This should cause some debate on here. I believe they cannot and have an excellent motion on it. However, it happens all the time as a condition of bail. I believe that the ONLY issue for bail is to secure attendance at future court hearings. The mere fact that you have an attorney that can appear pursuant to PC 977 at a DUI hearing secures your appearance.
Bottom line is, if you don't want to do the AA meetings have your attorney file a bail review motion and contact me (or any other member of CDLA) for a bail motion.
They can as a condition of an "OR" (Own Recognizance) release. This is the standard at least in Southern California.
Seth Weinstein, Esq.
This reply should NOT be considered a legal opinion of your case / inquiry. At this time I do not have sufficient factual/legal documentation to give a complete answer to your question and there may be more to the issues you raised then I have set out in my brief reply.
I think it's perfectly legal. Safety of the public is an important element of conditional release. Before being granted OR, if your BAC was too high and the judge is concerned that if released, you may continue to drink and drive, he could legally require you to attend AA meetings. Alternatively, he could deny you OR and set bail.
Personally I don't think it is legal at all. When the Judges in Los Angeles started doing it, it pissed me off to no end. The other attorneys are correct that procedurally the Judges get away with it as a condition of O.R. If you made bail, I do not see how legally the court can get away with this. But it is a cost benefit analysis and while I used to object, it's not worth fighting your probable sentencing Judge on something this minor. Like I tell my DUI clients. AA meetings never killed anyone. Just go. When your case is over, you don't have to go back unless you want to.
That should be clarified to "self-help" meetings
Contributions on AVVO.com in no way create an attorney-client relationship nor are they intended to be relied upon as a course of action without having first consulted directly with an attorney, where the specific facts and circumstances of your case can be fully discussed.
Unless the court was required by statute to extend the date, the court can condition its approval of the requested continuance on the moving party's agreement to attend the meetings (or any other action not prohibited by law).
My responses to questions on Avvo are never intended as legal advice and must not be relied upon as legal advice. I give legal advice only in the course of an attorney-client relationship. Exchange of information through Avvo's Questions forum does not establish an attorney-client relationship with me. That relationship is established only by individual consultation and execution of a written agreement for legal services.
This is irritating, and pretty common. Another issue, in addition to those already raised, is that AA requires that you accept a higher power and thus has a quasi-religious element. It is somewhat similar to the judge requiring you to attend church. The judge may be barred from making this order by the 1st Amendment.
That said, it hardly seems worth fighting. Especially if this is the judge who may ultimately sentence you, he will look dimly on a fight over AA.
I do know one judge who went to the trouble of finding a non-religious equivalent to AA in case anybody ever objected to the religious aspect - but he told me nobody ever had.
For what it is worth: I believe mandatory AA attendance violates the Constitution. There is the First Amendment argument that AA is, fundamentally, a religious organization and that compelled attendance violates the seperation of church and state. There are several federal appeals courts that say this is the case when it comes to parole or probation. I, however, am not aware of any that say this is true when it comes to release pending trial. Although, the logic is sound and the application should be the same.
There is also a 14th Amendment argument in that it is mandatory medical treatment under penalty of jail. Even though AA has never been scientifically validated and has a success rate of approximately 5%, it is still government mandated treatment. Much like forced medication, sterilization or any other government forced medical care.
The practical issue most clients face is that the Court may very well force you to pay bail or sit I'm jail while you argue why you should not be forced to attend this dubious program. Accordingly, most clients feel that a few hours a week in a religious camp is better than the entire week I'm jail. As such, only my clients who have strong religious beliefs/objections ever risk fighting this.
Reliance on any information in this website is at the sole risk of the user and the user understands that he or she should consult with an attorney before taking a course of action based upon information contained in this website. The information on this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship.
I think a better question should be asked.
Will this judge take into account when considering a plea agreement that the 2 months in a program shows that you are serious about the DUI, and are making sure it will not happen again.
Yes, the strict question of whether the Judge is correct in mandating the attendance is interpretable, (I see at lest 4 options here on avvo so, and I am sure there are more), however I think you should talk to your attorney, (if you have one) about the possible benefits of attending these programs, or perhaps another one which does not use the unsavory G word.
Perhaps counseling and drug classes?
This is not legal advice. If order to give you legal advice i would need to see the Tickets and talk to the court first. Good luck:)
Absolutely NOT - AA is a religion (the 12-steps are to a higher power) and requiring you to attend is a violation of your First Amendment Right to be free of State sponsored religion. Furthermore, you have only been accused of a crime - not convicted. Any term and condition of your release is only to ensure your return to court for further proceedings. It's purpose is not to punish or reform you pursuant to a crime for which you have not (yet) been convicted.
Robert Lee Hamilton is licensed to practice law in the state of California. He cannot speak to the applicability of information in jurisdictions outside California. No two legal situations are alike, and it is impossible to provide accurate legal advice without knowing all the facts of a particular situation. Thus, the information provided in this column should NOT be regarded as individual legal advice, and readers should NOT act upon this information without seeking the opinion of an attorney in their home state. This does NOT constitute an attorney-client relationship and does NOT constitute legal advice. The information provided is for educational and/or informational purposes only.
At Central Coast courts this can be a normal requirement. We are trying to educate our judges that AA is not for everyone and is religious based. We have managed to get some judges to EITHER make the defendant subject to testing OR AA. Many opt for AA for the obvious reason. Is it legal? In my opinion, no. That comes from the religious aspect of the group and the fact that AA does nothing to keep a person sober. Therefore it does not meet the standard for public safety.
A roundup of the best tips and legal advice.