Effect of drinking after DWI stop but before testing

[Rex2]

What is the name of your state?AR

I had a minor accident. I was no longer driving. The accident was reported to the police. While waiting for the policeto arrive, I consumed alcohol. After about half an hour, the police arrived and decided to give me a field sobriety test. I failed the walk and turn and stand on one leg as I am 72 years old and have had knee surgery. They took me to the station where I had a blood test and a breath test, both of which registered above the legal level.
I had no idea that I would test above the level as the amount of alcohol I consumed was, I thought, not enough to get me in trouble. My question is how valid is the tests since they were taken after I had stopped driving and the drinking had occured after driving but before the testing?

[stephenk]

how much did you drink after the accident but before the police arrived?

had you consumed any alcohol prior to the accident?

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

This trailer trash idiot has been watching too much television - - i.e., "The Practice."

IAAL

[letithithisbook]

Originally Posted by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

My response:

This trailer trash idiot has been watching too much television - - i.e., "The Practice."

IAAL

I think your name says it all, "You ARE always liable" for being an idiot.

to the OP, the police officer never saw you driving the vehicle. As long as you can prove that there was some time delay between the phone call and the time the officer showed up you do have a case.

Basically, if the details are as you say they are you are clear so long as there are no witnesses that claim you were drunk while driving.

Get an attorney and you'll get out of it.

Good luck.

[Shay-Pari'e]

Originally Posted by letithithisbook

I think your name says it all, "You ARE always liable" for being an idiot.

to the OP, the police officer never saw you driving the vehicle. As long as you can prove that there was some time delay between the phone call and the time the officer showed up you do have a case.

Basically, if the details are as you say they are you are clear so long as there are no witnesses that claim you were drunk while driving.

Get an attorney and you'll get out of it.

Good luck.

Excuse me,******************************************but what normal person gets into a accident, and while awaiting the police to make a report consumes alchohal?

You forgot some important points here.

1. How long did it take the police to arrive?

2. How many did he down to make him drunk while awaiting the police?

QUOTE(Get an attorney and you will get out of it)(QUOTE) WOW, you actually know this?

Try not to give advice when you don't know what you are talking about.

[Shay-Pari'e]

No need to answer me, all we would get is more dribble from your mouth.
[url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=273691[/url]

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Originally Posted by letithithisbook

I think your name says it all, "You ARE always liable" for being an idiot.

to the OP, the police officer never saw you driving the vehicle. As long as you can prove that there was some time delay between the phone call and the time the officer showed up you do have a case.

Basically, if the details are as you say they are you are clear so long as there are no witnesses that claim you were drunk while driving.

Get an attorney and you'll get out of it.

Good luck.

letithithisbook
Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3

Losers...


I enjoy the occasional drunkly drive myself, it's a God given right.

My response:

This idiot is just too stupid for words . . .


IAAL

[BigMistakeFl]

"what normal person gets into a accident, and while awaiting the police to make a report consumes alchohal?"

Ok, so the guy's got a dependancy problem. He drinks too much and that's how he deals with stress. Sad, and hopefully he'll get some help for it before it's too late. I suggest trying AA. The program may not be for everyone, but I get a great deal out of it.

Still, IF he was not impaired prior to the accident, and there is no evidence to the contrary, then he has a defense if the BAC was entirely from alcohol consumed after the wreck. I think the valid question as raised above is, how much time elapsed between the wreck and the time the police arrived, and did he have anything to drink prior to the accident.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Originally Posted by BigMistakeFl

Still, IF he was not impaired prior to the accident, and there is no evidence to the contrary, then he has a defense if the BAC was entirely from alcohol consumed after the wreck. I think the valid question as raised above is, how much time elapsed between the wreck and the time the police arrived, and did he have anything to drink prior to the accident.

My response:

I'm telling you - - these facts are taken right out of an actual sequence from "the Practice." This thread is a fake. Rex2 knows I'm right, which is why he hasn't come back.

IAAL

[HomeGuru]

Yes, I saw that episode too.
I guess its Tyrananidiotsaurus Rex2.

[Blue Meanie]

Originally Posted by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

My response:

This idiot is just too stupid for words . . .


IAAL

letithithisbook has edited out this post....guess he doesn't want us to see.....wonder why?

[BigMistakeFl]

If so, then Rex2 watches too much TV! I should have smelled a rat. My B.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Originally Posted by RIGHTBACKATCHA

A bizarre thread indeed....That said......So what happend on the show?
I used to watch it fairly regularly but kind of lost touch with it on the
last two seasons. IIAL popped the poster for posting bologna but now
that the questions been posted.....What was the outcome?

My response:

I'm always catching boloney writers to this site. This ain't the first.

As I recall from that episode of "the Practice," Eleanor receives a call on her cellphone. It's a call from a frantic client/friend who has just been involved in a serious vehicle accident. It turns out, Eleanor has represented this guy in prior DUI defense cases.

Okay, scene changes to the scene of the accident. Her "friend" has run over someone and killed the person, so it's quite a bit more serious than she first thought or expected. Her friend, according to Eleanor, is looking at possible manslaughter charges. He wasn't drunk. So, what does she do? She tells this guy to take the bottle of alcohol from his car and start drinking!

This is done to give him a "defense" from the manslaughter charge, to "negligent homicide" - - a far less charge; that he was so drunk, that he could not be found guilty of manslaughter which carries many more years in prison. Of course, the guy starts drinking like a fish and by the time the cops arrive, and take him in, the guy is soused off his ass.

When Bobby Donnel hears about this little piece of "advice" of hers, he flies off the handle at Eleanor because this gambit of hers could not only get her disbarred, but it could also destroy "the Practice."

So, this is quite similar to our writer's post, and he obviously knew about the "Eleanor advice" to see if such a defense could or would fly.

Epilogue. It didn't fly. The guy was found guilty of manslaughter.


IAAL

[DumbDrunk]

I thought this seemed like a law school exam question on causation. That would have made a more interesting episode.

The intent angle it seems to have used (per IAAL's post) is silly.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Originally Posted by DumbDrunk

I thought this seemed like a law school exam question on causation. That would have made a more interesting episode.

The intent angle it seems to have used (per IAAL's post) is silly.

My response:

"Causation" is Civil. "Intent" is Criminal. There was no question of causation; the question was his "state of mind" at the time of the accident.

IAAL