When will the MADDness end?

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: alkemyst
to add to this...the law is the law and it states you merely have to have intention to drive. That intention has been legally determined to be a 50 yard radius around the vehicle more or less.

Interesting. If that is true, then you were properly arrested, as was everyone in your 'class'. If you don't like it, write your congressman.

MotionMan

thank you troll. It is true though, but only a mental midget would come into a thread all pumped up and not know anything what they are talking about.

go you!

I guess I forgot to mention that I am a lawyer? No matter, since you apparently have much more hands on experience with the criminal system than I.

MotionMan, Esq.

wow a lawyer...in what practice. That's like saying 'hey I am a pediatrician...brain surgery is not a problem'.

If you truly were a lawyer, you would know about the dui/dwi laws and why they are fundamentally flawed.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: alkemyst
to add to this...the law is the law and it states you merely have to have intention to drive. That intention has been legally determined to be a 50 yard radius around the vehicle more or less.

Interesting. If that is true, then you were properly arrested, as was everyone in your 'class'. If you don't like it, write your congressman.

MotionMan

thank you troll. It is true though, but only a mental midget would come into a thread all pumped up and not know anything what they are talking about.

go you!

I guess I forgot to mention that I am a lawyer? No matter, since you apparently have much more hands on experience with the criminal system than I.

MotionMan, Esq.

wow a lawyer...in what practice. That's like saying 'hey I am a pediatrician...brain surgery is not a problem'.

I am in a general practice. Yes, I know a bit about the criminal system, including DUI issues.

If you truly were a lawyer, you would know about the dui/dwi laws and why they are fundamentally flawed.

Well, I am a lawyer, but is would LOVE to hear your explanation as to how DUI laws are "fundamentally flawed".

Do you have a link to a news story or attorney website reagrding your 'class'?

MotionMan

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: alkemyst
also the way the law works...you can be arrested for any breath test...you can be arrested just sleeping in your car, in your driveway washing it and just coming to it to get something out of it.

Please provide cites to proof (not anecdotal evidence) of these claims.

MotionMan

He's right about that. If you're in the car while you're drunk, the police can say that you had the intent to drive.

And if you were a lawyer, wouldn't you know this stuff?


If he was at a party, drinking heavily, and he goes into the glove box of his car to get a CD or something, the police can throw him in jail for drunk driving, even though he wasn't driving at all. They'd use purely circumstantial evidence on top of conjecture and they'd say that since this law says this, and this law says this, he has intent to drive and is therefore drunk driving.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: alkemyst
also the way the law works...you can be arrested for any breath test...you can be arrested just sleeping in your car, in your driveway washing it and just coming to it to get something out of it.

Please provide cites to proof (not anecdotal evidence) of these claims.

MotionMan

He's right about that. If you're in the car while you're drunk, the police can say that you had the intent to drive.

Please provide cites to proof (not anecdotal evidence) of these claims.

MotionMan

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: alkemyst
also the way the law works...you can be arrested for any breath test...you can be arrested just sleeping in your car, in your driveway washing it and just coming to it to get something out of it.

Please provide cites to proof (not anecdotal evidence) of these claims.

MotionMan

He's right about that. If you're in the car while you're drunk, the police can say that you had the intent to drive.

Please provide cites to proof (not anecdotal evidence) of these claims.

MotionMan

This is true, and if you're a lawyer, wouldn't you already know the answer?

http://www.duiblog.com/2004/11/12

State v. Lawrence (849 S.W.2d 761)

 

[her209]

I wonder what the statistics are for fatal accidents caused by drunk drivers compared to sleepy drivers.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: alkemyst
also the way the law works...you can be arrested for any breath test...you can be arrested just sleeping in your car, in your driveway washing it and just coming to it to get something out of it.

Please provide cites to proof (not anecdotal evidence) of these claims.

MotionMan

I have been arrested for dui in my own driveway. I somehow blew an insane .168 after a few beers. Fact is breath tests are highly inaccurate in both determining what your real BAL is and BAL doesn't determine how affected you really are.

There were people in my 'class' that were arrested just sleeping in the car. One in New York had his 5 figure car impounded while washing it drunk because his keys were on the driveway.

If you want my arrest sheet you can go bend yourself over and f yourself.

I agree the laws need to be fixed. I have heard stories such as yours. Heck a friend of mine got a DUI when he was getting stuff out of his truck. He was grilling up some steaks and was had a beer (on a table near the truck). a cop drove by and seen him doing it.

not sure what pnishment he got if any though.

but also the punishment needs to also. right now a person gets a $4k fine (or so) and they lose the DL for a few months. but they can get a work permit.



also remember a story where cops were busting people IN the bar for dui.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: her209
I wonder what the statistics are for fatal accidents caused by drunk drivers compared to sleepy drivers.

and ones who are doing other things such as eating, messing with the radio, makup and cell phones.


but thats not saying i think DD is fine. I would like to see more severe punishment for DD or driving while on drugs or lack of sleep.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: her209
I wonder what the statistics are for fatal accidents caused by drunk drivers compared to sleepy drivers.

Good luck figuring it out since they screw with the drunk driving statistics enough to make them worthless.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration defines a fatal traffic crash as being alcohol-related if either the driver or a non-occupant (e.g., pedestrian) has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater in a police-reported traffic crash.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: alkemyst
also the way the law works...you can be arrested for any breath test...you can be arrested just sleeping in your car, in your driveway washing it and just coming to it to get something out of it.

Please provide cites to proof (not anecdotal evidence) of these claims.

MotionMan

He's right about that. If you're in the car while you're drunk, the police can say that you had the intent to drive.

Please provide cites to proof (not anecdotal evidence) of these claims.

MotionMan

This is true, and if you're a lawyer, wouldn't you already know the answer?

http://www.duiblog.com/2004/11/12

State v. Lawrence (849 S.W.2d 761)

Yeah, I knew the answer. It is about time someone who was arguing a point actually backed it up with facts rather than personal attacks!

BTW, in California, the person has to be in the drivers seat and the vehicle must move based on the voluntary action of the driver to get busted for DUI/DWI.

For example:

For purposes of drunk driving statute, phrase "to drive a vehicle" is understood as requiring evidence of volitional movement of a vehicle. Draeger v. Reed (App. 3 Dist. 1999) 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 378, 69 Cal.App.4th 1511, review denied.

"Driving," for purposes of misdemeanor "drunk driving," means any volitional movement of vehicle. People v. Lively (App. 6 Dist. 1992) 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 368, 10 Cal.App.4th 1364, review denied.

Police officer may not make "lawful arrest" for "drunk driving" if arrestee's vehicle is lawfully parked and officer has not observed vehicle move. Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1991) 280 Cal.Rptr. 745, 53 Cal.3d 753, 809 P.2d 404.

You people live in messed up states.

MotionMan

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Well, I am a lawyer, but is would LOVE to hear your explanation as to how DUI laws are "fundamentally flawed".

Do you have a link to a news story or attorney website reagrding your 'class'?

MotionMan

1) the 'class' (don't know why you keep quoting it) are actually several classes that one must sit through once arrested. You don't even have to be found guilty at that point.

2) it's flawed because I can easily carry a gun past several people daily. I am not arrested for attempted murder because I have the possibily to shoot someone. With DUI, technically you can be arrested as long as you have intent.

Intent is a huge gray area...it's totally subjective. A large group of those arrested are either just sitting in or sleeping in their cars. You can also be just sitting on the car. There was one guy (a New York attorney) in one of my classes that was arrested washing his car in front of his own home. His car was impounded even though he was not driving it because the keys were on his driveway.

3) it's flawed further because you are technically guilty from the start, should you want to contest the charge you cannot drive AT ALL until you court date and resolution of the case.

Here in Florida, I was looking at about 8 months until I'd have my first possibility of a court date. For DUI, often you have a second case later for the sentence. This could be another 8 months where you can't drive.

Also you must have expert witnesses should you wish to dispute anything. Self-testimony and defense are limited. Even if you are an expert witness yourself. Your witnesses need to be present at each court date. You have to pay these people and put them up in lodging, cover their travel time.

4) The defense of it is mostly designed against the lower class and possibly even lower middle class. These groups both are greatly affected by not being able to drive (there is a 3 month minimum you can't drive here and then you can get a work permit unless you are contesting the case). Most cannot just buy their way out like I did. You are allowed to buy out your required community service time.

All in all I was out of pocket about $6000.

5) Fieldside soberiety tests are merely there to add evidence. Not to determine sobriety. Almost everyone looks drunk taking these tests. There was a video I was shown that you had to guess who had drank, who was legally drunk and who was not under the influence of anything. No one was even close to 25% right.

6) Regardless if you 'pass' your breath test at the station. You have a required 8 hour observation they hold you for. Even if they decide to let you go then...you are required to go get your own car and pay 'DUI towing rates'. My car was towed about 1/4-1/2 mile, they got a flat 3 mile at about $125 or something a mile, plus an insane hookup fee.

for evidence of any of these checking out the county DUI sections of their website which as an attorney you should be familar.

Å

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: her209
I wonder what the statistics are for fatal accidents caused by drunk drivers compared to sleepy drivers.

Good luck figuring it out since they screw with the drunk driving statistics enough to make them worthless.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration defines a fatal traffic crash as being alcohol-related if either the driver or a non-occupant (e.g., pedestrian) has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater in a police-reported traffic crash.

The messed up part is (there is a post I have with evidence to this, I don't have time to hunt down the .gov site now) if you take all the accidents where alcohol was involved...most were single vehicle accidents and no one was injured. Out of the next highest group only the driver was injured.

There were very few fatalies compared to all traffic fatalities and those that did involve deaths, it was usually the driver contrary to the popular belief that drunks always walk away from their accidents.

Most of these facts and experiences no one sees or hears about unless they have been through it.

I blew a 0.168 after 4 beers in about 4 hours, I was 175lbs at the time I drink regularly. I failed the breath test due to having had busted open my lower lip earlier that day. The breath test is designed to read blood in your breath (from a scientific standpoint this is an insane and inaccurate way to measure and hence they say you should always insist on a blood test). I failed due to the machine reading way more blood and thus alcohol that it should.

The way I was arrested I think was more of my soon to be ex just being a bish. She knew the cop and he was waiting at our driveway. I don't think they intended for me to fail the breath test, but his partner insisted they take me downtown to verify.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Well, I am a lawyer, but is would LOVE to hear your explanation as to how DUI laws are "fundamentally flawed".

Do you have a link to a news story or attorney website reagrding your 'class'?

MotionMan

1) the 'class' (don't know why you keep quoting it) are actually several classes that one must sit through once arrested. You don't even have to be found guilty at that point.

I put it in quotes because you did:

Originally posted by: alkemyst
There were people in my 'class' that were arrested just sleeping in the car. One in New York had his 5 figure car impounded while washing it drunk because his keys were on the driveway.

[/quote]

I assumed you meant a 'class' as in a 'class action'. I misunderstood.

2) it's flawed because I can easily carry a gun past several people daily. I am not arrested for attempted murder because I have the possibily to shoot someone. With DUI, technically you can be arrested as long as you have intent.

Intent is a huge gray area...it's totally subjective. A large group of those arrested are either just sitting in or sleeping in their cars. You can also be just sitting on the car. There was one guy (a New York attorney) in one of my classes that was arrested washing his car in front of his own home. His car was impounded even though he was not driving it because the keys were on his driveway.

Like I said, you are in a messed up state. That should not happen in California.

3) it's flawed further because you are technically guilty from the start, should you want to contest the charge you cannot drive AT ALL until you court date and resolution of the case.

Here in Florida, I was looking at about 8 months until I'd have my first possibility of a court date. For DUI, often you have a second case later for the sentence. This could be another 8 months where you can't drive.

Also you must have expert witnesses should you wish to dispute anything. Self-testimony and defense are limited. Even if you are an expert witness yourself. Your witnesses need to be present at each court date. You have to pay these people and put them up in lodging, cover their travel time.

4) The defense of it is mostly designed against the lower class and possibly even lower middle class. These groups both are greatly affected by not being able to drive (there is a 3 month minimum you can't drive here and then you can get a work permit unless you are contesting the case). Most cannot just buy their way out like I did. You are allowed to buy out your required community service time.

All in all I was out of pocket about $6000.

Yeah, your state IS messed up. I guess people should not drink near their cars until you can get the laws changed.

5) Fieldside soberiety tests are merely there to add evidence. Not to determine sobriety. Almost everyone looks drunk taking these tests. There was a video I was shown that you had to guess who had drank, who was legally drunk and who was not under the influence of anything. No one was even close to 25% right.

You mean of the people in your 'class'? Not the best sample to use as an example.

6) Regardless if you 'pass' your breath test at the station. You have a required 8 hour observation they hold you for. Even if they decide to let you go then...you are required to go get your own car and pay 'DUI towing rates'. My car was towed about 1/4-1/2 mile, they got a flat 3 mile at about $125 or something a mile, plus an insane hookup fee.

The whole towing business is a rip off.

for evidence of any of these checking out the county DUI sections of their website which as an attorney you should be familar.

Å

LOL - Still doubting that I am an attorney?

Sounds like you need to not drink near your car, get the laws changed or move to a state with better DUI laws.

Bummer for you.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
The way I was arrested I think was more of my soon to be ex just being a bish. She knew the cop and he was waiting at our driveway. I don't think they intended for me to fail the breath test, but his partner insisted they take me downtown to verify.

That is an interesting and important piece of information that would have made a big difference in our discussion if disclosed at the beginning rather than at the end.

Crooked cops can finds to make your life miserable. I know THAT firsthand.

MotionMan

 

[alkemyst]

the video was not shown in my class. This was through an attorney I was going to hire for defense. He basically laid it out on the table and said based on my income and my reserves, plus the fact that I am not a commercial driver, nor have intention to ever become one to just pay it out and don't get another one for at least 5 years or if ever.

Even the best defense has a high hit or miss ratio depending on what the perception of the court is.

There were actually a few members I have met during all this that came from states other than Florida and the laws were similar there as well. We don't have impounding in Florida, but New York did. That attorney moved here because of it.

In one of the classes you had to write on a board how much your DUI had cost you so far. On the far left they had the 'basic' fines and fees it should cost...most everyone was in for at least twice those, plus a couple lost their jobs from not being able to get there (we have terrible public transportation and those making even double minimum wage are hardpressed to be able to afford a cab everyday).

That New York attorney was fighting his...he had a driver that brought him to class each day and just waited for him. His fees were $200k+ at that time....$50k of it was the vehicle they impounded which was new and he bought free and clear. A lot of the cost he had was travel to gain support to change the laws.

The scary and not so scary statistic is that many people driving something like 11pm from Thursday to about 4am Sunday morning would fail the breath test; yet you don't have this utter chaos on the roadways one would think based on MADD/SADD stories.

DUI laws almost everywhere are pretty serious. The first arrest is the lightest of them all, those in the system know it's like those having sex with protection...you are always going to have a few unlucky people. Once is on them, twice or more is all the person's fault. You get a 2nd or 3rd conviction in the time frame they give you and you do not pass go and do not collect a work permit. It's very serious on those.

 

[DougK62]

"Costed him over $6,000"

LOL

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

That is an interesting and important piece of information that would have made a big difference in our discussion if disclosed at the beginning rather than at the end.

Crooked cops can finds to make your life miserable. I know THAT firsthand.

MotionMan

I have told this story quite a few times here already. It was like 5 years ago or so...

I don't think the cop was crooked, I just don't think he thought his partner would want me taken downtown...then I don't think he thought I would fail the test. In the car he said I should be ok once I got there that I had nothing to worry about. He didn't know why his partner wanted to pull me and have my car towed. He mentioned they have to have it towed even if it was inside a garage at the time once you are taken into custody.

Made no difference how I failed the test at that point.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: PinmasterJay

Originally posted by: pulse8
What's the legal limit there? I thought most places were .08 and if that's the case, he should sue his lawyer for malpractice.

It is .08, no where is it under that...

Link

Yoou mean, Nowhere is it OVER that.
.08% Nationwide.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: PinmasterJay

Originally posted by: pulse8
What's the legal limit there? I thought most places were .08 and if that's the case, he should sue his lawyer for malpractice.

It is .08, no where is it under that...

Link

Yoou mean, Nowhere is it OVER that.
.08% Nationwide.

doesn't work that way though. Subjectively the officer could still feel you are too impaired to drive even if you blow a 0%.

Beating a breath/blood test though is hard. Most feel the test is 100% accurate and only those that have failed it feel the need to contest it.

 

[The Mailman]

Originally posted by: cubalis

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: cubalis
Drinking + Driving = breaking a law. There should not be any grey areas, and this guy got what was coming to him. No need to try to convince you of anything.

Shut up, and stop being an idiot.

Some people have no sense, and only see things in black and white terms. I guess if you break any law, you deserve any penalty they can think of.

On top of that, as others have pointed out, it turns out that he didn't break a law, since .07 is less than .08.

A friends wife was paralyzed because of the .06 level of the driver who jumped a sidewalk about 5 years ago. To me, their should be no tolerence for operating a 1000lb+ machine after any drinks/drugs that are proven to be impairing have been taken.

To each their own, and I am not a black/white, all/none kind of guy at all. Breathalizers are not perfect measurements, and some people like to sound better (by telling their friends they were .01 'under' but still got a ticket...), but still - I have no tolerance for impaired driving.

And no, I won't 'shut up and stop being an idiot'

cheers

agreed completely.


side note: who else is fed up with guys who smoke weed and say "its okay to smoke and drive, you're more alert"

what a crock of ******

i smoke all the time and lots of the time i can barely walk without hitting walls, nevermind drive without hitting cars

intoxication is intoxication

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: The Mailman
intoxication is intoxication

Unfortunately it is not.

Some can perform very well at .10...others get screwed up at below .08.

It's a terrible system. Also just because someone was under the influence during an accident doesn't necessarily mean it caused it.

.08 is hardly intoxicated in my opinion. For most this is having about two drinks. Pretty stupid.

No one thinks twice about using a cell phone and driving, yet I am willing to bet statistically there are more accidents because of that.

 

[The Mailman]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: The Mailman
intoxication is intoxication

Unfortunately it is not.

Some can perform very well at .10...others get screwed up at below .08.

It's a terrible system. Also just because someone was under the influence during an accident doesn't necessarily mean it caused it.

.08 is hardly intoxicated in my opinion. For most this is having about two drinks. Pretty stupid.

No one thinks twice about using a cell phone and driving, yet I am willing to bet statistically there are more accidents because of that.

impairment, regardless of degree, is still impairment. i dont care if someone is driving plastered at 0.07 and another is driving buzzed at 0.10; alchohol is still in the system causing a degree of impairment to the persons driving and that puts others at risk

the law says dont drive intoxicated. is it so hard to just abide by it?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: The Mailman

impairment, regardless of degree, is still impairment. i dont care if someone is driving plastered at 0.07 and another is driving buzzed at 0.10; alchohol is still in the system causing a degree of impairment to the persons driving and that puts others at risk

the law says dont drive intoxicated. is it so hard to just abide by it?

let's troll troll troll some more.

If you are a pinheaded pencil neck that has no life then sure. Don't speed. Don't drink. Don't practice sex that is illegal in your state, etc. Just stop by starbucks, do your 9-5, and watch whatever sitcom/drama of the week is popular...get to bed by 10pm, rinse and repeat.

there are a lot of stupid laws and I feel the limits they have placed on DUI/DWI are too conservative.

Alcohol is a easily measured item...however lack of sleep, attention, skillset, etc are not.

I feel personally that these contribute much much more.

However, the fun police > all in the states.

I won't even get into gun control which is another fvk'd up item we deal with.

Å

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: The Mailman

impairment, regardless of degree, is still impairment. i dont care if someone is driving plastered at 0.07 and another is driving buzzed at 0.10; alchohol is still in the system causing a degree of impairment to the persons driving and that puts others at risk

the law says dont drive intoxicated. is it so hard to just abide by it?

let's troll troll troll some more.

If you are a pinheaded pencil neck that has no life then sure. Don't speed. Don't drink. Don't practice sex that is illegal in your state, etc. Just stop by starbucks, do your 9-5, and watch whatever sitcom/drama of the week is popular...get to bed by 10pm, rinse and repeat.

there are a lot of stupid laws and I feel the limits they have placed on DUI/DWI are too conservative.

Alcohol is a easily measured item...however lack of sleep, attention, skillset, etc are not.

I feel personally that these contribute much much more.

However, the fun police > all in the states.

I won't even get into gun control which is another fvk'd up item we deal with.

Å

It is fine to think that laws are stupid. It is somewhat accepted to break certain laws, as long as they don't endanger other people. There is also the act of doing something illegal and not getting caught. These all exist in our world.

But, what I do not get, is when people knowingly break the law (not alkemyst's situation) and get caught, that they somehow feel singled out! If you cannot do the time, do not do the crime. Oh yeah, and write your congressman if you want the law changed.

MotionMan

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

It is fine to think that laws are stupid. It is somewhat accepted to break certain laws, as long as they don't endanger other people. There is also the act of doing something illegal and not getting caught. These all exist in our world.

But, what I do not get, is when people knowingly break the law (not alkemyst's situation) and get caught, that they somehow feel singled out! If you cannot do the time, do not do the crime. Oh yeah, and write your congressman if you want the law changed.

MotionMan

I can really agree here. Even in my own situation...a cop can be subjective and the laws are written.

Can't complain I was arrested, although I am active to change this.