Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire It is not just cops

You are smarter than you look.

It's well higher here, as well. I wish I won 54% of the DWI cases I took to a bench trial.

I wouldn't even think of taking a DWI case to a jury here. I can keep them out of jail with only a judge. Can't imagine letting a jury have a shot at giving a client 12 months on my watch.

That would shake me, badly.

I knew what you were saying, and I agree. My standard approach to a DUI stop is, after determinging enough cause to perform FSTs is to do four tests, including an PBT. Next, if enough cause to arrest we are required by law to get a blood sample. The entire stop is recorded by dash cam.

A DUI conviction in a bench trial here would lead to the same sentence as a conviction by jury.

I've seen many a DUI conviction without any video at all. Just the breathalyzer and the word of an honest police officer.

I said 54% of the ones that went to trial, not all of them. Of course, I find the limiting factor on DUIs going to trial is more cost than anything else. Few people want to shell out $7,500 or $10,000 for a misdemeanor DWI trial. But those who do...I get good results for in a nice percentage of the cases. My main jurisdiction allows no dismissals, pleas to lesser charges or anything like that. You will plea guilty or go to trial. You get a bench trial at the lower level and a de novo appeal. It is like free discovery and an opportunity to get the po po under oath. The next level is a mandatory jury trial. Well, it isn't mandatory but none of the judges will do a bench trial on a DWI at that level. The last two I've tried, I've won at the lower level, including one where my client admitted to drinking eight beers.

Yea, me too. I got the camera when I was doing dedicated DUI enforcement. Then all of the cars started getting them. Ours only record when the overhead lights are activated

You're really lucky to have a retarded judge.

I found it is easier to get an acquittal with the video. The cops just can't help themselves but jazz up their reports a little. Most of the time the jury is looking at the reports and the video and wondering if the cop is talking about the same person.

He can look at a video and tell if a guy is drunk or not. He clearly wasn't and he refused all the tests. There was no evidence.

Do you turn the camera on them for the ride to jail? I had a few clients where I thought they did pretty good on the field sobriety exercises, then they're so pissed off about being arrested, they go ape-[bleep] in the back seat and there's 20 minutes of the most god-awful cussing and swearing.

Not something you want the jury to see.

The regional differences are interesting to read. In my county, folks have to place a intoxilizer in their vehicles for 6 months on a first time conviction. 1 year restricted permit, ASAP and around 300-400 in fines and court costs. For the vets, fees are 5-10K but many of us get tagged by the new guys and upstarts taking them on for a grand or two. They then call us for advice and to ask how to issue a subpoena to the forensic lab.

Except for the admission to drinking eight beers. The testimony about the driving pattern, the odor of an alcoholic beverage, etc.

I do the cheap ones too, but they know what they are paying for up front. And if they want a trial, they are going to pay. Some people just can't have a DWI and they have to pay whatever it is they have to pay.

The police report will say that the subject failed the walk and turn by not placing heel to toe. Then you'll get the DVD and the guy did it perfectly as far as you can tell on the DVD but the cop will explain that he placed one his heels an inch and a half in front of his toe instead of putting it exactly on his toe. You can literally see the jury roll its eyes. Then he'll say that the guy failed the one legged stand and you get the DVD and see that the guy swayed and caught his balance a bit at 22 seconds but otherwise did not put his foot down and did fine.

The biggest thing is you pull out their book. The book they are taught how to do field sobriety tests at the State Police Academy. You pull that out and you go step by step through it and you show all the ways they deviated from the standard taught exactly in the book, and they almost all get some shortcuts. They are mostly inconsequential but the jury doesn't know that. So, you go step by step through the book and then you come to the end where it says that if any one of or part of the tests are performed improperly then all the results are invalid. You do that, and if your guy isn't falling down slobbering drunk, you'll win.

Eight beers over the course of a day does not mean he was intoxicated at the time of his arrest. And he was stopped for speeding, nothing else. Speeding is not a cue for a DWI, merely probable cause for a stop.

It was a good win, then. Only the close cases should go to trial.

So police union votes put Obama in office?

Seems to me there are about 500,000 +/- police in the U.S.A,so how did that happen?

Joe Bob:

What's the DL consequence for refusing chemical tests in your state? With no conviction.

Automatic suspension for 90 days. But, hey, that is better than a DWI and a suspension. And it is pretty toothless at that because you can get an intoxilyzer installed for about $165.

Sarcasm my friend, Sarcasm