Pulled over for speeding then it turned to DWI(blew 0.031 at jail)

[AndMcSpadd]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Austin, Texas

I was arrested for a DWI based on a failed field sobriety test which I was extremely nervous about because I had never received any type of driving while intoxicated tests nor have I ever been convicted for any sort of misdemeanor or felonies besides a speeding ticket or two. I was also extremely cold and chattering because I was wearing shorts outside on a windy night while the officer performed the test.
I consumed Two 16oz Miller Light Drafts as well as a one 1oz shot of crown royal mixed in with ~2.6 glasses of water (served in a 32oz cup) over a time period of 3.5~4hrs. I did inform the officer of this before he conducted the field test. After failing the test from his perspective, he arrested and put me in his squad car. After about 5 minutes of conversing with my passenger he came back to the car and asked if I would grant him consent of a breath or blood specimen. Although I know this is a big no-no in an Attorneys eyes, I granted the officer consent for only a breath specimen; thinking I would blow way below the legal Texas limit of 0.08. However, after my consensual agreement he shut the door, got in the driver's seat and took me to jail.
When I arrived to the jail (Williamson County Jail), I was given a Breathalyzer test where I blew a 0.031 and a 0.032. The officer told me that these numbers were too inconsistent and questioned about any medications or drugs I had consumed that night. I informed him that I have not and do not take any medication or drugs. Later, I was talked into giving a blood test which was signed by consent, again thinking this would only benefit when the results come back showing I was not on any drugs nor was I unable to operate a motor vehicle.
After the blood draw, he performed one more, filmed, field sobriety test, supervised by who I believe was his Sargent on duty. The officer said my eyes were not dilating properly for his array of light spectrum tests and told me I was not telling him the truth about what I had consumed that night and concluded that based on his evidence I was unable to operate my motor vehicle that night.

I am in a bind and could use some educated help to get me through this.
Do I have enough information to prove I am not guilty? Will a court appointed Attorney be enough to assist my plea of innocence? Am I able to obtain copies of the documents I signed, the Breathalyzer results, the blood results, squad car audio/footage, as well as the filmed test in jail?

Note: I was not ticketed for speeding.
Thank you for your advice.

 

[robertreck19]

hello

To be up against DUI or DWI legal cases is a difficult predicament. Being charged with these charges may have serious repercussions for anybody. Individuals convicted with DWI or DUI legal cases might be locked up, expected to cover substantial fees, terminated license, ordered to carry out community service, and required to install an ignition interlock unit.

 

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Austin, Texas

I was arrested for a DWI based on a failed field sobriety test which I was extremely nervous about because I had never received any type of driving while intoxicated tests nor have I ever been convicted for any sort of misdemeanor or felonies besides a speeding ticket or two. I was also extremely cold and chattering because I was wearing shorts outside on a windy night while the officer performed the test.
I consumed Two 16oz Miller Light Drafts as well as a one 1oz shot of crown royal mixed in with ~2.6 glasses of water (served in a 32oz cup) over a time period of 3.5~4hrs. I did inform the officer of this before he conducted the field test. After failing the test from his perspective, he arrested and put me in his squad car. After about 5 minutes of conversing with my passenger he came back to the car and asked if I would grant him consent of a breath or blood specimen. Although I know this is a big no-no in an Attorneys eyes, I granted the officer consent for only a breath specimen; thinking I would blow way below the legal Texas limit of 0.08. However, after my consensual agreement he shut the door, got in the driver's seat and took me to jail.
When I arrived to the jail (Williamson County Jail), I was given a Breathalyzer test where I blew a 0.031 and a 0.032. The officer told me that these numbers were too inconsistent and questioned about any medications or drugs I had consumed that night. I informed him that I have not and do not take any medication or drugs. Later, I was talked into giving a blood test which was signed by consent, again thinking this would only benefit when the results come back showing I was not on any drugs nor was I unable to operate a motor vehicle.
After the blood draw, he performed one more, filmed, field sobriety test, supervised by who I believe was his Sargent on duty. The officer said my eyes were not dilating properly for his array of light spectrum tests and told me I was not telling him the truth about what I had consumed that night and concluded that based on his evidence I was unable to operate my motor vehicle that night.

I am in a bind and could use some educated help to get me through this.
Do I have enough information to prove I am not guilty? Will a court appointed Attorney be enough to assist my plea of innocence? Am I able to obtain copies of the documents I signed, the Breathalyzer results, the blood results, squad car audio/footage, as well as the filmed test in jail?

Note: I was not ticketed for speeding.
Thank you for your advice.

Did you blow 0.312 -- which is above 0.08 -- or did you blow 0.0312 which is below 0.08? Clarify that matter first. Why do you believe you are not guilty? Are you sure there was water in with the Crown Royal (and why anyone would do that is beyond me). A court appointed attorney is the same as a high cost attorney. They both have the same license to practice law.

 

[Zigner]

The matter of the "legal limit" is often misunderstood. You can be driving under the influence with much lower than the per se legal limit. The only thing the .08 limit affects is how hard the state will have to work to prove you were impaired. Over .08, you are presumed to be impaired. Under .08 and the state will have to offer evidence that you were impaired.

 

[TigerD]

Talk to a local DWI attorney.
You have things you must do within a limited time. This is worth getting an attorney for.

DC

 

[betachains]

If you only blew 0.03 and you are sure that you haven't been taking any impairing drugs (street or prescription), then your blood tests should come back clean (except for the BAC). Yes, you can be impaired with a BAC or 0.03 or zero, but few prosecutors are going to waste their time on this, especially since the reason for your stop was just speeding.

Blood tests results can take months before they come back, depending on your county. Your first court appearance may be scheduled before the results are available.

The best course is, of course, get a lawyer now, but prepare to pay a few thousand dollars. Alternatively, go to your court date and see if you are charged at all. If so, you can ask for a continuance and get a lawyer then. You can request a public defender at that time, but you will only get one if you can prove your financial inability to hire private counsel.

The accuracy of field sobriety tests is exaggerated. Clearly if someone is stone-cold sober or staggeringly drunk, the accuracy is very high (95%) in predicting BAC >0.08. . For those around 0.08, the FST's are much less impressive. ("Statistical Evaluation of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests" http://www.mphlastala.com/JFSSFST.pdf ). As briefly discussed on another thread, unless you have had nothing to drink (or taken any other recent intoxicant), it is probably in a driver's best interest to politely refuse FST's.

 

[CdwJava]

If what the OP says is true, the .03-ish is about where he would likely be after 3 1/2 to 4 hours. Since the officers asked about any drugs, I suspect that they observed signs that were not consistent with the level of alcohol impairment at .03 - hence, the blood test.

Engaging an attorney would be advisable. But, the prosecutor may not file anything until after the blood test results are back. And, if the test comes back negative, chances are no charges will be forthcoming.

 

[betachains]

To be up against DUI or DWI legal cases is a difficult predicament. Being charged with these charges may have serious repercussions for anybody. Individuals convicted with DWI or DUI legal cases might be locked up, expected to cover substantial fees, terminated license, ordered to carry out community service, and required to install an ignition interlock unit.

Yeah, but the OP is not going to be charged for a BAC of 0.03 and just speeding if the blood test is negative for drugs.

Times are rough for new lawyers these days, huh?

 

[FlyingRon]

Yeah, but the OP is not going to be charged for a BAC of 0.03 and just speeding if the blood test is negative for drugs.

Don't bet on it.

If she's been charged with DUI (which presumably she has based on what was said), then she needs a lawyer. If below the per se limit, the subjective intoxication evidence can be challenged by someone who knows what they are doing. Even above the limit, there may be issues not disclosed here that can be used as a defense.

Did I miss the person's age? If under 21, they can be charged with per se DUI at .02. Unlike other states, Texas charges the underage DUI as a full up DUI.

 

[betachains]

Don't bet on it.

If she's been charged with DUI (which presumably she has based on what was said), then she needs a lawyer. If below the per se limit, the subjective intoxication evidence can be challenged by someone who knows what they are doing. Even above the limit, there may be issues not disclosed here that can be used as a defense.

Did I miss the person's age? If under 21, they can be charged with per se DUI at .02. Unlike other states, Texas charges the underage DUI as a full up DUI.

OP was arrested, but not yet charged. As I said, he/she should get a lawyer if charged.

He/she didn't mention age, but the totality of the OP message suggests 21+.

 

[LdiJ]

If you only blew 0.03 and you are sure that you haven't been taking any impairing drugs (street or prescription), then your blood tests should come back clean (except for the BAC). Yes, you can be impaired with a BAC or 0.03 or zero, but few prosecutors are going to waste their time on this, especially since the reason for your stop was just speeding.

Blood tests results can take months before they come back, depending on your county. Your first court appearance may be scheduled before the results are available.

The best course is, of course, get a lawyer now, but prepare to pay a few thousand dollars. Alternatively, go to your court date and see if you are charged at all. If so, you can ask for a continuance and get a lawyer then. You can request a public defender at that time, but you will only get one if you can prove your financial inability to hire private counsel.

The accuracy of field sobriety tests is exaggerated. Clearly if someone is stone-cold sober or staggeringly drunk, the accuracy is very high (95%) in predicting BAC >0.08. . For those around 0.08, the FST's are much less impressive. ("Statistical Evaluation of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests" http://www.mphlastala.com/JFSSFST.pdf ). As briefly discussed on another thread, unless you have had nothing to drink (or taken any other recent intoxicant), it is probably in a driver's best interest to politely refuse FST's.

I couldn't pass a field sobriety test if I were stone cold sober. I just can't do those things.

 

[tranquility]

The accuracy of field sobriety tests is exaggerated. Clearly if someone is stone-cold sober or staggeringly drunk, the accuracy is very high (95%) in predicting BAC >0.08. . For those around 0.08, the FST's are much less impressive. ("Statistical Evaluation of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests" http://www.mphlastala.com/JFSSFST.pdf ). As briefly discussed on another thread, unless you have had nothing to drink (or taken any other recent intoxicant), it is probably in a driver's best interest to politely refuse FST's.

Yes and no. I was trained by the people who invented the battery back when the per se was .10%. I was studious and, since they trained hard as they wanted to make the battery standard, one of the actual PhD's in the original studies was the trainer.

It wasn't long after no one would bet breakfast on who estimated the BAC the closest to the chemical test with me. I know the test just gives a percentage based on the number of errors (as defined by the criteria) as to the possibility of the person being over the limit. But, for me, it was the angle of onset for horizontal nystagmus that was the key to not paying at Denny's. It was amazing. Sure, sometimes it was not correct, that's why we have chemical tests. But, the purpose of the test is not to see if the person is over the per se limit, but to determine if they are impaired. (Actually, to see if there is probable cause to believe they are impaired.) Along with the reason the person was pulled over in the first place and other objective signs, I think FST's are a good way to help determine impairment from alcohol. Almost a better one than per se limits as the FST helps to show physical/mental impairment while the chemical test shows BAC.

 

[CdwJava]

I am also an instructor, and my favorite test is the HGN. When you do enough of these (and you do a lot of them in preparation for the DRE training) you can get pretty darn good at estimating BAC based solely on angle of onset. Today the law prevents us from using this to estimate BAC, but it is still a useful tool for the officer and can key him in on about how impaired the subject is, or whether he should be looking for drugs rather than alcohol.