Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Lawyer question - Why???

Why would someone plead not-guilty to a DUI. He failed a field sobriety test and blew a 0.143 at the police station. What kind of argument can the defense have in a case like this? Just seems a little wierd.



Story

No PC for the stop.

No PC for the arrest.

Defective or improperly maintained alka-sensor(breathalyzer) machines.

Generally the people responsible enough to own up to their actions aren't driving around while completely wasted.

Vs. a beaurocrat who probably piped off with, you know who I am, hickup?

AKBoater there are many reasons for this. Everything Isaac said and then about 1000 more reasons attorneys make up....grin.

From this stop I am betting they argue there was no impaired driving. Alot of DWI laws have the impaired driving written into them. This is the reason that you can be charged with DWI and blow under %.08.

Our DOR attorneys tell us to no longer stop for tail lights,head lights and license plate lamps being out because if the driver is drunk it will not fly in court.

Dink

???? Why not ????



Mike

Pretextual stop argument and concern!! Although a stretch, it's not worth losing the case. A drunk driver will [bleep] up somehow else along the way, giving a more solid and sustainable basis for the stop.

Simple answer is: You have a right to enter a plea of not guilty and make the state prove ALL the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and you have the right to test the admissibility of the evidence before it's presented to a jury.

Lots of misconeptions floating around about this or that. And may be you have a liberal judge there too, don't know. If it's a good stop, it's a good stop, if it's not, it's not.

if the dude blew a .143 on the machine.....he better hope they don't have video.

I've seen good DUI Defense attorneys beat higher readings in front of a jury. Hard to beat a video though.

actually i have seen one of these machines screw up.....but it was the other way around.....long story but it involves a bored county cop with a sense of humor and a bunch of us sitting on the deck of bar drinking long after everyone else disappeared bored aswell....anyways a buddy who had been drinking for 18 hours straight and was drinking a beer waiting for his turn blew perfectly sober which was funny as hell given he was swaying while being administered the breathalyzer....

as for failing a field sobriety my wifes balance is so [bleep] she cant pass one if she has had nothing to drink for 30 days before the test, she maintains if she ever gets pulled over she is insisting on a blood test...

280Rem its not about being a good stop or not. Its about if the driver was impaired. Try to prove the driver was impaired because he had a license plate lamp out.

Dink

DUI laws are written so that the officer doesn't have to prove he was impaired by witnessing "poor driving". You can offer proof of impairment via officer observation during the stop, FSTs, and BAC. In the case of an equipment violation stop, that's merely the PC for the stop, not proof of DUI. It can still be proved.

One trick I used to use at night was to approach from behind headlights off and then flip them on, they usually crossed the center line or dropped a wheel off the pavement. Worked more times than not for me.

Did I mention that I HATE DRUNK DRIVERS?

In Your neck of the woods that might startle a few stone sober bluehairs just as easily..

Yep, taillight is not proof of impairment but it's still PC for the stop (isaac's comment on pretextual stop notwithstanding). Once the driver is stopped the officer needs to articulate PC to move forward to FST, BAC, etc.

If you plead guilty then there's no reason for the state to cut a deal. They charged him with reckless endangerment here too. Some might see that as a little excessive, even if the underlying DUI charge is rock solid.

T LEE, do you tell the prosecutors and defense attorneys after you use that tactic?

I would doubt it.

My pretextual comment was in response as to why some jurisdictions instruct patrols to seek more when establishing PC for traffic stops. It's certainly a valid basis for a stop in all the jurisdictions I work in.

Just got one tossed recently for beads hanging from rear-view mirror being the admitted PC for this one particular stop.

Awe hell one of the old tricks was for the local LEO's to put a chalk mark on the sidewall of tires on the cars parked at local bars. As you drive by them (LEO's sittin in their car off the side of the road) at night the chalk flashes, they'll find SOME reason to stop you. So to help out a little we'd chalk the tires of cars.... at the 7-11 store down the street.

The taillight is pc for the stop.

In this state you will not make the DWI case for a tail light out if the drunk gets a attorney.

When the attorney starts to argue that his client slurs his words everyday, his eyes are blood shot because he was tired, and he told you he had two beers and that is the reason you could smell alcohol and blah blah blah. IT just goes on and on...

The attorney will argue that there was no reason to have his client perform field sobriety test because he was stopped for a non-moving violation and showed no impairment while driving.

The St.louis area has some of the best DWI attorneys in the united states and if I stop a vehicle for a tail ligh out I will not make that case.

DWI enforcement is what I do. I have arrested hundreds of DWI's and I know what I can make and what I can't. If I do stop a car with head light out and the drivers drunk sure I am going to try to make it but I am not supriesed when it won't fly.

Dink