The 2006 Paris Hilton DUI Arrest and Wet Reckless Plea in CA

By: William C. Head, Larry Kohn and Cory Yager, Top-Rated DUI Defense Lawyers in Georgia and Legal Book Co-Authors

While no other state has a “wet” reckless statute, the highly publicized case involving Paris Hilton highlights the importance of engaging genuine experts in DUI law to consistently achieve the most favorable outcomes. Settling a client’s case instead of fighting that very “winnable” case is not only not wise, but (as in this example) apparently set up the client for failure within a week’s time.

Hollywood influencer Paris Hilton was arrested in Hollywood, California for a DUI on September 7, 2006. Her “reading” was 0.080 grams percent, which was (and still is) the lowest adult BAC level for the State of California allowing for a possible conviction of DUI per se or “driving with an unlawful alcohol level.”

A Santa Barbara DUI lawyer called our senoir partner, William Head, to ask if he would be interested in offering to handle her case for free. He agreed to do that (if asked), because he had done California cases previously and knew that this case was a “slam dunk” acquittal on the “over the legal limit” DUI case. In addition, the publicity from the case could help other people facing a DUI have the courage to FIGHT their cases.

Before that Santa Barbara attorney could get in touch with Ms. Hilton, the news broke that she had hired a well-known criminal defense lawyer from southern California, but not one known for specializing in DUI-DWI defense. Although frustrated at the inability to offer her free legal counsel, we could only watch and wait to see what happened.

The 25-year-old heiress had pleaded no contest to alcohol-related reckless driving in California over 3 months later. This “wet reckless” charge carried several important implications and lengthy probation, much like a DUI conviction, including driver’s license suspension.

On January 22, 2007, Hilton pleaded no contest (nolo contendere) to a reduced charge of alcohol-related reckless driving with the assistance of well-known criminal defense lawyers. However, that legal group was in no way considered to be top DUI lawyers, with specialized knowledge in neutralizing a state’s breathalyzer test, although she hired skilled and knowledgeable legal counsel later, when she got into more trouble.

Her plea resulted in 36 months of probation, a $1,500 fine, and mandatory enrollment in an alcohol education program within 21 days of the day on which she was sentenced. All of this was SOP (standard operating procedure) for criminal court judges in California.

In court, she signed a form acknowledging that her license was suspended. As soon as her conviction was reported to the California DMV, that state agency can (and usually does) suspend that driver immediately, which is what occurred. The computer database is then updated ASAP.

Thus, less than a week later a CHP (California Highway Patrol) officer matched her tag to that conviction, and she was pulled over on suspicion of driving while suspended. She was then arrested again.

This arrest later resulted in some jail time for the high-profile Californian. Now stop to think if this case had been fought and won, or at least not reduced to another crime that did not suspend her ability to drive. Remember, this was a time when no rideshare services had been launched, like Uber or Lyft.

The California “Wet Reckless” Plea Explained

First, California is the only state with a “wet reckless” designation for an original drunk driving accusation altered to allow that first offender to obtain a less severe case disposition. It’s a nickname for a reckless driving charge that includes a court notation that alcohol had been consumed by this driver.
In Ms Hilton’s case, this meant:

1. That her original charge of violating California’s DUI law was amended (dropped) in exchange for her agreeing to plead guilty or “no contest” (nolo contendere) to reckless driving.
2. Knowledgeable DUI-DWI attorneys across America (seeing that her borderline BAC level was subject to challenge for accuracy) were expecting her to fight the criminal case against her. She reported to the officer that she’d had 1 drink, which (for certain mixed drinks) was possible at her petite, diminutive size.
3. Since it was obtained on a highly variable forensic breath alcohol tester, and not via a blood test. Furthermore, if not being willing to go to trial, many attorneys thought that she should at least be able to obtain a normal “reckless driving” plea, which would have allowed her (as an adult) to continue driving after that plea bargain.
4. These types of “wet reckless” convictions would still note on her criminal history that alcohol was involved in the arrest, hence the term “wet,” since consuming alcoholic beverages was the source of that crime.
5. In addition, the wet reckless disposition meant a license suspension, whereas a generic reckless driving plea would have allowed her to drive, which is similar on many other states, (e.g., GA, SC, FL, TX).

So, a “wet reckless” is not a separate crime someone can be arrested for in CA but is a “description” about a reduction of a D.U.I. case in California when the original accusation was driving under the influence. This crime is so like the California DUI law in California, that any new DUI arrest in CA within 10 years would count as a 2nd DUI crime.

Her plea bargain, however, had many similarities to punishment for a DUI conviction in California, including that she was suspended from driving for a shorter term than if the case was disposed of as an impaired driving case. However, after the new arrest for driving while suspended, she was embargoed from driving even longer.

The Consequences of Wet Reckless in CA

In Ms. Hilton’s case, pleading to a “wet reckless” likely allowed her to avoid some of the more severe consequences of a DUI conviction while still being held accountable for her actions. While marginally better than a DUI conviction in California, DUI “wet reckless” convictions still carry tough driving consequences, like these:

1. It acts as a priorable criminal offense: If convicted of another DUI within 10 years, the wet reckless would count as a prior DUI alcohol offense, resulting in harsher, mandatory DUI second offense punishment in the new case.
   2. Criminal record: The “wet reckless” is still a misdemeanor crime and results in a misdemeanor conviction on the same level as a DUI on California.
   3. Fines and possible jail time: Though usually considered less severe than a DUI, these two aspects of potential penalties may still apply.
   4. Probation and alcohol education: These are routinely ordered to be done by sentencing judges, to be required as part of the plea agreement.

The Limited Benefits of a California Wet Reckless vs. DUI

Pleading to a wet reckless instead of a DUI offers several advantages:

1. Lesser penalties: Generally, “wet reckless” carries somewhat lighter sentences than a DUI, so long as that driver did not reoffend.
   b. Possibly less jail time: If jail time is imposed, it’s typically shorter for a wet reckless than for a DUI.
   c. Avoiding putting a DUI on criminal record: This can be beneficial for future employment or other background checks. Yet, the convicted person would need to not have any more DUI convictions within at least 10 years.

Conclusion and Call to Action

The Paris Hilton case identifies a major problem in DUI arrest cases. If the arrested person does not have a DUI specialist, but a great criminal defense attorney, the results can be a disaster.

In all cases, our attorneys offer a “NO COST” initial interview. Part of the reason for that is the common belief that the person cannot win their case.

Let’s discuss your case and explore payment plan options for your attorney’s fees, if required. If the case review is FREE, what are you waiting for? Dial 404-567-5515 any time, day or night.