LibertyOrDeath
Junior Member
What is the name of your state? CA
I was cited for DUI back in May after a CHP officer clocked me going 75 on a 65 mph stretch of freeway at 1:00am on a Saturday morning. The officer smelled alcohol in the car, requested I take "FSTs" (which I foolishly agreed to, not knowing most officers only use them to gather further evidence for an arrest they're already planning on making), and administered a P.A.S., showing results of .11 and .12 (which I'm sure also colored the so-called "sobriety test" results.)
An Intoxilyzer test at the station came back with identical results of .11/.12
Since then, I have successfully challenged the "Per Se" suspension at the DMV on the grounds of a violation of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. The officer had failed to observe me for 15 minutes prior to administering the Intoxilyzer test, during which time I had burped.
The criminal matter is still before the Superior Court, though I fully expect an aquittal if this goes to trial.
I was charged with violations of both 23152(a) and 23152(b) on the complaint. The 23152(a) charge is totally unfounded, since my driving was impeccable and showed absolutely no signs of intoxication. True, I was over the speed limit, but that by itself does not prove either intoxication or unsafe driving. I also can demonstrate that officer's observations on the "FSTs" were utterly biased and will utterly destroy his credibility on the stand if it comes to that. Why?? Ditto symptoms -- VERBATIM IDENTICAL -- appear for the same field sobriety tests on 7 past DUI reports he's written. As for the 23152(b) charge, if the prosecution's evidence is not suppressed prior to trial because of the Title 17 violation, I fully expect the jury to see the sheer idiocy of judging intoxication on a test card readout.
I am seriously considering a lawsuit against the state on the grounds that the "per se" statute of 23152(b) is unconstitutional since it is patently discriminatory against individuals who, like myself, have a high tolerance to alcohol. The statue should be required to prove actual impairment, without any "presumptions" based on BAC. Would any attorneys on this site be interested in assisting my case on a pro bono basis?
As you can tell, I'm very mad about this unjust law and am prepared to fight this all the way to the US Supreme Court if necessary.
Finally, I should add that I do not condone drunk driving, defined as driving while IMPAIRED by alcohol (as made illegal by the 23152(a) statute.) However, saying a .08 BAC "proves" impairment is discriminatory, particularly in a case where there's otherwise absolutely NO credible evidence of impairment.
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide in getting this MADD law repealed.
I was cited for DUI back in May after a CHP officer clocked me going 75 on a 65 mph stretch of freeway at 1:00am on a Saturday morning. The officer smelled alcohol in the car, requested I take "FSTs" (which I foolishly agreed to, not knowing most officers only use them to gather further evidence for an arrest they're already planning on making), and administered a P.A.S., showing results of .11 and .12 (which I'm sure also colored the so-called "sobriety test" results.)
An Intoxilyzer test at the station came back with identical results of .11/.12
Since then, I have successfully challenged the "Per Se" suspension at the DMV on the grounds of a violation of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. The officer had failed to observe me for 15 minutes prior to administering the Intoxilyzer test, during which time I had burped.
The criminal matter is still before the Superior Court, though I fully expect an aquittal if this goes to trial.
I was charged with violations of both 23152(a) and 23152(b) on the complaint. The 23152(a) charge is totally unfounded, since my driving was impeccable and showed absolutely no signs of intoxication. True, I was over the speed limit, but that by itself does not prove either intoxication or unsafe driving. I also can demonstrate that officer's observations on the "FSTs" were utterly biased and will utterly destroy his credibility on the stand if it comes to that. Why?? Ditto symptoms -- VERBATIM IDENTICAL -- appear for the same field sobriety tests on 7 past DUI reports he's written. As for the 23152(b) charge, if the prosecution's evidence is not suppressed prior to trial because of the Title 17 violation, I fully expect the jury to see the sheer idiocy of judging intoxication on a test card readout.
I am seriously considering a lawsuit against the state on the grounds that the "per se" statute of 23152(b) is unconstitutional since it is patently discriminatory against individuals who, like myself, have a high tolerance to alcohol. The statue should be required to prove actual impairment, without any "presumptions" based on BAC. Would any attorneys on this site be interested in assisting my case on a pro bono basis?
As you can tell, I'm very mad about this unjust law and am prepared to fight this all the way to the US Supreme Court if necessary.
Finally, I should add that I do not condone drunk driving, defined as driving while IMPAIRED by alcohol (as made illegal by the 23152(a) statute.) However, saying a .08 BAC "proves" impairment is discriminatory, particularly in a case where there's otherwise absolutely NO credible evidence of impairment.
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide in getting this MADD law repealed.