How Top Los Angeles DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff Secured a Complete Dismissal of Child Endangerment Charges

Facing a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) charge in Los Angeles County is a daunting experience on its own. However, when prosecutors tack on charges of Child Endangerment (Penal Code Section 273a(b)), the stakes immediately skyrocket. Beyond standard DUI penalties—such as fines, license suspensions, and mandatory DUI classes—child endangerment charges bring severe consequences, including potential jail time, mandatory child abuse probation terms, and life-altering consequences for parental custody rights.

In a recent Los Angeles County case, top-tier DUI defense attorney Matthew Ruff demonstrated how strategic legal defense, aggressive prosecution negotiation, and deep knowledge of California criminal procedure can result in the complete dismissal of both counts of child endangerment.

DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff Gets Child Endangerment Charges Dismissed

The Legal Challenge: DUI + 2 Counts of Child Abuse / Endangerment

According to the official Misdemeanor Complaint filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (The People of the State of California v. Arturo [Redacted]):

 Count 1: Driving Under the Influence of an Alcoholic Beverage, in violation of California Vehicle Code Section 23152(a) (Misdemeanor).  

 Count 2: Child Abuse / Endangerment Under Circumstances Other Than Great Bodily Injury or Death, in violation of Penal Code Section 273a(b) regarding minor child Ale[redacted].  

 Count 3: Child Abuse / Endangerment Under Circumstances Other Than Great Bodily Injury or Death, in violation of Penal Code Section 273a(b) regarding minor child Ani[redacted].  

The allegations arose from an incident on or about June 2, 2024, where law enforcement stopped the driver for suspected DUI with two minor children present inside the vehicle.  

Why Penal Code 273a(b) Charges Are So Dangerous

Under PC 273a(b), it is a crime to willfully permit a child in one’s care or custody to be placed in a situation where their person or health is endangered. In California, when an officer arrests a driver for a DUI with minors in the car, prosecutors frequently add PC 273a(b) counts for each child present.  

A conviction under PC 273a(b) carries severe repercussions beyond standard DUI penalties:

1. Mandatory Child Abuse Terms: A standard condition of probation includes 1-year mandatory child abuse counseling/parenting classes.

2. Criminal Record & Background Checks: A child endangerment charge leaves a lasting mark on background checks, severely impacting employment, professional licensing, and housing opportunities.

3. Child Custody & CPS Exposure: Family courts view child endangerment convictions very harshly, and child protective services (CPS) may initiate separate investigations into parental fitness.

Defense Strategy: Dismantling the Child Endangerment Counts

Recognizing the immense collateral harm a child endangerment conviction would inflict on the client’s life and family, Master of DUI defense attorney Matthew Ruff focused his defense strategy on seeking a complete dismissal of Counts 2 and 3.  

Key Arguments Utilized in Defense:

1. Challenging the Allegation of “Willful Endangerment”: To convict under PC 273a(b), the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver willfully placed the children in a dangerous situation. Attorney Ruff scrutinizes the officer’s driving observations, body camera footage, and traffic stop logs to establish whether there was actual erratic driving or immediate physical danger to the children.

2. Evidentiary and Chemical Testing Weaknesses: Demonstrating weaknesses in the blood/breath test results or questioning the legality of the initial traffic stop undermines the prosecution’s foundational premise that the driver was impaired at the time of operation.

3. Proactive Mitigation: Guiding the client to complete proactive measures prior to court dates, demonstrating responsible citizenship and ensuring the court sees the client as a protective parent rather than a criminal risk.

The Outcome: Complete Dismissal of Child Endangerment Charges

Through meticulous preparation and skilled negotiation with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office / City Prosecutor, Matthew Ruff succeeded in getting BOTH counts of Child Endangerment (Counts 2 & 3) completely dismissed.  

Impact of the Dismissal

 No Child Abuse Conviction: The client avoided having child abuse or endangerment charges recorded on their permanent criminal history.  

 Avoided Mandatory Child Abuse Probation Terms: The client was spared mandatory 52-week child abuse classes and burdensome probation requirements.

 Protected Parental & Custody Rights: By getting both PC 273a(b) counts completely thrown out, the client avoided severe complications with family court and child welfare authorities.  

Why You Need an Experienced Los Angeles DUI Defense Attorney

When faced with multiple misdemeanor charges involving DUI and child endangerment, simply pleading guilty or relying on an unseasoned defender can lead to devastating long-term outcomes. Los Angeles DUI Attorney Matthew Ruff has decades of experience navigating Los Angeles courtrooms, challenging prosecution evidence, and protecting clients’ records.

If you or a loved one is facing DUI charges with child endangerment enhancements in Los Angeles or Southern California, having an experienced criminal defense attorney on your side is critical to achieving a favorable resolution. Disclaimer

Unknown's avatar

About thetorranceattorney

Matthew Ruff is a Torrance criminal defense attorney located near the 405 freeway on Crenshaw Blvd. Focusing on DUI and serious criminal cases for over twenty five years. In addition to criminal cases, Matthew also defends clients at the DMV regarding license suspension hearings stemming from drunk driving arrests.
This entry was posted in criminal, DMV, Domestic Violence, DUI, Legal Resources, Torrance Judges, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply