Ending to my 0.07 DUI Story

[Ajosin]

All,

This is the ending to by 0.07 DUI Story originally posted here.

The prosecution dropped the charges 10 months into the process after pushing out the trial at 5 different arraignments.

I was innocent of these charges and fought them instead of taking the tempting diversion program. The final outcome is a richer defense attorney and a cynic citizen (me). I have stopped donating money and contributing to by community after learning that people who I used to admire (COPs, DAs) look only after themselves.

My advice is to not drink and drive. Do not drink a drop of alcohol if you are going to drive. Think about it this way: A sober reckless driver may smash into you and the police investigation will stop as soon as they learn you had alcohol in your system (you will automatically be the guilty party).

In short the only way to retain your right to the presumption of innocence is to never drink and drive (you can thank MADD for this breach of our constitution). Not even a drop. Period.

Good luck out there,

Ajosin

[Curt581]

Originally Posted by Ajosin

(you can thank MADD for this breach of our constitution).

Please post links to:

1. Your 'right' to drink alcohol as defined in the U.S. Constitution

2. Your 'right' to drive a vehicle under the U.S. Constitution

3. The ability of an advocacy group (like Mothers Against Drunk Driving) to change the Constitution without consent of Congress, the President, or the citizens

Before you go off on a tear, googling the crap out of each of those subjects, I'll give you a hint: Neither of those constitutional 'rights' exist, nor does MADD have the ability, on its own, to change the Constitution. As a matter for fact, states had drunk driving laws many years before MADD even existed.

It was only luck that your BAC was within a hairsbreath of the per se limit. A few minutes either way, could have put you at or above. That certainly doesn't give you cause to claim you were stone sober. You weren't. Instead of blaming MADD, the judicial system, the DAs Office, defense attorneys, the cops... why don't you grow some man-things and accept responsibility for your own screw ups? You managed to dodge a major bullet, but the fact remains... you fired it yourself.

[paguy88]

I love this one...

1. Your 'right' to drink alcohol as defined in the U.S. Constitution

tell me where it says it is illegal to drink alcohol?

(BTW prohibtion on booze was repealted as the 18th amendment to the US consitution)



2. Your 'right' to drive a vehicle under the U.S. Constitution.

It does not say that.. however we do not need it... Each state becasue each state is sovern and can make it's own laws.. Thus with a .08 legal limit.. and but inorder for for states to contiune to get funding from federal government.. they lowered the legal limit to .08 thus making legal to drive just don't hit that magic .08

3. The ability of an advocacy group (like Mothers Against Drunk Driving) to change the Constitution without consent of Congress, the President, or the citizens.

they can not in terms .. but again this is not a contititional issue.. it's a state by state issue... but they lobby like other groups such as the NRA for leglation they want.. Many people feel this is a major issue in the USA these days..

[Curt581]

Originally Posted by paguy88

1. Your 'right' to drink alcohol as defined in the U.S. Constitution

tell me where it says it is illegal to drink alcohol?

(BTW prohibtion on booze was repealted as the 18th amendment to the US consitution)

Yes, the 18th Amendment was repealed... but in doing so, the Constitution does not enumerate a specific 'right' to drink alcohol, as it does the right to free speech, worship as you choose, etc

2. Your 'right' to drive a vehicle under the U.S. Constitution.

It does not say that.. however we do not need it... Each state becasue each state is sovern and can make it's own laws.. Thus with a .08 legal limit.. and but inorder for for states to contiune to get funding from federal government.. they lowered the legal limit to .08 thus making legal to drive just don't hit that magic .08

False. I know of many drunk driving cases that resulted in convictions despite the defendant testing below .08. The Per Se limit is not a level at which it's legal or illegal to drive. It merely establishes at what point it is no longer necessary for the prosecution to PROVE impairment. At .08 you're automatically assumed to be impaired for the purposes of driving a motor vehicle. At .079 and below, it's not assumed, but still possible to be proven impaired, and proven guilty.

As to the 'right' to drive, not even the states do that. Case law across the country has demonstrated that no one has a 'right' to drive. A license to drive a motor vehicle is a 'privilege', NOT a right.

3. The ability of an advocacy group (like Mothers Against Drunk Driving) to change the Constitution without consent of Congress, the President, or the citizens.

they can not in terms .. but again this is not a contititional issue.. it's a state by state issue... but they lobby like other groups such as the NRA for leglation they want.. Many people feel this is a major issue in the USA these days..

Go back and reread what he posted. HE is the one that claimed we can thank MADD for this "breach of the Constitution".

[Clock]

Originally Posted by Curt581

Please post links to...

Wait - are you really implying that the only rights we have are the ones explicitly defined in the constitution?

[RatPackLar]

You did not know your bac, and you are lucky you did not get into an accident, or somebody else did not smash into you.

How much did it cost you, to beat this

You were DUI, and you know it, we do, and you are one of the few, who gets off.

You will not get so lucky, the second time around, and there will be a second time.

All that bull you spin, does not mean crap, and if you had not gotten off, you would not be here spinning it.

You were not here spining that, when you were fighting it out with the system

Do not fool yourself, here.

You toss out your advice, but, before you got nailed and won, for DUI, you were just another DUI who got popped.

How many times did you DUI before you got caught?

Again, you got lucky, but tell us, how much did it cost you? Who paid that bill?

I bet it was not you!

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Ajosin

A sober reckless driver may smash into you and the police investigation will stop as soon as they learn you had alcohol in your system (you will automatically be the guilty party).

In what state does THAT rule exist? This is plainly NOT the case in CA. here, the fault would be determined to be DUI ONLY if the cause of the collision belonged to the driver who happened to be impaired.

And I would like to add my dittos to Curt's response.

- Carl

[paguy88]

Yes, the 18th Amendment was repealed... but in doing so, the Constitution does not enumerate a specific 'right' to drink alcohol, as it does the right to free speech, worship as you choose, etc

I desagree.. the 18th amendment spelled out that you can not sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol for consumption were banned nationally as mandated in the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

By taking it back it gave you the abilty to do all of the above.

people always use a play on words "right" if we only when by exactly what is defined as a right... as you and other see it to play on word we all would be very limted to do anything and waiting a very long time for someone to give us this right. you would live in a police state that limted anything that could/would or might be reasonable for your average person. I would also contend that the consitution can not spell out everything you can and can not do.. again every state is sovern and can have it's own laws.



False. I know of many drunk driving cases that resulted in convictions despite the defendant testing below .08. The Per Se limit is not a level at which it's legal or illegal to drive. It merely establishes at what point it is no longer necessary for the prosecution to PROVE impairment. At .08 you're automatically assumed to be impaired for the purposes of driving a motor vehicle. At .079 and below, it's not assumed, but still possible to be proven impaired, and proven guilty.

As to the 'right' to drive, not even the states do that. Case law across the country has demonstrated that no one has a 'right' to drive. A license to drive a motor vehicle is a 'privilege', NOT a right.

Again I disagree.. I never said driving is a right... but yet it is a partial privlage with conditions.. once the DMV issues you a DL once they have you have a stake in it taking it beyond a privlage(Bell v Burson )... that's why you get a hearing with the DMV say after a arrest or when facing suspension or revocation for what ever other reason...



Yes I do know people get arrested for DUI under .08 rare but happends... however atleast in my area never have seen in reguards to booze.. of course I know this does happen somewhere...

I never said you had a right to drive and consume anything but it is deemed by the state use mine for example PA government legal... show me where any state has a law that say it is illegal to drink and drive? it's a state issue not a constitioinal issue.

However I stand by the point .08 is legally drunk.. that is what everone precives the legal limit to be... and the state being mine does say .08... Again it is not illegal to drink and drive. It does not say anywhere for a person over 21 that you may not drink and drive...

yet keep in mind all state say you must be 21 to drink... 21 meaning consume and buy booze..


Go back and reread what he posted. HE is the one that claimed we can thank MADD for this "breach of the Constitution

My point was lobby groups lobby for legislation... and many times get what they want via lobbing thats why they exisit... it happends all the time.. just the way it works. I stand by my points be dead on.

for the record I would be in favor of my state dropping the legal limit. to .02 or .03 and call it zero tolerance.. that cuts out all the I only had 3 beers stuff from people...

[Ajosin]

Originally Posted by Curt581

Please post links to:

Before you go off on a tear, googling the crap out of each of those subjects, I'll give you a hint: Neither of those constitutional 'rights' exist, nor does MADD have the ability, on its own, to change the Constitution. As a matter for fact, states had drunk driving laws many years before MADD even existed.

Thanks for your answer. My point was that the constitution has been breached via unconstitutional laws (not by changing it, that would actually be legitimate). Legal analysts agree that the police power to remove your license until you are found not guilty is unconstitutional. For example, if this were extended to other areas, the police would have the power to access your bank account to deduct traffic fines (refunded only if your are found not guilty), etc.

Originally Posted by Curt581

Please post links to:

It was only luck that your BAC was within a hairsbreath of the per se limit. A few minutes either way, could have put you at or above. That certainly doesn't give you cause to claim you were stone sober. You weren't. Instead of blaming MADD, the judicial system, the DAs Office, defense attorneys, the cops... why don't you grow some man-things and accept responsibility for your own screw ups? You managed to dodge a major bullet, but the fact remains... you fired it yourself.

It was a close call in the sense that they almost got enough false evidence to convict an innocent person. I do not accept responsibility because I was not imparied. The police extended the FSB until I accumlated the minimun number of mistakes to be arrested (some tests were repeated more than twice so that they could count up the points). The police made me blow 1.5 hours after my last drink. They were part of a DUI task-force and knew at what point my BAC was most likely peaking. I was surprised to hit as high as 0.07 (guess they did a good "job"). They were clearly not interested in my BAC when I was driving. They were simply interested in getting another conviction. Also, they were disappointed that I was not legally intoxicated. Finally, they boasted that they had gotten convictions with a BAC of 0.06. My heart goes out to those people whose lives were changed forever. From my point of view, the conviction-driven police special task-force were the ones who fired a "bullet" at me and those other people.

[Ohiogal]

Originally Posted by Clock

Wait - are you really implying that the only rights we have are the ones explicitly defined in the constitution?

We also have the penumbra of rights HOWEVER drinking and driving are NOT rights -- either together OR separately. They are privileges.

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by Clock

Wait - are you really implying that the only rights we have are the ones explicitly defined in the constitution?

What a quaint and silly notion!

SCOTUS has found all kinds of stuff that isn't there!



"Yesterday upon the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today, Oh, how I wish he'd go away."

Hughes Mearns
--Antigonish (1899)

[Curt581]

Originally Posted by Ajosin

Legal analysts agree that the police power to remove your license until you are found not guilty is unconstitutional.

Please post a link to that analysis.... unless you're just talking out of your butt.... Again.

It was a close call in the sense that they almost got enough false evidence to convict an innocent person.

So... if your BAC had been .08 or .10... would they have gotten enough "false evidence"?

You have no idea of what you're talking about.

Come back when you get arrested again.

[paguy88]

Originally Posted by Ohiogal

We also have the penumbra of rights HOWEVER drinking and driving are NOT rights -- either together OR separately. They are privileges.

who gives this privilage of drinking booze to us or for that matter kool aid?

[BigMistakeFl]

I dunno.... seems to me that anything I want to do as a citizen, so long as I'm not breaking the law or hurting anyone else, is my right.

[RatPackLar]

If you are not breaking the law, then sure, you should go free. However as we all know, most of the ones stopped are breaking the law, and they get popped. Then they gotta fight the fight, or do the DUI dance. It always costs money, to defend and go free, or to get hooked, hung, and you still pay. Bottom line it always costs money. It is just not worth it, to even get into the fight, to begin with. Some again, have the money, most do not, so why even take the chance.