Trip Report - DUI

[MitchL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It sucks, but that is the system and most lay-citizens see suppression hearings as "getting off on a legal-technicality" and elected judges know this. They are hard to win. I would bet big money that you wont win.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the judis are involvedial system of our United States? Judges will dismiss and ignore our Constitutional rights because we got them on a "legal-technicality"? Hmmmm. What's the point then? Back to my post about our rights as American Citizens getting raped.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree, but thats the way it is. I am a 3rd yr law student and have interned for judges criminal defense attys etc. Unless you live in a very liberal jurisdiction you shouldnt expect much. If you dont even recognize the term reasonable suspicion than your attorney has not explained very much about the 4th amendment to you. Not bagging on him and I am a vehement defender of 4th amendment rights, but when elected judges and drunk driving are involved the 4th amendment will be abused in favor of public policy and public sentiment. Please explain what your atty thinks is the basis for a suppression hearing.

[RunDownHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
3-5 months ago, someone posted a link to a YouTube video about your rights when pulled over - Link - that will help you out with this kind of thing. I'm basically never going to agree to field sobriety tests.

[/ QUOTE ]
Watching it again, you can skip to about 14:30 and pick up what you need to know.

[CORed]

Before the federal .08 (it's one of those deals where states lose highway funding if they don't enact it), Colorado had a law very similar to what you advocate. 0.10 for "Driving under the Influence" with automatic license suspension, big fine, alcohol classes, etc. and 0.05 for "Driving While Ability impaired", which was usually just a fine and 8 points on the drivers license (12 in a year will get you suspended, speeding 1-10 is 3 points, speeding 10-20 is 4, as is running a red light or stop sign). I think the 0.05 is still DWAI, but now 0.08 is DUI. i think this is a reasonable approach. Unfortunately, MADD, and all the people who have bought into their propaganda, what to lock up anybody who has even one beer before driving, and throw away the key.

[John Spartan]

CORed,

MADD really sucks. They can't distinguish between the one-time drivers who made a mistake and if they get a reasonable punishment, will wise up and probably never do it again. Like the points scheme you advocate and maybe a fine to go along with it, not as huge as a DWI fine but still one that makes the difference. Like a few points on the license and a $700 fie isn't a bad idea, and making the .10-13. people get a harsher punishment(and even punishment if it's not their first time getting busted for DWAI/DUI/DWI), and for the people who are .14 and up, taking their license away for a year and punishing them even more severely(and again stronger punishment if it isn't their first time).

I am mad when I read in the paper about a guy who had 4 previous DWI convictions getting blasted at a bar or at home, and then going out and driving and hitting someone, killing them. His BAC was something ridiculous like .18 Some of these people still had valid drivers licenses. It's really pathetic how the system fails us.

There should definitely be jail time for a second DWI, and serious jailtime and at least a 5 year license recovation for the third(to start after the sentence ends). Then if these people get pulled over for a suspended license then take their license away for life. If they still drive then just put them back in jail again. Either way, just focus more on the hardcore drunk [censored] who cause a huge % of the alcohol-related fatalities.

[John Spartan]

I'll say something else too. I think the average driver with 4 drinks in him still has a better reaction time than your average 75-80 year old driver, a lot of whom still have driver's licenses and a lot of them are probably driving with a reaction time that equates to a .06 BAC.

Of course, most people that age are senile and whiny, and the group as a whole exerts a lot of political influence, which is why these people still have licenses. Most of them would fail a road test if they had to take one to renew their license.

[prana]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, but thats the way it is. I am a 3rd yr law student and have interned for judges criminal defense attys etc. Unless you live in a very liberal jurisdiction you shouldnt expect much. If you dont even recognize the term reasonable suspicion than your attorney has not explained very much about the 4th amendment to you. Not bagging on him and I am a vehement defender of 4th amendment rights, but when elected judges and drunk driving are involved the 4th amendment will be abused in favor of public policy and public sentiment. Please explain what your atty thinks is the basis for a suppression hearing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Um, they think it is an illegal stop. BTW My best friends sister was a prosecutor for the city of Fargo and now is a partner in a firm. She doesn't do criminal law but thinks it is very questionable stop too. She recommended the lawyer I hired saying he was the best defense attorney she ever faced while prosecuting and if the same thing happened to her, she would hire him instantly. My Environmental Law of Business teacher said to definitely fight it with a motion to suppress too.

How about you tell me how pulling into a closed gas station and, without even stopping, turning around and leaving the way I was initially headed makes me a suspicious vehicle worthy to be pulled over and how this is at all Constitutionally correct.

Today I pulled into Office Depot and then decided I didn't want to deal with it and left. I gave a buddy a ride to the DMV to renew his tabs and they were closed so we turned right around in the parking lot and left. We need backup!!

If this is the way police treat middle class white people the upper midwest, I'd really hate to see the pillaging of the rights of minorities in large cities. No wonder most are scared and hateful of the authorities.

[prana]

Found this on reasonable suspicion:

[ QUOTE ]
Certain seizures are justifiable under the Fourth Amendment if there is reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

What crime can they suspect legitimately that i had committed or was about to commit and by what specific and articulable facts do they come up with this reasoning?

[MitchL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, but thats the way it is. I am a 3rd yr law student and have interned for judges criminal defense attys etc. Unless you live in a very liberal jurisdiction you shouldnt expect much. If you dont even recognize the term reasonable suspicion than your attorney has not explained very much about the 4th amendment to you. Not bagging on him and I am a vehement defender of 4th amendment rights, but when elected judges and drunk driving are involved the 4th amendment will be abused in favor of public policy and public sentiment. Please explain what your atty thinks is the basis for a suppression hearing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Um, they think it is an illegal stop. BTW My best friends sister was a prosecutor for the city of Fargo and now is a partner in a firm. She doesn't do criminal law but thinks it is very questionable stop too. She recommended the lawyer I hired saying he was the best defense attorney she ever faced while prosecuting and if the same thing happened to her, she would hire him instantly. My Environmental Law of Business teacher said to definitely fight it with a motion to suppress too.

How about you tell me how pulling into a closed gas station and, without even stopping, turning around and leaving the way I was initially headed makes me a suspicious vehicle worthy to be pulled over and how this is at all Constitutionally correct.

Today I pulled into Office Depot and then decided I didn't want to deal with it and left. I gave a buddy a ride to the DMV to renew his tabs and they were closed so we turned right around in the parking lot and left. We need backup!!

If this is the way police treat middle class white people the upper midwest, I'd really hate to see the pillaging of the rights of minorities in large cities. No wonder most are scared and hateful of the authorities.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct that your stop is constitutionally suspect and hell you may get off on appeal, but trust me district court judges in small towns do not care about the 4th amendment and the US Supreme Court barely does. The police the prosecutor and thejudge need only find some miniscule reason to make the stop reasonable and I will give it to you. Late night in the sticks stopping at random covenience stores. The officer will testify that in his experience it looked like you were casing the joints for a robbery. He only stopped you to find out what you were up to and plan to let you go but then smelled alcohol on your breath. That not good enough? How about a 1st tier stop, which is always constitutional. Its called a friendly police encounter. E.g.
A cop sees you on the street and detains for a second (not forceful) to ask if you have seen a robbery suspect in the area. In your case the cop will say that you were somewhat suspicious, but it looked like you were lost so he stopped you to find out where you were going and to help you find your way and when he did he smelled booze on your breath. See how easy it is to make something reasonable? Not saying its right. Dont think it is, but that is the state of the 4th amendment today. We have the war on drugs and terrorism to thank for it. The 4th amendment is pretty much non-existent these days. DOnt believe me? Go to the airport and get searched at random with no probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Its riddled with exceptions and basically a joke. The only part that is remotely respected is the Warrant Clause as it pertains to searches of homes and even that has taken a beating lately. If you have an escrow you could line up I am willing to bet money that your motion is denied just on the facts you have given. Also, I go to law school an MN and am pretty familiar w/ the stop jurisprudence in this state, which was taught to me by a former Anoka district court judge.

[tuq]

prana,

They can pull anything out of their ass, you should know this by now. You were "weaving", "driving erratically", "driving suspiciously" (e.g. casing the joint that you pulled into). It doesn't matter whether you were or not, it's your word against theirs, and good luck winning that battle.

[Bicycles_Biatch]

[ QUOTE ]
I say it just about every time this type of thread comes up, but MADD has morphed from one person's grief and the motivation to do some good into a group of vicious, lying neo-prohibitionists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree... we, as Americans (and mind you I'm one hell of a red-stater)... have given up way to much to our government.