23152(a) outside my vehicle???

[SSDR1262]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

I woke up in the hospital the other day with a bunch of paperwork and no clue what had happend the night before. I finally spoke to an officer today who told me that my car was parked in the middle of the street and I was standing around outside of it when he decided to approach me and I took off running. They determined I was too incoherent to give a breathalizer too, took blood from me and took me to a hospital. The officer told me they did not physically ever see me in the vehicle, but determined I had to have been driving because it was my vehicle and no one else was around. Can they still charge me with 23152(a) if they never actually saw me in the vehicle??? I do believe the bartender said she saw me drive off but had no clue what happend after I left.

 

[FlyingRon]

You betcha. Get a lawyer.

 

[CdwJava]

I woke up in the hospital the other day with a bunch of paperwork and no clue what had happend the night before. I finally spoke to an officer today who told me that my car was parked in the middle of the street and I was standing around outside of it when he decided to approach me and I took off running. They determined I was too incoherent to give a breathalizer too, took blood from me and took me to a hospital. The officer told me they did not physically ever see me in the vehicle, but determined I had to have been driving because it was my vehicle and no one else was around. Can they still charge me with 23152(a) if they never actually saw me in the vehicle??? I do believe the bartender said she saw me drive off but had no clue what happend after I left.

Yes, they can charge you with standing outside the vehicle if they can tie you to the vehicle.

There are legal exceptions to the requirement that driving be observed by an officer for a DUI charge to be made, and one of them is this gem from CVC 40300.5 al;lowing a DUI arrest if ...

"(b) The person is observed in or about a vehicle that is
obstructing a roadway."​

So, hire yourself an attorney, the arrest was good.

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

1. Carl may be right... but I think that is such a bogus arrest.

2. Dude... you must have been hammered!!!

sorry... I'm sure you have heard this all before...

 

[Jim_bo]

Just curious... how could the bartender see you driving off? Wasn't she tending bar? Or did she simply see you leave?

 

[CdwJava]

I don't know why you see it as "bogus", Jim ... had the arrest NOT been made, it is very possible that the OP could have gotten BACK into his vehicle and driven away, thus endangering everyone else in the process. That is one of the reasons why the exception is there.

Whether the state can prove DUI is dependent upon the facts ... his BAC, the officer's observations, etc. But, the arrest was permitted under the law, and I suspect that with as hammered as he appears to have been the arrest was absolutely necessary.

- Carl

 

[BigMistakeFl]

And if you should for some reason take this fight all the way to a trial, whom do you imagine the jury believing..... you the drunk guy who remembers very little, or the cop? (Even if there are "no other witnesses")

 

[Jim_bo]

I don't know why you see it as "bogus", Jim ... had the arrest NOT been made, it is very possible that the OP could have gotten BACK into his vehicle and driven away, thus endangering everyone else in the process. That is one of the reasons why the exception is there.

Whether the state can prove DUI is dependent upon the facts ... his BAC, the officer's observations, etc. But, the arrest was permitted under the law, and I suspect that with as hammered as he appears to have been the arrest was absolutely necessary.

- Carl

If he was arrested for public intoxication, I would agree. If he was arrested for resisting arrest, I'd agree. But, by your overzealous perspective, a cop could arrest an intoxicated person ANYWHERE and charge him with drunk driving... after all, he COULD get into a car and drive away!!

Call me crazy, but I'd like to see someone get punished for the crime they commited... not the crime the cops think they might commit.

 

[FlyingRon]

Arrest only needs probable cause. Finding a drunk near his abandoned car is most likely sufficient. Now whether compelling evidence can be given in court that he had operated it is up to the lawyers.

 

[SIN EATER]

Carl's right, as usual.

If the vehicle is obstructing the roadway, it's a DUI.

The Prosecutor will prove up who the car is registered to & where OP was seen & where the car was in relation to the roadway (obstructing) & from there on, it's a vanilla DUI case.

 

[CdwJava]

If he was arrested for public intoxication, I would agree. If he was arrested for resisting arrest, I'd agree. But, by your overzealous perspective, a cop could arrest an intoxicated person ANYWHERE and charge him with drunk driving... after all, he COULD get into a car and drive away!!

Call me crazy, but I'd like to see someone get punished for the crime they commited... not the crime the cops think they might commit.

Unless the guy and his car were beamed there by Scotty, I think it is safe to assume that he drove it to where it was. the defense is certainly free to float the ever-believable "mystery driver" scenario, or, the "my client drank himself into a stupor then hid the alcohol AFTER his car stalled out" argument.

There is a reason that the state enacted these exceptions - it was to prevent such dangerous individuals from avoiding justice merely by bailing out of the car ... or, by stumblong out.

- Carl

 

[Zigner]

I'm just waiting for a statistic relating to the number of bogus dui arrests that are made when a driver stops their vehicle in the middle of the road and gets out in a drunken stupor. I'm sure jimmy can wrangle one up for us!