|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 22,690
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 22,690 |
maybe so.
as for the field tests, my third party observation is that the cop has already made the decision to arrest you before the test.**
** there are a number of eateries in the historic 25th st district here with windows facing the street. On a Friday or Saturday night you can be just about guaranteed a front row seat (10-20 ft, max) of a DUI pullover. I've guessed wrong once as to whether the driver was getting arrested.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 61,130
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 61,130 |
Plead "not guilty", roll your dice, and have a chance.
Plead "guilty", and hope for the best.
Some folks are gamblers, arrogant, stupid, or advised to plead one way per other reasons.
Every case is different. Regardless of what TRH/Chris guesses....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,264
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,264 |
"required by law" I'd love to see any law which mandated a driver to perform field tests. There isn't of course. But most states will administratively suspend your license if you don't. There's no requirement in AL that you perform any FSTs. And you can't have your license suspened for refusing to. Well, that's good to know if I ever get drunk in Alabama. In the states where I practice, the administrative suspension is the same as it would be for a conviction of a DWI 1st. Heck, in Texas the DPS doesn't even care what the court does with the DWI. The court can dismiss the case but you still then have to have an administrative hearing where all they consider is if there was probable cause to make the stop and if "it was more likely than not" that the driver was intoxicated. You rarely win the hearing but occasionaly, you'll get one kicked when there wasn't PC or the cop refuses to show up. But, of course, now the burden is on the DEFENSE to subpoena the cop for those administrative hearings.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760 |
Same here, FL supposedly has the toughest DUI laws in the nation. I remember when I first moved it here is WAS NOT against the law to drink & drive, just DUI. Still not illegal to drink and drive (ie consume alcohol and then operate a motor vehicle), though open container within the vehicle usually is. You still have to be impaired, either actually, or by virtue of legal impairment due to your BAC level. The actual practice might be different, but that's the law. I know in a lot of place in AL, if you drink and drive you'll get a DUI, driving and BAC be damned...for the purposes of being arrested. In court, might be a different story though.
War Damn Eagle!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,320
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,320 |
All the questions have been about probable cause for a stop.
What if the vehicle was not moving, like sitting on the side of the road broken down and a cop drives up and you are drunk, have been drinking, or drinking at the time, but he didn't actually see you driving?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,471
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,471 |
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 I hear stuff like this all the time. Usually from cops that don't like their arrest questioned at all. They don't believe they should have to explain themselves. They talk about how the defense attorneys ask this, that, and the other. When you press these officers you find out they rarely lose a case based on that stuff, they just don't like being questioned about it. They made the arrest, it's good, so all these questions are BS, but since the lawyer is asking them, they must be "making hay" with them. Or it could be that your judges are liberal, I don't know. At any rate, a good DUI can be made off a stop that doesn't involve "observed impaired driving". Here the officers all believe that they can't admit to having a belief prior to contact that the driver is drunk, or the attorney will make it out like they decided to make the arrest before they ever performed any FSTs, or even talked to the driver. So they have to develope some benign "non-impaired driving violation" for PC. Once had a DUI I defended...had a suppression hearing...the stop had been made because the driver was "driving suspiciously slow" and "weaving" though the officer admitted she never left her lane of travel. Charge was DUI (combined influence alcohol/drugs with a .04 BAC and no blood test for drugs) and Reckless Driving . At the suppression hearing the officer admitted that he witnessed no citable violations of any kind before the stop, though he later charged her with Reckless Driving. I moved to suppress the stop, and the judge ruled against me stating that "I know that you defense attorneys want to get an officer to admit they thought the driver was drunk before they stopped them, and I'm not going to make this officer say that. I know why he stopped your client." The jury saw it more my way and I got a not guilty on the DUI, but I was forced to it because of one of these pre-conceived notions. Oh, even at trial the officer admitted that he witnessed no traffic violations prior to the stop, but the jury still found her guilty of Reckless Driving even though they found her not guilty of DUI. ROFLMFAO! I don't mind having to explain myself on DWI arrest. I pride myself in testiying and making the case. What I do hate is when I have good case on video and the attorney starts to argue bull chit stuff like my client has allergies. I look at DWI arrest as I win even if I lose. If I lose for what ever reason I will make sure I don't lose again because of that reason if I can help it. Look at the money I cost the drunk. The drunk had to get his car from impound, SR22, pay the reinstatement fee for his license, what ever the pc ticket is for and I helped some attorney fund a hunting trip somewhere..grin. Don't get me started on jury's. I had a teacher on video driving like a drunk person. Took the breathalyzer on video (bac was above %.150.) and the jury found them not gulity....WTF. Dink
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760 |
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 I hear stuff like this all the time. Usually from cops that don't like their arrest questioned at all. They don't believe they should have to explain themselves. They talk about how the defense attorneys ask this, that, and the other. When you press these officers you find out they rarely lose a case based on that stuff, they just don't like being questioned about it. They made the arrest, it's good, so all these questions are BS, but since the lawyer is asking them, they must be "making hay" with them. Or it could be that your judges are liberal, I don't know. At any rate, a good DUI can be made off a stop that doesn't involve "observed impaired driving". Here the officers all believe that they can't admit to having a belief prior to contact that the driver is drunk, or the attorney will make it out like they decided to make the arrest before they ever performed any FSTs, or even talked to the driver. So they have to develope some benign "non-impaired driving violation" for PC. Once had a DUI I defended...had a suppression hearing...the stop had been made because the driver was "driving suspiciously slow" and "weaving" though the officer admitted she never left her lane of travel. Charge was DUI (combined influence alcohol/drugs with a .04 BAC and no blood test for drugs) and Reckless Driving . At the suppression hearing the officer admitted that he witnessed no citable violations of any kind before the stop, though he later charged her with Reckless Driving. I moved to suppress the stop, and the judge ruled against me stating that "I know that you defense attorneys want to get an officer to admit they thought the driver was drunk before they stopped them, and I'm not going to make this officer say that. I know why he stopped your client." The jury saw it more my way and I got a not guilty on the DUI, but I was forced to it because of one of these pre-conceived notions. Oh, even at trial the officer admitted that he witnessed no traffic violations prior to the stop, but the jury still found her guilty of Reckless Driving even though they found her not guilty of DUI. ROFLMFAO! I don't mind having to explain myself on DWI arrest. I pride myself in testiying and making the case. What I do hate is when I have good case on video and the attorney starts to argue bull chit stuff like my client has allergies. I look at DWI arrest as I win even if I lose. If I lose for what ever reason I will make sure I don't lose again because of that reason if I can help it. Look at the money I cost the drunk. The drunk had to get his car from impound, SR22, pay the reinstatement fee for his license, what ever the pc ticket is for and I helped some attorney fund a hunting trip somewhere..grin. Don't get me started on jury's. I had a teacher on video driving like a drunk person. Took the breathalyzer on video (bac was above %.150.) and the jury found them not gulity....WTF. Dink Like your attitude on it. When the defense lawyer is playing the bullschit card, you often have a winner case, and they're just putting on a show for their client, though as you noted, juries are funny animals, and thus the reason for plea bargains...at least both sides know what they're getting. With a jury you never know.
War Damn Eagle!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760 |
All the questions have been about probable cause for a stop.
What if the vehicle was not moving, like sitting on the side of the road broken down and a cop drives up and you are drunk, have been drinking, or drinking at the time, but he didn't actually see you driving? You can possibly be charged with DUI. Is that the answer to your question?
War Damn Eagle!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,759
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,759 |
Just curious. As for the attorneys who are advocating refusing the tests, saying you can get them off on some small technicality, it can be "beat", etc.
Do you do this with a clear conscience, when you KNOW somebody actually was DUI, and endangering innocent people?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760 |
Just curious. As for the attorneys who are advocating refusing the tests, saying you can get them off on some small technicality, it can be "beat", etc.
Do you do this with a clear conscience, when you KNOW somebody actually was DUI, and endangering innocent people? ![[Linked Image]](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gzNJWKkf07Y/RwJbtCkVDrI/AAAAAAAAAIg/kDQU04RMu9w/s400/AwJeez,NotThisShitAgain!.jpg)
War Damn Eagle!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,759
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,759 |
Yes, this [bleep] again.
As attorneys like to say, a simple yes or no will suffice.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,264
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,264 |
Just curious. As for the attorneys who are advocating refusing the tests, saying you can get them off on some small technicality, it can be "beat", etc.
Do you do this with a clear conscience, when you KNOW somebody actually was DUI, and endangering innocent people? If the actual DWI laws had more to do with public safety than molifying an extremely vocal and demanding MADD lobby, I might have a twinge of conscience. The .08 limit adopted by all the states is artifically low. Most people who are .08 are not impaired in any substantial manner. And lots of confirmed alcoholics, can be twice that limit and not really be impaired. And like someone said, most people are smart enough to learn their lessons with their first brush with the law and having to pay a big fee to an attorney. So, you're not helping someone get away with anything or encouraging that behavior in the future as that for most people, once is enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043 |
Do you do this with a clear conscience, when you KNOW somebody actually was DUI, and endangering innocent people?
==================
Not only a clear conscience but a extra 3500 beaners in the coffer. Then I sleep like a baby after having beat the bad guy/gal sitting to the right of me at the bad man lawyer table!!
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.
William Arthur Ward
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043 |
Yes, this [bleep] again.
As attorneys like to say, a simple yes or no will suffice. ============== Have you ever paid a lawyer to represent you in a criminal or traffic matter??
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.
William Arthur Ward
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 73,096
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 73,096 |
I should have said that better, it was legal to drink WHILE driving, no open container law either. This is all long since changed of course.
George Orwell was a Prophet, not a novelist. Read 1984 and then look around you!
Old cat turd!
"Some men just need killing." ~ Clay Allison.
I am too old to fight but I can still pull a trigger. ~ Me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 73,096
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 73,096 |
Yes, this [bleep] again.
As attorneys like to say, a simple yes or no will suffice. ============== Have you ever paid a lawyer to represent you in a criminal or traffic matter?? I haven't! Never needed too either. 
George Orwell was a Prophet, not a novelist. Read 1984 and then look around you!
Old cat turd!
"Some men just need killing." ~ Clay Allison.
I am too old to fight but I can still pull a trigger. ~ Me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 61,130
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 61,130 |
All the questions have been about probable cause for a stop.
What if the vehicle was not moving, like sitting on the side of the road broken down and a cop drives up and you are drunk, have been drinking, or drinking at the time, but he didn't actually see you driving? Good question. In most (all?) Jurisdictions, the suspicion of driving the vehicle to that point under the influence is PC for a field sobriety test and/or breath-alizer. The vehicle didn't get itself there, and if it's yours, and you have the keys and means to operate, or to have operated it there in an intoxicated condition, then PC exists. Defensible in court, sometimes, but PC enough for the tests and arrest if over the BAC limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,264
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,264 |
Here is one that will blow your mind. Lots of people end up convicted of DWI for nothing more than being drunk WHEN TESTED. But it is only against the law to be drunk WHILE DRIVING.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043 |
Yes, this [bleep] again.
As attorneys like to say, a simple yes or no will suffice. ============== Have you ever paid a lawyer to represent you in a criminal or traffic matter?? I haven't! =============== Not you,silly man!! You'd always get the "Oh, it's the Lt....get your ass home"
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.
William Arthur Ward
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,759
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,759 |
Have you ever paid a lawyer to represent you in a criminal or traffic matter?? Never needed to. By not drinking and driving, I keep my 3500 beans for myself.
|
|
|
|
|
540 members (160user, 1234, 10Glocks, 1beaver_shooter, 1Akshooter, 01Foreman400, 58 invisible),
2,441
guests, and
1,188
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,457
Posts18,489,764
Members73,972
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
