FirstAlerts

Oxnard Man Charged with Felony DUI in Ventura Wrong-Way Incident

Nicolas Luis Vazquez, 26, faces charges related to a wrong-way driving incident near an elementary school; the case has not yet been decided.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 21, 2026, 3:50 a.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Jan 16, 2022, 6:59 a.m. ETWritten Aug 21, 2026, 3:53 a.m. ET
The has Nicolas Luis Vazquez, 26, of Oxnard, with felony DUI and related charges, according to the . The charges stem from an incident in which Vazquez allegedly drove the wrong way in front of an elementary school while under the influence of alcohol, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.33%, and had four prior DUI convictions. He was also with driving with a suspended license and giving false information to a police officer. Vazquez has not been tried, and the case remains undecided. As with all criminal charges, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Ventura Police Department investigated the case.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 21, 2026, 3:50 a.m. ETFirst report

    Oxnard Man Charged with Felony DUI in Ventura Wrong-Way Incident; Case Undecided

    Nicolas Luis Vazquez, 26, of Oxnard, has been charged with felony DUI, driving with a suspended license, and giving false information to a police officer, according to the Ventura County District Attorney's office, as reported by KEYT. The matter is at the charging stage and has not been resolved; the charges are allegations and Vazquez is presumed innocent.

    The charges stem from an incident in which Vazquez allegedly drove the wrong way in front of an elementary school while under the influence of alcohol, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.33%, and had four prior DUI convictions, according to KEYT. The Ventura Police Department is investigating.

    Vazquez has been charged but not tried; the case remains undecided.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 121 Aug 2026, 07:53current

    First published.

  2. Version 121 Aug 2026, 07:50current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.