Trip Report - DUI

[Insp. Clue!So?]

[quote

BTW... in CA the legal limit used to be .10%... then it was changed due to some heavy MADD petitioning. There was very little scientific evidence that the difference between 0.08 and 0.10 was the deal-breaker and/or the cause of more accidents / fatalities... but Pete Wilson needed some SIG's on his side and MADD was huge in CA for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

You're still an idiot for even drinking enough to approach the legal limit. There's no question you had at least some impairment, if not the massive amounts the MADD and forever-pro law-enforcement loons like to claim.

In any case I hope you take the advice about researching for a savvy local lawyer and pay him the [censored] he'll ask for. Lesson learned I hope.

[pergesu]

Trip reports are supposed to be about something cool. Driving drunk isn't cool.

[john voight]

broke the law = bs argument

so if law is .09, and he blows .09 he's fine?
This law is BS in general. (my opinion) However it is necessary unfortunately.

OP why are you going 85mph when you know you have drank 4 beers? If you go 70, you avoid this.

[testaaja]

I feel for you man. Must suck but I'd be sure that I'm in the legal limits of drunk driving before I start driving. [censored] like this is so [censored]. Btw the limit in Finland is 0.05 ..

[mbillie1]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel for you man. Must suck but I'd be sure that I'm in the legal limits of drunk driving before I start driving. [censored] like this is so [censored]. Btw the limit in Finland is 0.05 ..

[/ QUOTE ]

Are the roads in Finland as narrow and windy as they are in Norway? I was in Norway for a month and a half a few years ago and I found the roads to be absurdly narrow, 2 motorcycles could barely pass without one having to pull over... 1 beer there and you'd probably drive off a [censored] cliff or something

[Bicycles_Biatch]

-UPDATE-

Got a lawyer who is really aggressive and has been great about clearing up the legalities of a DUI, helping me filter out all the BS, and is moving forward to Trial.

Currently trial scheduled for August 6th (Jury trial) and I'm hoping I'm victorious... of course it's going to be difficult.

Basically, I wanted to clear up some BS that was in this thread and others I've read about DUI's. Mind you, this information is regarding CA law, but should be similar in most states.

1) First and foremost... it is NOT illegal to drink and drive. This is propaganda that is shoved down your throat by MADD and the state Highway patrol (the CHP, like the CA transit authority receives millions of dollars of Federal funding by lowering the legal limit from 0.10% to 0.08%- ironically, it has been scientifically proven that no additional driving imparity occurs between 0.08 and 0.10 BAC).

It is illegal to drive in an intoxicated state. Although this "intoxicated" state is most commonly referred to as 0.08% BAC or above... the tricky part about a DUI offense is that it's a 2 part charge.

a- Part one of any DUI charge is the OPINION of the officer. An officer can arrest you for being intoxicated or under the influence at any time by just using his judgment. Even if the officer can't prove your level of intoxication through a blood test; if you draw a really aggressive prosecutor, you can be charged with a DUI and found guilty EVEN if your BAC is below 0.08%. If the arresting officer is willing to testify that you were incapable of driving... your BAC level really doesn't matter. Of course, with a BAC below 0.08%, it's an easier case to fight, but there is no guarantee you won't be found guilty. This to me is the most ASSININE law I can imagine. Basically... if an officer of the law wants to charge you with a DUI... you're screwed. Just imagine if a cop could pull you over for being Old, or Asian, or a teenager and just make an on the spot judgment call about your inability to drive, then arrest you on the spot... it's an insane aspect of the DUI laws in America.

b- Part two of a DUI charge is blowing into the machine at the station and blowing over a 0.08% BAC or submitting to a blood test and testing over a 0.08% [I blew a 0.09%]. This official test is NOT the roadside test you take. Those road side meters are just a gauge and have been known to register way off the true mark. You should NEVER agree to take the field blow test. Take as many sobriety tests as you like, but if asked to blow into the machine on the side of the road, my lawyer said you should say the following: "am I legally required to blow into that machine". The officer should say no, at that point you will most likely be taken into custody and taken to a depot to blow into the real machine. However, this should give you more time for the alcohol to burn off. Most men burn off about 0.01% per hour if you are in average shape.

You should NEVER ask for a blood test unless you are ABSOLUTELY sure you are below a 0.08% (basically one drink or less). The blood test is the most accurate and is a nail in the coffin if you decide to fight the case.

The real biatch about getting a DUI is that if you go to trial, the state only has to prove 1 of the 2 charges for you to be found guilty and have DMV sanctions imposed. Furthermore, each part of the offense (a & b) charge you 2 points on your record.

A DUI is truly the only crime in America where you are guilty until proven innocent and I feel has a weird form of what I would consider double jeopardy (basically you can be cleared on one count but be found guilty of both due to the "other" count).

Separate from the criminal hearing, the DMV will schedule an administrative hearing PRIOR to your criminal hearing. Based on the information provided in the arrest report, the DMV can take action against your driving privileges immediately. Again, with a DUI you are TRULY guilty until proven innocent. The DMV could have suspended my license, but luckily they didn't and I was given a provisional. Because there were enough clerical errors in my arrest report -AND- my lawyer is fighting the case in Criminal Court, the DMV admin. officer agreed to with-hold any action until after my criminal case.

If I lose, I'm facing the following sentence which is know as a Min-Max... basically, since it's a first time offense and there was no mitigating circumstances (no accident, no damages, I wasn't double the legal limit, and my arrest went smoothly), the judge will most likely give me the minimum sentence under CA law:

$1,500.00 fine

40 (maybe 60) hour AA class

40 (maybe 60) hours of community sentence

2 years probation

Furthermore, from the DMV I will be facing some type of suspended or restricted license for 3-12 months, and about a 30% increase in my insurance premiums for the next 10 years.

I know it's horrible when someone who is so intoxicated they are unable to drive kills or injuries another motorist. I get it.

However, my ability to drive was not impaired... I usually drive fast and or speed and THAT is what I was originally pulled over for.

When it comes to a DUI you have NO rights as an American citizen. In many ways you are absolutely guilty until proven innocent. I hear read a lot of people on this forum talking about the patriot act and other forms of our deteriorating freedoms in America. Here is an issue that strikes MUCH closer than home than illegal ease-dropping. If you have EVER had one drink and gotten behind a wheel... you could VERY easily be in my spot. Your rights are totally violated once the issue of a DUI comes to the fore-front.

Take my warning to heart... I would HATE for anyone else to have to suffer through the annoyance and the cost that I have incurred.

After the trial I will outline for you the defense approach that we pursued and the testimony of my expert witness (which I had to retain at the cost of $1,000).

[daryn]

i'm sure your reaction time was down, can you admit that?

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
Just imagine if a cop could pull you over for being Old, then arrest you on the spot...

[/ QUOTE ]
I definitely support something like this.

Thanks for the update. Having a lawyer as an advocate is kinda LOL, because along with the states' pockets they're the biggest beneficiaries of tougher DUI laws. They'd be fine with prohibition if it meant more cases. But hey, they're on your side, they'll get you the best deal possible...

[Oranzith]

it is really pathetically hypocritical to see how pro-degenerate everyone is, then when a questionable DUI pops up, everyone turns in a self-righteous angel

very, very typical

[Bicycles_Biatch]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm sure your reaction time was down, can you admit that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know... possibly... I was on an empty free-way (rare for L.A.) and I didn't encounter any situations that tested my concentration.

However, per the arrest report, I passed all the physcial field sobriety tests. Including touching my nose, leaning backwards, and accurately counting backwards in my head from 30-0 to gauge 30 seconds of ellapsed time. Try doing this with NO drinks in your system... you'll get somewhere between 25-35 seconds... I got 28.