dui question (1 Viewer)

[SuperQuincy]

What led to them thinking you were drunk? Did you take the field sobriety? If you did that was your first mistake. Had you told the police you didnt drink and if they didnt believe youto bring you straight to jail and kept your mouth shut afterwards your case would have been thrown out due to lack of evidence. However you learned a lesson by the choice you made and had you got out if the whole ordeal might continue to drink and drive.

Well I was in an accident so my blood would have been drawn had I not, also lets say they did not. I refuse the field sobriety tests, and the Breathalyzer and lose my license for 6 months on the spot. They still video tape you at the police station. My lawyer requested anything they would be using at my trial as any lawyer would. They submitted the booking video as evidence. Me and my lawyer watched said video at her office. My speech was impaired, I was rambling on, and I could barely stand and would have fallen at least twice if I were not handcuffed to the wall (granted this was about 3 hours after my last drink, and 2 hours after the accident so it was about 2 o'clock in the morning and I was fairly tired at that point) No jury in the world would have seen that video and thought anything other than "this dude is hammered".

I knew I was toast. All they would have done is hit me with stiffer penalties had I chosen to fight it. In my particular case, I was screwed. There is always that chance, but that very slim hope I could have held on to would have resulted in a 9 month loss of license with very little chance of a hardship license for my job on top of all the other stuff I was levied with. (opposed to 2 1/2 months with a hardship license for 45 of those days) It was really a case where fighting would only make it worse. In my particular case I did what I did to get my case over with and start the penalty phase and they were pretty nice to me compared to a lot of people in my alcohol awareness classes who did fight it. It was a common trend in there that the people who owned up and accepted there punished were treated about 1/3rd as strictly, and paid a lot less once you factor in legal costs. I strongly believe it was because we took our punishment and moved forward.

I found those to be the advantages in blowing in the breathalyzer, especially if you are involved in an accident and they can take your blood

 

[dajmno]

I just noted something interesting. If you try and search the internet for dwi discussions, personal experience/advice forums you get basically zero hits or very little meaningful sources of information. All you get are websites of soliciting lawyers. So either the lawyers have paid off the internet search companies or the gov't has censored them.

 

[Saint_Kyle]

Don't drink and drive.


/thread

 

[Galbreath34]

I just noted something interesting. If you try and search the internet for dwi discussions, personal experience/advice forums you get basically zero hits or very little meaningful sources of information. All you get are websites of soliciting lawyers. So either the lawyers have paid off the internet search companies or the gov't has censored them.

It's even harder to find threads about how to beat a rape charge or a DV charge.

It could be a conspiracy of lawyers, Google or the government, but there's a slim outside chance that not many are in the habit of discussing beating criminal raps online and site owners who run forums don't want their forum becoming the go to place to get the scoop on beating a criminal charge. I know, it sounds crazy, but it's possible. It's probably big brother, the corporations or the lawyers though. It has to be.

 

[Det. Brees]

what about when they have judges working the graveyard shift serving out warrants on demand and they draw your blood at will.

wonder why that practice hasn't made its way to the SCOTUS.

Warrant are OFTEN OBTAINED to draw blood but mostly due to serious traffic accident where there are serious injuries or worse. Not very common for the avg. DUI .

 

[wizard1183]

Well I was in an accident so my blood would have been drawn had I not, also lets say they did not. I refuse the field sobriety tests, and the Breathalyzer and lose my license for 6 months on the spot. They still video tape you at the police station. My lawyer requested anything they would be using at my trial as any lawyer would. They submitted the booking video as evidence. Me and my lawyer watched said video at her office. My speech was impaired, I was rambling on, and I could barely stand and would have fallen at least twice if I were not handcuffed to the wall (granted this was about 3 hours after my last drink, and 2 hours after the accident so it was about 2 o'clock in the morning and I was fairly tired at that point) No jury in the world would have seen that video and thought anything other than "this dude is hammered".

I knew I was toast. All they would have done is hit me with stiffer penalties had I chosen to fight it. In my particular case, I was screwed. There is always that chance, but that very slim hope I could have held on to would have resulted in a 9 month loss of license with very little chance of a hardship license for my job on top of all the other stuff I was levied with. (opposed to 2 1/2 months with a hardship license for 45 of those days) It was really a case where fighting would only make it worse. In my particular case I did what I did to get my case over with and start the penalty phase and they were pretty nice to me compared to a lot of people in my alcohol awareness classes who did fight it. It was a common trend in there that the people who owned up and accepted there punished were treated about 1/3rd as strictly, and paid a lot less once you factor in legal costs. I strongly believe it was because we took our punishment and moved forward.

I found those to be the advantages in blowing in the breathalyzer, especially if you are involved in an accident and they can take your blood

Wrong! You don't. If you fail to follow directions you do. The directions are on the back of your paper work they issue you after booking. You don't have to lose your license. It's sad that in order to know the laws, you have to experience. Otherwise the judicial system will try to milk you for every penny they can.

 

[JimEverett]

what about when they have judges working the graveyard shift serving out warrants on demand and they draw your blood at will.

wonder why that practice hasn't made its way to the SCOTUS.

If police get a warrant then, obviously, they are fine.

But even warrantless blood tests are legal in many situations - Schmerber v. California - 384 U.S. 757 (1966) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Although SCOTUS is rehearing the issue of warrantless blood tests this term

 

[NYCsaint]

Wrong! You don't. If you fail to follow directions you do. The directions are on the back of your paper work they issue you after booking. You don't have to lose your license. It's sad that in order to know the laws, you have to experience. Otherwise the judicial system will try to milk you for every penny they can.

as someone mentioned earlier, this is the guy to trust.

i hear he even runs a car pool service to the hearings, as hes found all the tricks to keep his license despite tons of arrests for this. Both kind, and experienced.

although he might not have one in your state (yet) so make sure his advice is relevant to the jurisdiction.

 

[wizard1183]

as someone mentioned earlier, this is the guy to trust.

i hear he even runs a car pool service to the hearings, as hes found all the tricks to keep his license despite tons of arrests for this. Both kind, and experienced.

although he might not have one in your state (yet) so make sure his advice is relevant to the jurisdiction.

You don't know me much less anything about me besides the fact that I've gotten a few DUIs because i stated it here. So what ever you heard and from who? Forget it unless you can prove what you hear which I'll bet you anything you can't.

 

[dtc]

You still get it expunged under article 894.


Also you don't lose your license if you read the back of your papers issued.

Are you a lawyer? How would you learn such a thing?

 

[soupcan dan]

You don't know me much less anything about me besides the fact that I've gotten a few DUIs because i stated it here. So what ever you heard and from who? Forget it unless you can prove what you hear which I'll bet you anything you can't.

-per funknwagnall's-----

Although indefinite in nature, a few is usually more than two (two often being referred to as "a couple of"), and less than "several". If the sample population is say between 5 and 20, a few would mean three or four, but no more than this. However, if the population sample size were in the millions, "a few" could refer to several hundred items. In other words, few in this context means a very very small percentage but way over the 3 or 4 usually ascribed to it its use with much much smaller numbers.

he's had more than a few, trust the expert.

 

[NYCsaint]

You don't know me much less anything about me besides the fact that I've gotten a few DUIs because i stated it here. So what ever you heard and from who? Forget it unless you can prove what you hear which I'll bet you anything you can't.

Reviewing what I wrote:

You have several DUIs - yup, heard from you
Run your own shuttle to hearings - clear joke
You don't have a DUI in every state - is this the incorrect info? I cannot prove which states you don't have DUIs in yet, so I should assume all?

 

[Big_L]

Anyone ever heard of implied consent....

 

[geoffspins]

a friend of mine from high school, and florida alum sigh, blew a .07 in gainesville about 10 years ago. they booked him with dui anyway. thankfully for him, the .07 was evidence enough to have the case dismissed.. $2000 later. by that time he had already lost his insurance and had to pay triple in coverage to have it reinstated.

i have a class a cdl, so by federal law, i'm under a 0.04% or some crap limit anyway. i just get trashed in my house. way more convenient.

I blew a .07 and was booked too. The next day I called the DA and he immediately dropped the case. Told me to pay the b/s speeding ticket. (I had the cop in the rear view the entire time and wasn't speeding). Seems as if your buddy got screwed out of two grand. I had to pay $45.

 

[moe1967]

The Breathalyzer is the most inaccurate means of measuring your BAC. Without going into great detail, it should be understood that the error factor can be as high as 50 %. If the Breathalyzer generates a reading that confirms your BAC is within legal limits, you should be free to leave (and to begin planning your lawsuit). If the Breathalyzer test results indicate an illegal BAC, you should immediately request one of the two other tests, the most accurate of which is the blood test. If the police refuse to assist you in obtaining a second test, demand an opportunity to obtain a second test, even if it must be at your own expense. Most states have admitted that Breathalyzer tests are highly inaccurate and either through legislation or the courts have been forced to offer more reliable and accurate chemical tests, but only if requested by the defendant.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that if you are a diabetic, have gastric reflux, working around paint, working around fuel, and even certain foods that you eat can all give false positives on a breathalyzer test. The technology in detecting BAC in Breathalyzer machines is the exact same as it was when it was invented decades ago. Yea, its model number has went from the BS1000 to the BS5500 and now has a digital read out. But it's detecting mechanism is still the same and is highly inaccurate.

Demand a blood test.