Follow up on my original thread

[NameWitheld]

Here's the thread in question: https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=354043

I just wanted to post a follow up for whoever may be wrongly accused to DWI and have their Fourth Amendment rights violated in the process.

My case was thrown out for an illegal stop. The Trooper admitted that I was not driving erratically and a reasonable attempt had been made on my part to repair the tail lamp in question. Due to this, the stop was deemed improper and all evidence thereafter was inadmissible and the case was dropped.

For those of you that may come here looking for serious help, don't heed the advice of the holier-than-thou jerk offs like those who posted in my original thread.

 

[CdwJava]

You are very lucky. In most states a busted tail light is a busted tail light regardless of your "attempt" to repair it. However, even in my state, some few courts will still look at a busted tail light as legal if it is still entirely red (covered with tape or cellophane to project a red light to the rear).

Hopefully you have learned from the incident and no longer drive after having a few drinks. Regardless of your feelings on the matter, you ARE impaired at .08, and i doubt you want to be a danger to others ... at least I hope not.

And I was one of those who posted to your original thread and I seem to recall not being accused of being "holier than thou".

- Carl

 

[Zigner]

Here's the thread in question: https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=354043

I just wanted to post a follow up for whoever may be wrongly accused to DWI and have their Fourth Amendment rights violated in the process.

And, just remember, this is being posted by the guy who was NOT wrongfully accused of DWI and, in fact, admits to drinking and driving and to being too intoxicated to even past the field tests. He managed to get a sympathetic judge who allowed him to skate on a technicality. Lucky guy.

As I said in my original response: I wish I knew who the officer was who stopped you, because I would like to personally write a thank you letter on behalf of anyone who was on the road with you that night!

Here is my original reply, which still stands.

Oh you CANNOT be serious.
The reason given for you being pulled over was your broken tail light. And, lo and behold, you DID have a broken tail light. Then you say you KNOW you were over the legal limit, so you refused the breathalyzer test. That was a bonehead move on your part. See, it got you arrested.
Then, you CLAIM that you remember every aspect of the incident, but you can't even remember the instructions you were given for your sobriety tests.

I wish I knew who the officer was who stopped you, because I would like to personally write a thank you letter on behalf of anyone who was on the road with you that night!


You need to shell out the bucks and get yourself a good lawyer - you'll need it. This is not a do-it-yourself project.


PS: I hope that, even with that good lawyer, you end up with this conviction on your record. Perhaps it will make you think twice before getting wasted and then driving!

 

[NameWitheld]

You are very lucky. In most states a busted tail light is a busted tail light regardless of your "attempt" to repair it. However, even in my state, some few courts will still look at a busted tail light as legal if it is still entirely red (covered with tape or cellophane to project a red light to the rear).

Hopefully you have learned from the incident and no longer drive after having a few drinks. Regardless of your feelings on the matter, you ARE impaired at .08, and i doubt you want to be a danger to others ... at least I hope not.

And I was one of those who posted to your original thread and I seem to recall not being accused of being "holier than thou".

- Carl

As I remember it, you were the only one that didn't have an attitude.

The statute in New Hampshire states that red light must be visible from a given distance (I forget the exact distance now). The trooper stated there was a sliver of white light, but admitted mostly red light was visible from that tail lamp. Since the statute wait nothing about whether or not white light could be seen, the case was dismissed.

As far as the rest of it, I was not impaired. In a hearing for my refusal of the breathalyzer, the trooper admitted to improperly conducting the HGN. He also had determined that night that my passenger failed a FST and was too intoxicated to drive. My passenger then blew a .04 at the station.

The trooper made an illegal stop and fudged the results of the tests to charge me with DWI. He was caught on both accounts and justice was served.

 

[NameWitheld]

And, just remember, this is being posted by the guy who was NOT wrongfully accused of DWI and, in fact, admits to drinking and driving and to being too intoxicated to even past the field tests. He managed to get a sympathetic judge who allowed him to skate on a technicality. Lucky guy.

As I said in my original response: I wish I knew who the officer was who stopped you, because I would like to personally write a thank you letter on behalf of anyone who was on the road with you that night!

Here is my original reply, which still stands.

Luck has nothing to do with it. I actually passed the FSTs, and the trooper was caught admitting to improperly conducting them.

As I said in my original thread, take your holier than thou garbage elsewhere, as you're just as wrong today as you were 9 months ago.

 

[Zigner]

Luck has nothing to do with it. I actually passed the FSTs, and the trooper was caught admitting to improperly conducting them.

As I said in my original thread, take your holier than thou garbage elsewhere, as you're just as wrong today as you were 9 months ago.

I WILL state that I have a holier than thou attitude. I've never seen the inside of a jail cell and I've never even been requested to do FST's. Then again, I ain't dumb enough to get behind the wheel after than drinking.
In that light, maybe I should clarify...my holier than thou attitude is only limited to dealing with you.

Congratulations on your luck of the draw for the judge you had.

 

[NameWitheld]

I WILL state that I have a holier than thou attitude. I've never seen the inside of a jail cell and I've never even been requested to do FST's. Then again, I ain't dumb enough to get behind the wheel after than drinking.
In that light, maybe I should clarify...my holier than thou attitude is only limited to dealing with you.

Congratulations on your luck of the draw for the judge you had.

I've never seen the inside of a jail cell, either.

I was only requested to do an FST because of an unconstitutional stop.

And again, luck had nothing to do with it. I passed the FSTs, and the trooper admitted as much in a previous hearing.

Perhaps you should do some research into just how "dumb" it is to drive after imbibing. Perhaps take a look at the CDC statistics that state an "alcohol related" death occurs in less than 0.01 percent of instances of intoxicated driving.

 

[cool9026]

Unbelievable. This guy did not learn a thing after what he has gone through.
I guess you ARE lucky in a sense. You are the one who can tell if you are impaired or not after 6 drinks with confidence. That is kinda gift I would want. I hope you keep drinking and driving safely as you did last time.

 

[CdwJava]

Perhaps you should do some research into just how "dumb" it is to drive after imbibing. Perhaps take a look at the CDC statistics that state an "alcohol related" death occurs in less than 0.01 percent of instances of intoxicated driving.

The statistics skyrocket as to the probability of serious injury or death when alcohol is involved. You are far more likely to be involved in a seriour injury or fatal collision after drinking then when not drinking.

The numbers bear that out.

- Carl

 

[Zigner]

Perhaps take a look at the CDC statistics that state an "alcohol related" death occurs in less than 0.01 percent of instances of intoxicated driving.

What an imbecile. Look at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm
(if you can put down the drink long enough)

 

[RobertMillerAtt]

Thank you, NameWithheld, for posting the results of your hearing - it's not often we get to see the after effects. You and your attorney did a good thing by standing up on the other side of the system and keeping everyone honest. Kudos.

 

[BL]

Thank you, NameWithheld, for posting the results of your hearing - it's not often we get to see the after effects. You and your attorney did a good thing by standing up on the other side of the system and keeping everyone honest. Kudos.

Use of the Forums is subject to our Terms and Conditions which prohibit advertisements, solicitations or other commercial messages, or false, defamatory, abusive, vulgar, or harassing messages, and subject violators to a fee for each improper posting.

I'm sure you will edit your signiture and your profile , or the moderator may .

 

[NameWitheld]

What an imbecile. Look at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm
(if you can put down the drink long enough)

Thank you for posting the link for me. Perhaps you should actually read it before throwing out the ad hominem attacks.

During 2005, 16,885 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes,

In 2005, nearly 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics (Department of Justice 2005). That’s less than one percent of the 159 million self-reported episodes of alcohol–impaired driving among U.S. adults each year (Quinlan et al. 2005).

16,885/159,000,000 = 0.0001 death rate, or 0.01 percent.

Now, in reality, it's actually less than 0.01 percent, for two reasons. 1. As anyone that has taken even a rudimentary statistics course can tell you, the number of self admitted instances of intoxicated driving is going to be underreported. It's just human nature. 2. The NHTSA's flawed system of reporting "alcohol related" deaths, rather than drunk driving deaths, causes the true figure to be lower than the ~17K reported.

 

[NameWitheld]

The statistics skyrocket as to the probability of serious injury or death when alcohol is involved. You are far more likely to be involved in a seriour injury or fatal collision after drinking then when not drinking.

The numbers bear that out.

- Carl

They really don't though. Not until a considerable amount of alcohol is involved. MADD simply has a wonderful marketing team that has convinced America the risks are far greater than they truly are.

 

[NameWitheld]

Thank you, NameWithheld, for posting the results of your hearing - it's not often we get to see the after effects. You and your attorney did a good thing by standing up on the other side of the system and keeping everyone honest. Kudos.

I'd imagine that's largely due to the attitude most people encounter when interacting with people like Zigner