Broken Down Car...Slept it off the night before...but still DUI????

[mellofello1]

Since you've never been in trouble before, you should get a good plea bargain. If you go to trial, I would avoid bringing up alot of stuff about how many beers you had, how long it had been, etc... The cop will say he detected a "strong odor of alcohol" and that you had "bloodshot eyes". They always do, whether it's true or not. I don't think bringing in information about your party the night before is going to help you win. Also, I'm a little confused about your charge, in my state a DUI is either driving or being in physical control of a vehicle while under the influence. But it is still a DUI either way. If your vehicle was inoperable I think the only way they could get you would be by your own admission to have driven there. Also, speaking from past experience, if you had drank 15 beers the night before and slept in your car, you were probably not a pretty sight when the cop got there, and I am sure he will bring this up at the trial, so be prepared for that. While all the things you bring up may be good points, I think the way for you to win this thing is to figure out which point is the strongest and stick to that at the trial. If you bring up 10 different things you are giving the prosecutor 10 things to argue about. If you stick to your main argument and win then you won. But if you are paying a lawyer I guess you should take his advice, not mine. Good luck

 

[CdwJava]

Regarding my memory. I think you can even identify that i was not at a .3 or anywhere near that. I know that i wasnt woblely, i know that i didnt fall....IF i was impaired , it wasnt to that level.

The point here being that what you think may have been "passing" may not have been quite so "passing". Obviously, I have no idea. It's just a caveat.


- Carl

 

[fvurakki]

I know these arent exact. But based off info of me consuming 16 beers, 200 lbs, 4.1% beer which is bud light, 17 hours in between first beer and breathalyzer....Here are what various calculators say:

http://javascript.internet.com/calculators/bac.html

BAC: .04

http://www.intox.com/wheel/drinkwheel.asp

BAC: 0.0

http://www.rupissed.com/

BAC: 0.09


http://www.arizona-dui-defense.com/BAC-Calculator.htm

BAC: 0.0

http://www.icgov.org/police/bac.htm?Submit=I+understand+what+I+have+read.+Take+me+to+the+calculator!

BAC: .04

http://www.onlineconversion.com/bac.htm

BAC: .04

http://www.1800duilaws.com/forms/bac.asp

BAC: .041999




I agree in the statements made that these are only useful to an extent. This is why i did a survey though. Not one put me over .1, and most put me SIGNIFICANTLY lower...but, its neither here nor there...I just found it to be an interesting study after hearing some pretty high numbers from you guys

 

[fvurakki]

The point here being that what you think may have been "passing" may not have been quite so "passing". Obviously, I have no idea. It's just a caveat.


- Carl

yes, i'm not trying to argue with you whether i passed or not. I dont have the training to know that. And its somewhat subjective anyways...But what i was trying to say is that I didnt have balance issues, didnt wobble, no arm movements trying to keep balance....Short of falling over though i think those tests are kinda dumb...you could get 10 people who had been sitting in a car for the last 45 minutes...have them stand on 1 leg and 1 or 2 would have to put there foot down, 4-5 would move arms around and a couple would be flawless....i was flawless in those departments...other parts of the test maybe not...and the eyes i guess were not exactly stellar

 

[mellofello1]

17 hours ?? I thought you quit drinking about 1 a.m. and were approached by the officer about 6:30 a.m. ?? And if your car was inoperable, and they can't prove you drove it there, why admit to drinking anything ??

 

[fvurakki]

Since you've never been in trouble before, you should get a good plea bargain. If you go to trial, I would avoid bringing up alot of stuff about how many beers you had, how long it had been, etc... The cop will say he detected a "strong odor of alcohol" and that you had "bloodshot eyes". They always do, whether it's true or not. I don't think bringing in information about your party the night before is going to help you win. Also, I'm a little confused about your charge, in my state a DUI is either driving or being in physical control of a vehicle while under the influence. But it is still a DUI either way. If your vehicle was inoperable I think the only way they could get you would be by your own admission to have driven there. Also, speaking from past experience, if you had drank 15 beers the night before and slept in your car, you were probably not a pretty sight when the cop got there, and I am sure he will bring this up at the trial, so be prepared for that. While all the things you bring up may be good points, I think the way for you to win this thing is to figure out which point is the strongest and stick to that at the trial. If you bring up 10 different things you are giving the prosecutor 10 things to argue about. If you stick to your main argument and win then you won. But if you are paying a lawyer I guess you should take his advice, not mine. Good luck

The charge is physical control. We now have paper work saying the car was not driveable. This may help and I was trying to ask around to see if anyone knew if it would. I have never made any mention about drinking at all to a police officer and I dont plan on bringing that up. They know that i was at an apartment earlier, and ended up there....so it was pretty much assumed i drove there, i was never directly asked however.

I agree about staying focused with this case. Our main points are that there is no bac and that the officer never told me the field test was optional. So that will be attempted to be thrown out in pre-trial most likely. A culmination of events may be brought together as well for pre-trial about the officer's procedure to discredit his potential testimony i imagine. I guess i'll know more when we get his records...

But thats pretty much it. I am innocent until proven guilty and its up to them to prove my guilt...not for me to prove my innocence

 

[fvurakki]

17 hours ?? I thought you quit drinking about 1 a.m. and were approached by the officer about 6:30 a.m. ?? And if your car was inoperable, and they can't prove you drove it there, why admit to drinking anything ??

Sorry, roughly 17 hours between them attempting to give me breathalyzer and when i started drinking the day before. Most my drinking was done from 3:30pm- 6:30 pm while i watched a sporting event. The police arrived at 7am approx, so thats 15.5 hrs there...

I am being open here...but in regards to my case I have never made any comment about drinking. I have claimed no drinking from the start and that hasnt changed.

 

[CdwJava]

Short of falling over though i think those tests are kinda dumb...you could get 10 people who had been sitting in a car for the last 45 minutes...have them stand on 1 leg and 1 or 2 would have to put there foot down, 4-5 would move arms around and a couple would be flawless....i was flawless in those departments...other parts of the test maybe not...and the eyes i guess were not exactly stellar

There is a wealth of technical data to support the battery of tests and the conclusions. They are most accurate when taken as a battery and not as one or twotests, but they do provide the information necessary to establish probable cause.

In my state the answer would have been simply resolved - we woul dhave taken blood.

As for the calculators, they tend to make presumptions that I have personally found to be optimistic. The assumptions they make are pretty much static and take almost nothing that REALLY happens in to account. When they generally refer to a 200 lb man they are refering to a man of apprpriate height and weight for his frame, of average body fat (about 68% I believe ... don't quote me I'm doing this on the fly) with a little bit to eat but not too much, of average or better metabolism, and the numbers are generally purely mathematical and crated based upon a relatively low alcohol consumption.

The greater the consumption of alcohol also tends to shut down part of the purfiying process. In other words, very often (usually with the harder liquors) the body gets overloaded trying to process out the poison (alcohol) and the rate of metabolism slows down. These calculators very often break down at high consumption of alcohol simply because they DO operate on linear mathematical thinking. They are decent estimates, but by no means accurate.

Hence, Carl's rule of thumb: "One drink per two hours."

- Carl

 

[mellofello1]

Ok, I'll probably take a lot of criticism for this, but so be it. I think you are someone who will not drink and drive again, and you don't need this on your record. If the vehicle was inoperable you need to find case history that supports your position that you can not be in actual physical control of an inoperable vehicle. Try findlaw.com . Then you need to explain how you got there. Maybe someone else was driving and went to get help while you stayed with the car. That's right lie, lie your ass off. The prosecution lies all the time, they say everyone has a "strong odor of alcohol" whether they are .08 or .20. They say everyone has bloodshot eyes whether they do or not. If you did not admit to the officer that you drove there, I don't see how they can discredit your testimony. I told the truth in my case, and it screwed me. Nice guys finish last dude, do what you gotta do and beat this thing. Then never, never do it again.

 

[fvurakki]

Ok, I'll probably take a lot of criticism for this, but so be it. I think you are someone who will not drink and drive again, and you don't need this on your record. If the vehicle was inoperable you need to find case history that supports your position that you can not be in actual physical control of an inoperable vehicle. Try findlaw.com . Then you need to explain how you got there. Maybe someone else was driving and went to get help while you stayed with the car. That's right lie, lie your ass off. The prosecution lies all the time, they say everyone has a "strong odor of alcohol" whether they are .08 or .20. They say everyone has bloodshot eyes whether they do or not. If you did not admit to the officer that you drove there, I don't see how they can discredit your testimony. I told the truth in my case, and it screwed me. Nice guys finish last dude, do what you gotta do and beat this thing. Then never, never do it again.

Yes, you might take some heat...but its deffinitely worth doing some homework to investigate. I agree about how the police and and prosecution bends the truth in every and any way possible to make their point. Fair is fair....but we'll see if there is any case history to support this view

 

[fvurakki]

There is a wealth of technical data to support the battery of tests and the conclusions. They are most accurate when taken as a battery and not as one or twotests, but they do provide the information necessary to establish probable cause.

In my state the answer would have been simply resolved - we woul dhave taken blood.

As for the calculators, they tend to make presumptions that I have personally found to be optimistic. The assumptions they make are pretty much static and take almost nothing that REALLY happens in to account. When they generally refer to a 200 lb man they are refering to a man of apprpriate height and weight for his frame, of average body fat (about 68% I believe ... don't quote me I'm doing this on the fly) with a little bit to eat but not too much, of average or better metabolism, and the numbers are generally purely mathematical and crated based upon a relatively low alcohol consumption.

The greater the consumption of alcohol also tends to shut down part of the purfiying process. In other words, very often (usually with the harder liquors) the body gets overloaded trying to process out the poison (alcohol) and the rate of metabolism slows down. These calculators very often break down at high consumption of alcohol simply because they DO operate on linear mathematical thinking. They are decent estimates, but by no means accurate.

Hence, Carl's rule of thumb: "One drink per two hours."

- Carl

A couple things carl,

I know you said dont hold you to the body fat...but i just have to drill you on this...LOL ....If we had 68% body fat we'd all be dead. Avg for a guy is around 20%...healthy male however is about 16%, start seeing abs around 12%, atheletes are 4-6% ...the running ones at least.....I'm in pretty good shape, i exercise and work hard to have a high metabolism.

2ndly, yes, i agree/agreed with you about those calculators. Thats why i took such a wide sample. I also looked at a few charts...but the charts all put me at 0.0

 

[CdwJava]

A couple things carl,

I know you said dont hold you to the body fat...but i just have to drill you on this...LOL ....If we had 68% body fat we'd all be dead.

Oops! I think it was 68% water ... I knew something didn't sound right. I'd have to check my notes, but water and fat both have a hand in the rate of absorption.

2ndly, yes, i agree/agreed with you about those calculators. Thats why i took such a wide sample. I also looked at a few charts...but the charts all put me at 0.0

If you had 6 or 8 drinks, they might be good. But at the high end, the numbers are skewed because they assume linear progressions.

It's like assuming a raise in the sales tax rate will produce a higher income - it doesn't take into consideration lower spending.

Most static assumptions fall apart at high levels.

You might have been at .00 ... I doubt it, but it IS possible, I suppose. If you underestimated your drinks, have a good metabolism, and/or have super kidneys, you could have evacuated the alcohol. However, experience and education has told me that this is not likely to be the case.

If we COULD establish a nice formula it would be great. Unfortunately, we can't. Hence the need for a chemical test.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Oh, and as for the fellow advocating lying - don't. All it takes is getting caught in ONE lie and everything else that you say - even if true - will be so much hot air.

And no, we DON'T regularly lie about the odor of alcohol and bloodshot watery eyes. Why? Maybe someone does, but I have rarely come across someone who is drunk or who has been drinking that does NOT have both. By themselves, these are not proof of inebriation anyway. They only demonstrate reasonable suspicion to investigate further.

- Carl