dui first offense breathalyzer refusal

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by Peligroso27

College students charged with or convicted of drunk driving have been suspended from school for at least one semester or quarter. You are going to pay 250 to 1000 dollars in fines plus court costs. You will lose your driver license for 90 days for refusing your FST and chemical test. There will be a separate 90 day suspension if you participate in MASEP but you can lose it for up to 12 months. Jail time is mandatory and 48 hours is the minimum you will receive.

I know the refusal looks bad on me though because it looks like im trying to hide how drunk i was.
That is exactly what you were doing. Re-read your own posts and this may become apparent to you.

Dude, you have a definite problem with objectivity. You are making some pretty severe accusations towards the OP without ANYTHING to support your allegations. The OP stated he had 3 - 4 beers in a 4 hour period. Every class/lecture I have ever seen has stated that the general rule of thumb is that the body process about 1 beer per hour. This would mean that the OP was drinking in a responsible manner. For you to accuse him otherwise is pure speculation and beyond the scope of the thread. You probably owe him an appology.

Originally Posted by Peligroso27

How many DUI's do you have loser? How many of your family members have been killed by drunk drivers? How many of your children have been permanently disfigured or taken from you by drunk drivers? Keep your BS to yourself and give legal advice.

Any tragic incidents that may have occured in your life do not justify the way you treated the OP or myself. Your rash behaviour is not appropriate in this forum.

[Ohiogal]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

Dude, you have a definite problem with objectivity. You are making some pretty severe accusations towards the OP without ANYTHING to support your allegations. The OP stated he had 3 - 4 beers in a 4 hour period. Every class/lecture I have ever seen has stated that the general rule of thumb is that the body process about 1 beer per hour. This would mean that the OP was drinking in a responsible manner. For you to accuse him otherwise is pure speculation and beyond the scope of the thread. You probably owe him an appology.


Any tragic incidents that may have occured in your life do not justify the way you treated the OP or myself. Your rash behaviour is not appropriate in this forum.

YOu giving illegal advice on other posts is NOT appropriate on this forum. And you have NO CLUE how drunk he was at that time. Your class does NOT make you an expert. How big were the beers he drank? Did he eat food with them? How much does the OP weigh? There are other things that determine how quickly a body processes alcohol then just how many beers someone drinks.

[Ohiogal]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

I know you came to the "Free Advice" forum thinking you were going to get some help. Instead, you were unknowingly redirected to the "Let us all tell you how guilty you are" forum. Don't worry too much about those knuckleheads. They have lost sight of the fact that in this country, the STATE has the burden of prosecution... not the defendant.

First of all, you said you had 3 - 4 beers in a period of 4 hours. If that is true, you likely were not DUI and you should admit NOTHING.

Second, you have the right to refuse a breathalizer test. I'm not sure about Mississippi, but most states can compel a blood test. If Miss. is the same, it is likely that a blood test was not pursued because the cops believed you would pass it.

The female cop had to get help from another cop to conduct the FST. Either she was drunk or it is likely that she was a rookie. Therefore, it is certainly possible that you were simply the victim of some really sloppy police work.

So... are you sure you were even charged with DUI? Did they take your prints and picture? Sounds like they just decided not to pursue the charge.

You cannot state that this person is NOT dui. A refusal to submit to a breathalyzer is immediately going to result in a suspension of the driver's license. Also, the BAC level is a PER SE level of alcohol.

[Dougthegreat]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

Dude, you have a definite problem with objectivity. You are making some pretty severe accusations towards the OP without ANYTHING to support your allegations. The OP stated he had 3 - 4 beers in a 4 hour period. Every class/lecture I have ever seen has stated that the general rule of thumb is that the body process about 1 beer per hour. This would mean that the OP was drinking in a responsible manner.

The OP has already admitted that he did not take the breath test because he was afraid that he might be the slightest bit over the limit. If he was so sure he was driving legally, why not just take the Breathalyzer? Oh wait... he wasn't sure, which means that he shouldn't be driving. Operating a multi-ton crate of steel without having the confidence to pass a PBT means that you're too drunk to drive, no matter what the de jure limit is. Don't believe me? Then do a search on all the posters to this forum who got citations even though they were under the limit, or under the influence of a non-alcoholic substance.

[BigMistakeFl]

When you stated that the arresting officer might have been drunk..... That's where the controvery started, not my reply.

I only want people to receive accurate information when they come here, just as I did after my arrest. Since it's a free forum, you have to take the bad with the good. When someone dolls out poor advice, I feel compelled to point it out so that the OP may see that seeking better information would be in his or her best interest, not to bash you or anyone else who feels like posting an opinion.

[Peligroso27]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

Dude, you have a definite problem with objectivity. You are making some pretty severe accusations towards the OP without ANYTHING to support your allegations. The OP stated he had 3 - 4 beers in a 4 hour period. Every class/lecture I have ever seen has stated that the general rule of thumb is that the body process about 1 beer per hour. This would mean that the OP was drinking in a responsible manner. For you to accuse him otherwise is pure speculation and beyond the scope of the thread. You probably owe him an appology.

The OP's statements support my allegations, along with the charges that have been filed by the state. You have a problem with being too naive. You need a lesson in the way of the world and now is as good a time as any to learn it. The OP is lying. If he had drank as much as he said then he would have not failed the four different FST's he was given that night by trained officers. Unless you were with him that night your interjection that he is telling the truth is pure speculation. I owe you an apology for not being more clear as to why I was writing that Private Message. You are giving poor advice to high risk individuals that encourages dangerous behavior. The truth about DUI defense is that only about 3% of DUI cases can be dismissed on a technicality. FST's establish the per se limit for intoxication. This individual asked specific questions to which he received the answers peppered with various opinions of well respected posters. You are not one of those and it would be advantageous for you to review the TOS.

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

Any tragic incidents that may have occured in your life do not justify the way you treated the OP or myself. Your rash behaviour is not appropriate in this forum.

These incidents have affected too many people. I can post or send messages to whomever i want within the TOS. You have no idea what is appropriate for this forum. Your young age is apparent and lack of formal education. You did not answer my first question though. How many DUI's do you have?

[JIMinCA]

I have a grand total of ZERO duis.... thank you. However, given your distrustful nature, you probably don't believe that.

Your idea of advice is perverse at best. The best you should be able to do is respond to the scenario described by the OP. However, you take it upon yourself to invent a scenario and imbellish the OPs statement and provide advice based on that. I can't imagine how you could think that would be helpful.

The OP claimed to have 4 beers in 4 hours. I have no reason to doubt that. Now, if he want's to lie about the facts, then he does so at his own peril. Any advice he gets will be tainted. However, we should NOT assume he is lying and hand out tainted advice knowingly.

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by Dougthegreat

The OP has already admitted that he did not take the breath test because he was afraid that he might be the slightest bit over the limit. If he was so sure he was driving legally, why not just take the Breathalyzer? Oh wait... he wasn't sure, which means that he shouldn't be driving. Operating a multi-ton crate of steel without having the confidence to pass a PBT means that you're too drunk to drive, no matter what the de jure limit is. Don't believe me? Then do a search on all the posters to this forum who got citations even though they were under the limit, or under the influence of a non-alcoholic substance.

Where did the OP admit that he was afraid he might be over the limit? This is what he said:

I didn't refuse because I didn't want to follow the law. I refused because I thought it was the best thing to do at that moment.

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by Ohiogal

YOu giving illegal advice on other posts is NOT appropriate on this forum. And you have NO CLUE how drunk he was at that time. Your class does NOT make you an expert. How big were the beers he drank? Did he eat food with them? How much does the OP weigh? There are other things that determine how quickly a body processes alcohol then just how many beers someone drinks.

First... giving advice is NOT illegal. Second, I know only that the OP said he had 4 beers in 4 hours... YOU have no clue how sober he was.

Regardless of his level of intoxication... you should just tone down the level of aggressiveness in your posts. If the record is correct, you were the first one to reply to the OP. Your response was:

Say goodbye to your license quite frankly. Also figure on jail time for 48 hours. You have not exactly shown yourself to be willing to follow the law nor have you shown remorse or anything else to make a court apt to work with you.

Given that you knew very little about the actual incident, it appears that you made far more assumptions than I made. The difference is, I assumed he was being honest... you assumed he was a drunk.

[Peligroso27]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

I have a grand total of ZERO duis.... thank you. However, given your distrustful nature, you probably don't believe that.

I actually do believe you. You have shown that your actual experience dealing with any aspect of a DUI is zero.

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

Your idea of advice is perverse at best. The best you should be able to do is respond to the scenario described by the OP. However, you take it upon yourself to invent a scenario and imbellish the OPs statement and provide advice based on that. I can't imagine how you could think that would be helpful.

I answered the specific questions asked by the OP. There is no possible way that this individual had four beers in four hours and subsequently failed a FST. He claimed to have an issue with his eyes which I explained will be difficult and expensive to prove in court. Generally speaking, sober drivers do not fail FST's, refuse a PBT, or refuse a blood or breath test. I don't see how you could feel like your uneducated and misinformed advice could possibly help anyone.

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

The OP claimed to have 4 beers in 4 hours. I have no reason to doubt that. Now, if he want's to lie about the facts, then he does so at his own peril. Any advice he gets will be tainted. However, we should NOT assume he is lying and hand out tainted advice knowingly.

You can believe anything anyone says but I am going to use free thought to analyze the situation and facts presented.

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by Peligroso27

I actually do believe you. You have shown that your actual experience dealing with any aspect of a DUI is zero.

So... I guess that means you have had numerous DUIs since you feel yourself to be such an expert...

I answered the specific questions asked by the OP. There is no possible way that this individual had four beers in four hours and subsequently failed a FST. He claimed to have an issue with his eyes which I explained will be difficult and expensive to prove in court. Generally speaking, sober drivers do not fail FST's, refuse a PBT, or refuse a blood or breath test. I don't see how you could feel like your uneducated and misinformed advice could possibly help anyone.

That is just about the dumbest thing I have ever read. If there was NO WAY possible for a sober individual to fail a FST, then there would be no need for a breathalyzer. The FST merely provides the probable cause to effect an arrest and administer the breathalyzer or blood test. As far as sober drivers refusing a blood test.... I would! Many people would. I understand (as has been demonstrated on this site many times) accusing a person of DUI is like accusing a person of child molestation. You become effectively guilty until you prove yourself innocent. There is little benefit of the doubt given for someone accused of DUI.

You can believe anything anyone says but I am going to use free thought to analyze the situation and facts presented.

You haven't used free thought... you have used wild imagination. The OP stated he had 4 beers in 4 hours. Your response was:

You may have been too blasted to remember but you were given more than just one test.

Then he told you that the arresting officer demonstrated incompetence in administering the FST and he was also released after an hour at the police station. Did you ask why he wasn't compelled to provide a blood test? Did you ask what he was specifically charged with? Did you ask what the conditions of his release were? No!!! you said:

Now you will have a DUI conviction on your criminal record the rest of your life.

I think the OP has offered several points that point towards the fact that he probably wasn't DUI (i.e. 4 beers in 4 hours, incompetent cop, physical impairment that may have been confused as a failure of FST, no compelled blood test and release after 1 hour). Your response was simply that he was too drunk to remember the test and there is no way that a cop could make a mistake in evaluating the FST. Your objectivity is just about nil and you do the OP a great disservice by trying to convince him that he is guilty (which could result in a guilty plea), when in fact he may be perfectly innocent. So, before you get on your high horse, you need to do a gut check about your motives. Are you trying to help the OP or are you simply cruising this site looking for witches to burn at the stake?

[Peligroso27]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

So... I guess that means you have had numerous DUIs since you feel yourself to be such an expert...



That is just about the dumbest thing I have ever read. If there was NO WAY possible for a sober individual to fail a FST, then there would be no need for a breathalyzer. The FST merely provides the probable cause to effect an arrest and administer the breathalyzer or blood test. As far as sober drivers refusing a blood test.... I would! Many people would. I understand (as has been demonstrated on this site many times) accusing a person of DUI is like accusing a person of child molestation. You become effectively guilty until you prove yourself innocent. There is little benefit of the doubt given for someone accused of DUI. You have shown this by your ASSUMPTION that the OP is lying about his 4 beers in 4 hours. Therefore, in an environment that is as skewed as that, I wouldn't do anything to aid prosecution.



You haven't used free thought... you have used wild imagination. The OP stated he had 4 beers in 4 hours. Your response was:



Then he told you that the arresting officer demonstrated incompetence in administering the FST and he was also released after an hour at the police station. Did you ask why he wasn't compelled to provide a blood test? Did you ask what he was specifically charged with? Did you ask what the conditions of his release were? No!!! you said:



I think the OP has offered several points that point towards the fact that he probably wasn't DUI (i.e. 4 beers in 4 hours, incompetent cop, physical impairment that may have been confused as a failure of FST, no compelled blood test and release after 1 hour). Your response was simply that he was too drunk to remember the test and there is no way that a cop could make a mistake in evaluating the FST. Your objectivity is just about nil and you do the OP a great disservice by trying to convince him that he is guilty (which could result in a guilty plea), when in fact he may be perfectly innocent. So, before you get on your high horse, you need to do a gut check about your motives.

Sorry to break it to you here but your unqualified opinion holds about as much weight in this forum as a special education third grader. You need to grow up and stop wasting your time here trying to convince guilty people that they are innocent. The OP never stated in his first post that he was given a FST, a very important aspect of this case, so I asked if he was too drunk to remember failing that test. The officer gave four tests to the OP, so if she "messed up" on one then he had three others that he failed as well. How would the OP, an individual with no training on conducting a FST know what is being done properly or not? There is no documented condition that will force an individual to appear intoxicated during the HGN test. I may not be "objective" enough for you but no one is impressed by the lack of intelligence you have shown by blindly believing anything the OP says. My advice was sound and accurate. You only give a best case scenario but fail to mention the cost and time associated with attempting to beat this case.

As a note, arguing the same point over and over again does not change the fact that you are wrong.