Criminal Lawyers in DUI

The offence of driving under the influence of alcohol (Art. 379.2 CP) protects road safety as a collective legal interest and, mediately, the life and physical integrity of road users. The criminal provision sanctions two distinct conducts: driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages with real impairment of abilities, and driving exceeding the objective rate of 0.60 mg/l in expired air or 1.2 g/l in blood, at which point the offence is presumed without need to prove influence. Supreme Court case-law has consolidated the dual model and demands evidential rigor in both scenarios: the breathalyzer must be verified and calibrated, and the documentary chain must respect procedural guarantees.

The typical conduct modalities and set thresholds must be distinguished with precision. Below 0.25 mg/l there is no infraction. Between 0.25 and 0.50 mg/l there is a very serious administrative infraction under the General Traffic Regulation (€500 fine and 4 points). Between 0.50 and 0.60 mg/l the administrative infraction is aggravated (€1,000 and 6 points), but the criminal sphere requires proof of influence. Above 0.60 mg/l enters the objective rate of Art. 379.2 in fine CP: the offence is automatically consummated, with no need to prove psychophysical impairment. The refusal to undergo detection tests (Art. 383 CP) configures an autonomous offence more serious than a positive result, with 6 months to 1 year of prison and 1 to 4 years' license deprivation.

The penalties in Art. 379 CP are alternative: 3 to 6 months' prison, or 6 to 12 months' fine, or community service of 31 to 90 days. In all cases the deprivation of the right to drive motor vehicles and mopeds is added for more than 1 year and up to 4 years, which constitutes in practice the most relevant consequence for the convicted. The disqualification penalty affects not only the B-type driver's license but all permits and licenses held by the subject. The forfeiture of the vehicle as instrument of the offence is foreseen in Art. 385 bis CP and is decreed especially in multiple recidivism cases or extremely reckless driving. Civil liability arising from accidents with injurious or fatal outcome is governed by the compulsory insurance regime (RDL 8/2004), with the insurer's right of recourse against the drunk driver.

Technical defense in DUI is articulated on four axes. First, the metrological audit of the breathalyzer: Order ICT/155/2020 on metrological control requires primitive verification, periodic verification, and after every repair; the absence of an updated certificate determines nullity of measurement. Additionally, the maximum permissible error (PEM) ranges between 5% and 7.5% depending on device age; applied to a 0.64 mg/l result, it may place the real figure at 0.59 mg/l, excluding the objective offence. Second, the absorption curve and rising phase: alcohol takes 30 to 90 minutes to fully absorb; when the driver drank immediately before and testing occurs with short interval, the measured rate does not reflect the real concentration at the driving moment. Third, external symptomatology: in the 0.25-0.60 mg/l range the offence requires proven influence; the police report describing "shiny eyes, slurred speech and unsteady walking" can be discredited by viewing the action video, especially if the driver parked correctly and maintained coherent conversation. Fourth, procedural defects: absence of rights information, no offer of blood contrast analysis (Art. 14 General Traffic Regulation), chain of custody defects.

In current forensic practice, DUI proceedings are processed in expedited trial when the requirements of Art. 795 Criminal Procedure Act concur, compressing deadlines for effective defense. Organic Law 1/2025 on Justice Service Efficiency and recent procedural reforms have accelerated the procedure but also expanded guarantees on electronic evidence and digital chain of custody of breathalyzer records. Constitutional case-law on the right to presumption of innocence and Supreme Court doctrine on technical documentary evidence oblige courts to rigorously control metrological reliability. At Alonso Sala, our criminal lawyers specialized in DUI intervene from legal assistance to the detained driver to guarantee the right to contrast analysis, demand device metrological documentation, articulate medical expert evidence on absorption curve, and build defenses that precisely distinguish administrative infraction from criminal offence. The aim is to preserve the driver's license, avoid criminal records and, where applicable, substitute prison for work or fine, safeguarding the defendant's personal and professional trajectory.

The "0.60" Myth: Objective Rate vs. Influence

It is vital to understand that the crime does not always depend on a number. The Criminal Code establishes an objective limit of 0.60 mg/l in air (1.2 g/l in blood), above which the crime is automatic, whether or not there are symptoms. However, with lower rates (between 0.40 and 0.60 mg/l), the prosecution must prove the *influence*. This is where our defense is most effective: if we prove that you were driving normally, that there were no strange maneuvers, and that your behavior was coherent, the rate alone is not enough for a criminal conviction, and the matter should remain an administrative fine.