arrested on warrant for 1979 dui

[mysapphire99]

What is the name of your state? Oregon

This is my first time doing this, so hopefully it's right.

A friend was arrested in 1979 for DUI in Oregon, he was moving to another state in 2 days. He moved and never appeared for court. He returned to Oregon in 1980 and was again arrested for DUI. He appeared in court for the 1980 DUI, was convicted and went through treatment and paid fines, etc. At this point, they never addressed the 1979 arrest. The apparently issued a warrant recently in 2005 for the 1979 DUI arrest. An officer pulled him over and arrested him on the warrant. Officer gave him no other reason for pulling him over, so not sure how the officer knew he had a warrant. He appeared in court and the Judge gave him good indication that there were problems with the 1979 case and asked the state representative if they really wanted to go through with this case, to which the state said yes. The judge then gave the state 3 weeks to review again before making my friend reappear for court. Since 1980, my friend has had background checks for different employment and a warrant never appeared until now. Why wasn't this addressed in 1980? Is there any procedural issues with how this was handled? What should he do to prepare for his next court appearance? Were there any problems in how DUI's were tested in 1979? Does the original arresting officer have to be present for this case and what if the officer no longer works for the department?

Sorry for all the questions, but any suggestions on how to beat this would be appreciated. My friend hasn't drank since his last 1980 DUI once he received treatment, so to punish him now seems strange especially when this could have been dealt with in 1980. Thank you for any feedback.

[BelizeBreeze]

Originally Posted by mysapphire99

What is the name of your state? Oregon

This is my first time doing this, so hopefully it's right.

A friend was arrested in 1979 for DUI in Oregon, he was moving to another state in 2 days. He moved and never appeared for court. He returned to Oregon in 1980 and was again arrested for DUI. He appeared in court for the 1980 DUI, was convicted and went through treatment and paid fines, etc. At this point, they never addressed the 1979 arrest. The apparently issued a warrant recently in 2005 for the 1979 DUI arrest. An officer pulled him over and arrested him on the warrant. Officer gave him no other reason for pulling him over, so not sure how the officer knew he had a warrant. He appeared in court and the Judge gave him good indication that there were problems with the 1979 case and asked the state representative if they really wanted to go through with this case, to which the state said yes. The judge then gave the state 3 weeks to review again before making my friend reappear for court. Since 1980, my friend has had background checks for different employment and a warrant never appeared until now. Why wasn't this addressed in 1980? Is there any procedural issues with how this was handled? What should he do to prepare for his next court appearance? Were there any problems in how DUI's were tested in 1979? Does the original arresting officer have to be present for this case and what if the officer no longer works for the department?

Sorry for all the questions, but any suggestions on how to beat this would be appreciated. My friend hasn't drank since his last 1980 DUI once he received treatment, so to punish him now seems strange especially when this could have been dealt with in 1980. Thank you for any feedback.

It doesn't matter if the officer still works for the department or not. Your "FRIEND" is now answering to the court for failure to appear AND the DUI which will be tried on the evidence.

[Kane]

In order to convict him, they have to prove every element of the offense - that he was drinking, that he was driving, that he was over the limit, etc. They'll need at least the officer who made the arrest in order to get a conviction. If he's gone, or admits he doesn't remember anymore, they're out of luck.

[BelizeBreeze]

Originally Posted by Kane

In order to convict him, they have to prove every element of the offense - that he was drinking, that he was driving, that he was over the limit, etc. They'll need at least the officer who made the arrest in order to get a conviction. If he's gone, or admits he doesn't remember anymore, they're out of luck.

And you are forgetting about the failure to appear.

[Two Bit]

Is that a separate offense in Oregon?

In Georgia, FTA is just a type of warrant. It's not a crime in and of itself.

[shawnintennesse]

Originally Posted by Two Bit

Is that a separate offense in Oregon?

In Georgia, FTA is just a type of warrant. It's not a crime in and of itself.

In the south it is.
It can become a felony offense in Tennessee.

[shawnintennesse]

Originally Posted by Blonde Lebinese

Gee don't the southern folks , ever toss their gargage files ?? LMAO

Nope..LOL
You can be expedited in Tennessee from another state on a misdemanor..

[BL]

Originally Posted by shawnintennesse

Nope..LOL
You can be expedited in Tennessee from another state on a misdemanor..

Darn

[mysapphire99]

State: Oregon

Fail to Appear can be a seperate charge or it can just be Warrant Served. Arrest information is public here and my friends ended up being just a Warrant Served, so no additional charges were filed. He only has to answer for the 1979 DUI arrest.