAC after she alleged drove her car off a small hill into a river bottom. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved her license after we showed that the officer could not prove her blood test was completed within 3 hours of driving. ~~Results like these are obtainable with a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer from the best DUI law firm who can get through the DUI Facts and Drunk Driving myths about your DUI Defense. Jeffery B. was accused of a .27 BAC on a second time DUI resulting from a traffic accident and hit and run. He was also charged with a violation of probation for the 1st DUI. RESULT: The 2nd time DUI was dismissed based on the 6th Amendment and his probation on the 1st DUI was terminated. This was accomplished by his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer who knew the DUI facts and drunk driving myths. 1. Eric V. was charged with a .33 BAC on a 3rd time DUI. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing on a Title 17 violation and saved his license from a minimum suspension of 6 months. Joe B. was charged with a .29 BAC on a 1st time DUI. We filed and heard a motion to suppress under penal code 1538.5. RESULT: The judge ruled in our favor and dismissed the case. This only could have happen as a result of the hard work from his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Hass E. was charged with a 2nd time DUI while he was still on probation for his first. The DA alleged that he had a .28 blood BAC, an accident at over 100 mph, and charged him with a VOP. Before trial the DA wanted Mr. E to do 120 of county jail, 90 days of a SCRAM braclet, and a $2000 fine. TRIAL: We started trial and after we excluded some evidence through the Motion in Limine process the DA re-evaluated their case. RESULT: DUI dismiss, Mr. E pled to a wet/reckless, NO jail time, NO scram, NO VOP, and a $800 fine. ~~This only could have happen as a result of the hard work from his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Daniel S. was charge with a .20% BAC after he had a solo car crash. Based on my highly regarded skills as a San Bernardino DUI Lawyer I was able to get his case DISMISSED IN COURT AND I WON THE DMV HEARING. This was the result of skill and hard work and of course I found a 4th Amendment violation. Christopher B. was charged with a 3rd time DUI. His 2 priors were in another state. As his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we filed a "Motion to Strike the Priors" asserting that the out of state dui's did not meet the California equivalency test. RESULT: His out of state of priors were stricken from the record, so instead of facing a 3rd time DUI in California, he is now only facing a 1st time DUI. This only could have happen as a result of the hard work from his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer Angelina T. was charged with a DUI with an alleged BAC of .17 after she had crashed into a police station. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved her license. The court issues was resolved for a no-jail time plea. This only could have happen as a result of the hard work from his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer Samuel T. was charged with a DUI with an alleged .14 BAC after he was stopped for swerving while exiting the freeway. RESULT: We subpoenaed the dash cam video which helped up win the DMV hearing and we were able to get the entire court case dismissed based on an illegal stop. Again the results of his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Joe M. was charged with a .079 PAS and a .06 blood BAC after he had a solo accident on the freeway. This was a 2nd time DUI. RESULT: The DUI charges were dismissed after he pled guilty to 2 traffic violations. Another win for the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Wesley C. was accused of a .19 BAC, having a loaded gun in the car and was pulled over for allegedly weaving. RESULT: His San Bernardino DUI Lawyers filed a 1538.5 motion to suppress. On the day of the hearing we got the DA to dismiss the DUI and gun charge in exchange to a plea of reckless driving under cvc 23103.5. One more win from the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Melissa W. was charged with a .23 BAC on a 2nd time DUI. As her San Bernardino DUI Lawyers we filed a motion challenging the officer's reason for the stop after he alleged she "straddled" the lanes. RESULT: Case Dismissed. Another happy client from the hard work of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer Joel D. was charged with a .18 blood BAC after he had a car accident on the freeway at 2:00 in the morning. Joel had poor field sobriety test and allegedly a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. RESULT: As his San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we won the DMV hearing and saved his license and his ability to get back and forth to work. We showed that the BAC result was ambiguous as to the date of testing and the date of reporting. San Bernardino DUI Lawyers saved his DMV drivers license. Dennis H: was charged with a .10 BAC after he allegedly failed the field sobriety tests and had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. RESULT: ALL DUI charges dismissed. Dennis plead guilty to a moving traffic violation. We also overturned his loss at the DMV and got his license back. Only the experience from the best dui law firm and the best San Bernardino DUI Lawyers in could have achieved a dismissal like this and to overturn the DMV loss. Jacob Q: was charged with a DUI after he had a solo car crash. The police arrived and after investigation they arrested Jacob. RESULT: At the DMV hearing I was able to show that the police officer could NOT establish that Jacob drove a vehicle within 3 hours of the blood test. Thus, I saved his license, the increased cost of auto insurance, and the 10 year mark on his driving record. More work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Danielle M: was charged with a .18 blood BAC after she was stopped for weaving. After some considerable time and effort San Bernardino DUI Lawyers were able to plead it down to a wet/reckless under 23103.5 Diana L: was charged with a .10 blood BAC. During the discovery process her San Bernardino DUI Lawyers found out that the phlebotomist had done 2 blood draws at once and may have mixed up the vials during the labeling process. What was also odd was that our client blew a .06 at the station after the blood draw on a PAS breath unit. RESULT: case reduced to a dry reckless and the dui charges were dismissed. San Bernardino DUI Lawyers were also able to overturn the previous loss at the DMV and reinstate her full license. Michael T: was charged with a DUI MARIJUANA: RESULT: We filed a motion to suppress the blood result on a 4th Amendment violation of Michael's constitutional rights, we also did extensive discovery for the Gas Chromatograms on the blood test results. We finally got the DUI charges dismissed in exchange to a plea on a "dry reckless". More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Marcus A. was charged with a .15 blood BAC after he had a 3 car accident on the freeway and after he was alleged by the other drivers to have been the cause of the collision. RESULT: We won the DMV because they could not prove the allegations under vehicle code 23152(b) as having the blood test performed within 3 hours of the time of driving. This saved his license and his job. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Elke C. was charged with a .25 BAC after she alleged drove her car off a small hill into a river bottom. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved her license after we showed that the officer could not prove her blood test was completed within 3 hours of driving. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Moises K. was charged with a .10 BAC after he allegedly REFUSED to give a breath sample. The DMV instituted actions to suspend his license for 1 year. RESULT: At the hearing we proved that he did not refuse and we saved him his license and his job. At the hearing we showed that the FST were not done correctly by the officer and put on our own proof as to our client's medical issues. COURT RESULT: All DUI charges were dismissed in exchange for a plea to a dry-reckless. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Mauricio C. was charged with a .12 BAC after a person called 911 to report that the thought he was DUI. We did a motion to suppress under penal code 1538.5 challenging the officer's reason for the stop under the case law of People v. Wells. RESULT: DUI charges dismissed, client plead to guilty to a 23103.5, and we are currently appealing the denial of the motion to suppress. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Eric H. was accused of refusing to take a blood test, several officers had to tie him down in order to draw blood, a .18 BAC. RESULT: We won the DMV Refusal hearing which saved him a year of suspension and got him no jail time on his court case. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Tricia J. was accused of a .13 BAC. At the DMV Hearing we challenged the validity of the probable cause. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved her license. David R. was accused of a .12 BAC. At the DMV Hearing we challenged the lawfulness of the arrest. RESULT: We won the DMV Hearing and saved his license. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Arnel B. Was charge with DUI after the police stopped him for allegedly speeding. We filed a motion to suppress under PC 1538.5 challenging the officer's alleged reason for the stop was not satisfied by the use of his LIDAR Gun. RESULT: Both DUI charges dismissed,client pled to a speeding infraction and no turn signal infraction. Both were no point counts with the DMV. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Amalik A. was charged with a 2nd time DUI while he was still on probation for the 1st offense. He had an auto accident, a BAC of .17, and a high level of Marijuana in his system. RESULT: All DUI counts dismissed, he pled to a reckless driving under cvc 23103. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Bart D. was charged with a DUI after having a BAC of .20. It was alleged that Bart had been swerving and almost hitting a police officer head on, running into the curb, and vomited all over himself. We filed a 6th Amendment motion challenging the violation of his rights to a speedy trial. RESULT: After hearing the motion in open court the case was Dismissed. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Marvin M. was charged with a Drug DUI, allegedly being under the influence of 4 types of pain medication after he was observed swerving across several lanes of travel. RESULT: DUI dismiss/reduced to 2 driving infractions. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Cyerra R. was charged with a DUI as a minor since she was only 18 years old. Her BAC was alledged to be a .14. RESULT: We won the DMV hearing and saved her license from 12 months of suspension. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Eric S. was charged with DUI after having a .10 BAC. It was alledged that he was speeding, doing 65mph in a 35 mph zone, that he made a wide right turn almost hitting a curb, almost lost control, and did not respond the the officer's loud speaker to pull over. RESULT: WE TOOK THIS TO TRIAL AND GOT 12 PEOPLE TO VOTE NOT GUILTY ON BOTH COUNTS. Richard P. was charged with a DUI after having a BAC of .13 and a PAS machine reading of .14. RESULT: Richard pled to a wet-reckless under cvc 23103.5, this was achieved after an extensive cross examination of the officer at the DMV hearing in which he admitted that Richard did not show any signs of mental or physical impairment. Richard elected to take this plea instead of proceeding to a jury trial. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Romney N. : was accused of a DUI with a blood alcohol of .22. We fought the case on the officer's inability to prove that he had been driving within 3 hours of his blood test. RESULT: We beat the DMV hearing and saved his license. Monica S. : was accused of a DUI with a blood alcohol of .20. The issue in her case was that she was not the driver. RESULT: After the conclusions of 3 DMV hearings in which we crossed examined the officer and we presented our own independent witness, we Won the DMV hearing and saved her license. Daniel R. was charged with a DUI with an alleged BAC of .10. The issue in his case was they could not prove his driving was within 3 hours of his blood test. RESULT: based on the facts the DUI was dismissed and he pled to a misdemeanor vandalism. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Ricardo F. was charged with a 2nd DUI and an alleged BAC of .15. We challenged the stop with a 1538.5 motion to suppress. At the hearing we showed that the officer had lied in contrast to what he previously told the DDA. RESULT: case reduced to a reckless driving cvc 23103.5 Deborah P. was charged with a DUI and a high BAC of .23 allegedly picking up her children from school drunk. RESULT: No jail time. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Nicholas P. was 18 years old and charged with an alleged .07 BAC on a first time DUI. He was stopped for allegedly doing 90 mph on the freeway. As an underage driver his legal limit was zero tolerance, a .01. RESULT: Case dismissed after he pled to a DRY reckless. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. Mario R. was charged with a DUI with an allegation that he had Marijuana in his system. RESULT: Case Dismissed after he pled to 2 traffic violations. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Bobby A. was charged with a DUI and a BAC of .07 after the officer allegedly followed Bobby out of a bar in Fontana. RESULT: DUI dismissed reduced to running a stop sign. ROSALIO R. was charged with a DUI and a BAC of .07. RESULT: Case dismissed. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Ray R. was charged with a .07 DUI as a minor. We proceeded to court and the matter was heard as a bench trial. RESULT: Client acquitted of all charges. David M. was charged with a DUI. RESULT: Case reduced to reckless driving under cvc 23103.5 Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Gary A. was charged with a 2nd time DUI and an alleged BAC of .11. It was alleged that he did not immediately stop for the officers and he had very poor Field Sobriety Test. We took the case to trial. RESULT: After nearly 3 days of jury deliberations they were deadlocked. However, they ultimately convicted my client. The good news is that he only had to do 4 days of community service in contract to the 40 days of jail time the DDA wanted prior to trial. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. Hailey L. was charge with a DUI with an allegation that she was a .14 BAC. The problem was that she was a minor and her legal limit is .01. We filed a 1538.5 motion to suppress because under the community caretaker exception to 4th Amendment could not be satisfied by the officer under the controlling case of People v. Madrid. RESULT: The prosecution stipulated to a finding of NOT GUILTY on the 23152(b) count and 23136(a) count, dismiss 23152(a), that her blood was not over .01, and she pled to 23103.5. This allowed us to send a certified copy of the docket up to mandatory action in Sacramento and have her 1 year suspension lifted from her driver's license. David M. : DUI RESULT: Reduced to wet/reckless. Again , through the dedication of the San Bernardino DUI Lawyer we were successful on this dui case. J. Castro. was charged with a .08, alleged to have been weaving. RESULT: Dismissed. More fine work from San Bernardino DUI Lawyer. * This is not a guarantee or indication of the outcome to your case.

VEHICLE CODE SECTION 13000-13008 13000. (a) The department may issue an identification card to any person attesting to the true full name, correct age, and other identifying data as certified by the applicant for the identification card. (b) Any person 62 years of age or older may apply for, and the department upon receipt of a proper application therefor shall issue, an identification card bearing the notation "Senior Citizen". (c) Every application for an identification card shall be signed and verified by the applicant before a person authorized to administer oaths and shall be supported by bona fide documentary evidence of the age and identity of the applicant as the department may require, and shall include a legible print of the thumb or finger of the applicant. (d) Any person 62 years of age or older, and any other qualified person, may apply for, or possess, an identification card under the provisions of either subdivision (a) or (b), but not under both of those provisions. 13000.1. (a) The department may refuse to issue or renew an identification card to any person for any of the following reasons: (1) The department determines that the person has knowingly used a false or fictitious name in any application. (2) The department determines that the person has impersonated another in making an application. (3) The department determines that the person has knowingly made a false statement, knowingly concealed a material fact, or otherwise committed any fraud on any application. (b) The department may declare an identification card invalid upon any of the grounds specified in subdivision (a) as reason to refuse to reissue or renew an identification card. The holder of an identification card that has been declared invalid shall surrender the identification card to the department. 13001. (a) Any federal document demonstrating favorable action by the federal government for acceptance of a person into the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program shall satisfy the requirement that the applicant submit satisfactory proof that the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under federal law. (b) The department may issue an original identification card to the person who submits proof of presence in the United States as authorized under federal law pursuant to subdivision (a) and either a social security account number or ineligibility for a social security account number. 13002. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), every identification card shall expire, unless canceled earlier, on the sixth birthday of the applicant following the date of application for the identification card. Renewal of any identification card, other than a senior citizen identification card, shall be made for a term which shall expire on the sixth birthday of the applicant following expiration of the identification card renewed, unless surrendered earlier. Any application for renewal received after 90 days after expiration of the identification card, including a senior citizen identification card, shall be considered the same as an application for an original identification card. The department shall, at the end of six years and six months after the issuance or renewal of an identification card, other than a senior citizen identification card, destroy any record of the card if it has expired and has not been renewed. (b) Every senior citizen identification card issued pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 13000 shall expire, unless canceled earlier, on the 10th birthday of the applicant following the date of application for the identification card. Renewal of any senior citizen identification card shall be made for a term which shall expire on the 10th birthday of the applicant following expiration of the senior citizen identification card renewed, unless surrendered earlier. The department shall, at the end of 10 years and six months after the issuance or renewal of a senior citizen identification card, destroy any record of the card if it has expired and has not been renewed. (c) An identification card may be issued to a person in exchange for the person's driver's license which is surrendered to the department for either of the following reasons: (1) The person has a physical or mental condition and requests cancellation of the driver's license. (2) The department has revoked the person's driving privilege based on the person's physical or mental condition. That card shall be issued without the payment of any additional fee. (d) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), the department may adjust the expiration date of any identification card issued pursuant to this code so that the date does not exceed the expiration date of a document submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 12801.5. 13002.1. (a) The director shall establish by January 1, 2011, a program that permits the renewal of identification cards by mail or through the department's Internet Web site. (b) The initial application for the identification card shall be pursuant to Section 13000. The first renewal for a person 62 years of age or older shall be for a 10-year period with a maximum of one renewal by mail or through the department's Internet Web site. All other renewals shall be for a six-year period with a maximum of two renewals by mail or through the department's Internet Web site. 13003. (a) If an identification card issued under this code is lost, destroyed, mutilated, or a new true full name is acquired, the person to whom it was issued shall make application for an original identification card as specified in Section 13000. The fee provided in Section 14902 shall be paid to the department upon application for the card. Every identification card issued pursuant to this section shall expire as provided in Section 13002 and shall be deemed an original identification card for that purpose. (b) A person in possession of a valid identification card who has been informed either by the department or by a law enforcement agency that the document is mutilated shall surrender the identification card to the department not later than 10 days after that notification. (c) For purposes of this section a mutilated identification card is one that has been damaged sufficiently to render any or all of the elements of identity set forth in Sections 13005 and 13005.5 unreadable or unidentifiable through visual, mechanical, or electronic means. 13004. It is unlawful for any person: (a) To display or cause or permit to be displayed or have in his possession any canceled, fictitious, fraudulently altered, or fraudulently obtained identification card. (b) To lend his identification card to any other person or knowingly permit the use thereof by another. (c) To display or represent any identification card not issued to him as being his card. (d) To permit any unlawful use of an identification card issued to him. (e) To do any act forbidden or fail to perform any act required by this article. (f) To photograph, photostat, duplicate, or in any way reproduce any identification card or facsimile thereof in such a manner that it could be mistaken for a valid identification card, or to display or have in his possession any such photograph, photostat, duplicate, reproduction, or facsimile unless authorized by the provisions of this code. (g) To alter any identification card in any manner not authorized by this code. 13004.1. (a) A person shall not manufacture or sell an identification document of a size and form substantially similar to, or that purports to confer the same privileges as, the identification cards issued by the department. (b) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable as follows: (1) The court shall impose a fine of not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) and not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), and 24 hours of community service, to be served when the person is not employed or is not attending school. No part of the fine or community service shall be suspended or waived. (2) In lieu of the penalties imposed under paragraph (1), the court, in its discretion, may impose a jail term of up to one year and a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000). In exercising its discretion the court shall consider the extent of the defendant's commercial motivation for the offense. (c) Prosecution under this section shall not preclude prosecution under any other applicable provision of law. 13005. (a) The identification card shall resemble in appearance, so far as is practicable, a driver's license issued pursuant to this code. It shall adequately describe the applicant, bear his or her picture, and be produced in color or engraved by a process or processes that prohibit, as near as possible, the ability to alter or reproduce the identification card, or prohibit the ability to superimpose a picture or photograph on the identification card without ready detection. (b) (1) Upon issuance of a new identification card, or renewal of an identification card, the department shall provide information on organ and tissue donation, including a standardized form to be filled out by an individual who desires to enroll in the California Organ and Tissue Donor Registry with instructions for mailing the completed form to the California Organ and Tissue Donor Registrar established pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 7150.90 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) The enrollment form shall be simple in design and shall be produced by the department, in cooperation with the California Organ and Tissue Donor Registrar, and shall require all of the following information to be supplied by the enrollee: (A) Date of birth, sex, full name, address, and home telephone number. (B) Consent for organs or tissues to be donated for transplant after death. (C) Any limitation of the donation to specific organs, tissues, or research. (3) The form shall also include a description of the process for having a name removed from the registry, and the process for donating money for the benefit of the registry. (4) The registry enrollment form shall be posted on the Internet Web sites for the department and the California Health and Human Services Agency. (5) The form shall constitute a legal document under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 7150) of Part 1 of Division 7 of the Health and Safety Code). (6) The registrar shall ensure that all additions and deletions to the registry shall occur within 30 days of receipt. (7) Information obtained by the registrar for the purposes of this subdivision shall be used for these purposes only and shall not further be disseminated by the registrar. (c) A contract shall not be awarded to a nongovernmental entity for the processing of identification cards unless the contract conforms to all applicable state contracting laws and all applicable procedures set forth in the State Contracting Manual. 13005.3. In addition to the requirements of Section 13005, any identification card issued pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 13000 shall contain the words "Senior Citizen". 13005.5. (a) An identification card issued to any person shall bear a fullface engraved picture or photograph of the person. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the department shall not, unless requested by the applicant, distribute or sell the applicant's picture or photograph or any information pertaining to the applicant's physical characteristics to any private individual, other than the applicant, or to any firm, copartnership, association, or corporation. This subdivision does not apply to any private business entity that contracts with the department for the production of driver's licenses and identification cards, if the contract prohibits the unauthorized use and disclosure of the information. 13006. No public entity or employee shall be liable for any loss or injury resulting directly or indirectly from false or inaccurate information contained in identification cards provided for in this article. No public entity or employee shall be liable for any loss, detriment, or injury resulting directly or indirectly from false or inaccurate information contained in the sticker provided pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 13005. 13007. Whenever any person after applying for or receiving an identification card acquires an address different from the address shown on the identification card issued to him, he shall within 10 days thereafter notify the department of his old and new address. The department may thereupon take such action as necessary to insure that the identification card reflects the proper address of the identification card holder. 13007.5. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this code or in the regulations adopted thereunder, including specifically the Driver's License Manual of Procedure, the department may verify the identity of any person born prior to 1916 who applies for an identification card, through United States Census records even though the date and month of birth are not included. It is unlawful for an applicant to knowingly declare to the department, in writing, that no birth certificate exists for the applicant when, in fact, a birth certificate does exist. 13008. When used in reference to an identification card, "cancellation" means that an identification card is terminated without prejudice and must be surrendered. Cancellation of card may be made when a card has been issued through error or when voluntarily surrendered to the department.

 Author of "The DUI Answer Book" A Citizen's Guide to Understanding Your  Rights

Call 951-779-1362

If I handle your case I can promise 2 things, I am really really good at what I do, and I will work hard for you. I AM APPROVED BY THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA TO TEACH OTHER LAWYERS ABOUT BLOOD TESTING IN A DUI CASE.  The judge said I was one of the best DUI Lawyers he had seen in 30 plus years. "My name is David and when I got my 3rd DUI I hired Pat Silva to fight for me and he did! He got my 3rd DUI dropped, all I had to do was plead no contest to a few moving violations. I had a bac of .17 and he still got it dropped that's why I call him the specialist!"     ONLINE REVIEWS!