Help please! Friend in trouble.

[someone]

What is the name of your state? Minnesota

Hello all! Today I got a phone call from my friend stating he had been pulled over and charged with a first offence D.U.I. under 21. As well as consumption of alchohol under 21.
My first question is this: is their anyway this could be wiped from his record?

My second question requires a little more background. Apparently the officer gave my friend 4 sobriety tests. He believes he did fine on the first three (these being physical motor tests) and the third one was the Breathalizer. It took the officers SIX times to get an accurate reading, each time telling my friend he needed to blow harder. They finally got an accurate reading on the sixth one of .054. HOWEVER, the officer wrote down .54 on the ticket (which means my friend would have been dead). Also on the ticket the Officer wrote down "Poor Sample." Now given all this information, is their anyway my friend could get the case thrown out? If so do you suggest he hire lawyer or use a public defender? Would it be better and less costly to just plead out? how bad is it to have such an offence on one's record?


Thanks in advance to all who reply to this. My buddy is the nicest guy in the world and I would hate to see his life messed up because of this.

[>Charlotte<]

Your friend needs a lawyer.

It took the officer six times to get an accurate reading because your friend was trying to manipulate the Breathalizer by not blowing properly.

From the Minnesota DMV:

A person with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher (0.04 if the person is driving a commercial vehicle), who is in control of a moving or parked vehicle, can be arrested for driving while impaired (DWI). If a law enforcement officer can prove that alcohol caused the driver to commit driving errors, he or she can be arrested for DWI at an alcohol concentration level a low as 0.04.

A law enforcement officer may ask you to blow into a roadside preliminary screening device. This pre-arrest breath test helps the officer determine how much alcohol you have in your system. This instrument is only used as an indicator of your alcohol-concentration level and theresults have limited use as evidence in court.

Penalties associated with an alcohol-related revocation of a driverʼs license include a $680 reinstatement fee and completion of a DWI knowledge test, driverʼs license application, and a chemical assessment. Each offense has unique criminal penalties in addition to administrative sanctions, depending on the arrest situation, previous driving violations, and criminal record. Penalties will be more severe if the driver....Is under 21 years of age

First Offense
• Minimum of 90-day revocation (30 days if individual pleads guilty to DWI).
• No work permit will be issued until a 15 day revocation period has passed, and until reinstatement requirements have been met.
• 90 days in jail and/or $1,000 fine.

Incidentally, I have a friend in Minnesota who's pretty nice, too, and I'd hate to see her life messed up by your drunk driving friend.

[someone]

Thanks for the reply. I don't think he was trying to manipulate the Breathlizer, his lungs have been messed up the last few weeks (he saw a doctor, but I forgot what the doctor told him). So I think it had something to do with that.

Anyway, I do realize what he did was extremely stupid and endangered his life as well the lives of others. As does he I'm sure (and trust me I won't hesitate to remind him). That being said however, no lives were lost and now I am just trying to help him a bit so his does not get totally screwed.


But yea thanks for the advice. and point well received.

[paguy88]

Incidentally, I have a friend in Minnesota who's pretty nice, too, and I'd hate to see her life messed up by your drunk driving friend.[/quote]


this comment I have a probelm with.... The person arrested is innocent until proven guilty......

calling his friend a drunk driver implys him or her being guilty...

grow up this is america pal...

innocent until proven guilty.

[>Charlotte<]

First, I'm not your pal.

Secondly, with regard to "innocent until proven guilty", I'm not going to be on this guy's jury. I can think what I want.

Thirdly, I'm not hearing any claims that the driver wasn't drinking, what I'm hearing is loophole-hunting. Assumption? Yep. Not fair? Tough.

I'm out.

[paguy88]

Originally Posted by Clt747

First, I'm not your pal.

Secondly, with regard to "innocent until proven guilty", I'm not going to be on this guy's jury. I can think what I want.

Thirdly, I'm not hearing any claims that the driver wasn't drinking, what I'm hearing is loophole-hunting. Assumption? Yep. Not fair? Tough.

I'm out.

you dont have to be on his jury PAL....

It's a right to be innocent until proven guilty... but america is seems to be changing until guilty until proven innocent... Grow up.

I dont care if the guys said I drank a case of beer until the Judge comes back with Guilty.. He or she is not...

now I am out...

[Indiana Filer]

Originally Posted by paguy88

you dont have to be on his jury PAL....

It's a right to be innocent until proven guilty... but america is seems to be changing until guilty until proven innocent... Grow up.

I dont care if the guys said I drank a case of beer until the Judge comes back with Guilty.. He or she is not...

now I am out...

You don't know anything about the law, do you? Unless we are the judge or jury judging this person, we can believe anything we want about the person. Even in America! The Court has to consider the person guilty, but the prosecutor, the spectators, and everyone else in the world can consider her to be guilty.

You need to read something other than fiction.

[paguy88]

Originally Posted by Indiana Filer

You don't know anything about the law, do you? Unless we are the judge or jury judging this person, we can believe anything we want about the person. Even in America! The Court has to consider the person guilty, but the prosecutor, the spectators, and everyone else in the world can consider her to be guilty.

You need to read something other than fiction.

AHHH yet again a cop out response....

FACT IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE DOES NOT MATTER...

It irrelivent what the prosecutor thinks or other innocent until provin guilty... he is trying to get a convition...

wait why not just convit him... shot who cares right? the wise crack remarks really help and since you and many on this board already have your mind made up just convit him.. toss him in jail why have a trial who cares... right? why even bother to make the DA prove there case... he is a drunk and has no right except for you to believe his is a aful drunk... just convit him...

AMERICA INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY... THATS THE LAW PROVING YOU KNOW NOTHING..

[CdwJava]

The point that has not been pointed out here is that the driver was UNDER 21 YEARS OLD. This means that while he may not be charged with DUI he is almost certainly going to suffer the consequences of being a driver under 21 with alcohol in his system. MN's zero tolerance level is anything over .00.

paguy, while it is true that no court has yet found this guy guilty of anything, his friend even tacitly admits that the buddy had been driving after drinking,. Even if not eventually found guilty of DUI, he is almost certainly going to be found in violation of the zero tolerance laws and whatever punishment that shall entail. You do not have to like or agree with it, but that's the way it is.

And for the record, I believe he's likely guilty. Since no denial has been presented here, I can only assume that the driver had been drinking.

Someone, there may be some way this can be "wiped" from his record, but that will depend on the laws in your state which I am unfamiliar with. There may be a deferred sentence program or a lesser offense that is commonly pled to in these instances and an attorney will almost certainly know how to go about seeking these options. Chances are he faces at least a year of counseling, a suspended license, and some fines.

- Carl