Recently, I wrote about domestic violence in California – the myths, the consequences and the realities.

A new incident allegedly has Chris Brown beating superstar girlfriend Rihanna while they were on the way to the Grammys last weekend.  Interestingly, the case touches on some of the aspects I discussed last month. There is the celebrity factor–allegedly severe injuries–and although it is reported that Rihanna is cooperating with police, it remains to be seen whether she and Brown reconcile, likely leading her to recant altogether.

The case can progress in a few ways. Either a quick plea bargain is reached as a result of many factors, including overwhelming evidence. Or, there can be a circus like atmosphere and/or a lack of evidence that leads to a vigorous defense and the prosecution overplaying its hand.

It was reported that there was a witness to the incident.  Moreover, Rihanna allegedly suffered severe injuries for which a felony charge may be warranted. On the other hand, the DA’s office is requesting further investigation by the police before filing charges against Brown (something that is not uncommon in high profile cases, but may mean the evidence against him is weak).

As it stands now, Mr. Brown may have an uphill battle ahead of him. There is not much sympathy for domestic violence in Los Angeles, regardless of the troubled childhood Brown allegedly had. Coupled with his celebrity status, rightly or not, he will likely be made an example of. But high profile cases such as these often do not yield typical results. One would hope the legal system is not judged by these type of cases alone–often it seems that it is.

An Austin American Statesman article recently addressed the issue of blood alcohol test refusal. According to the article, in Texas, politicians, prosecutors and judges refused blood alcohol tests 100% of the time when stopped for suspicion of DUI. The average Texan refused to take a test only 50% of the time.

As in Texas, California has its own implied consent law governing the issuance of licenses within the state. A California Licensee agrees to submit to a blood alcohol test as a condition of being issued the license. If he or she refuses, their license is suspended automatically for year–even if the DUI case is dropped or dismissed. In California, certain procedures by the police must be followed before a “refusal” is legitimate.  With competent representation, a license suspension for refusal can often be challenged. However, if the driver refused and the proper procedures were followed, it is likely that they will lose their license for a year–a significant burden in cities like Los Angeles where people are married to their automobiles.

Of course such a license suspension should be weighed against the consequences of taking a blood alcohol test, especially in light of inaccuracies and issues with breathalyzer machines discussed here.  Without such a test, the prosecution usually has no physical evidence of impairment, and is required to rely on the testimony of the officer–significantly weakening the prosecution’s case and raising the issue of reasonable doubt.

The Statesman’s article demonstrates that politicians, prosecutors and judges are aware of DUI laws and procedures, and are therefore able to make informed decisions tailored to their individual circumstances. By contrast, the average citizen is usually unaware that they have two problems to deal with: 1. the criminal case; and 2. the DMV administrative action against their driver’s license; to say nothing of the complex web of other laws and procedures that are inherit in a DUI charge.

Perhaps articles like the ones above will inform and educate the public of their rights and options, so the privileged few are not the only ones “in the know.”