uplled over for DUI - without probabal cause etc

[BrianWI]

MN - it was after bar close and i had only a few drinks after midnight (nothing before that) i was dropping a friend off at their car. I was parked legally on the side of the road with my car running, friend was getting out and cop pulls behind with their lights on. confident i was alright and nothing is wrong with my car, i answered his questions honestly and got out for road side sobriety test. when i asked why i got pulled over he said there was something wrong with my tail light (i find out later when i get it back from the tow place there is nothing wrong) i pass the test and he gives me a breathalyzer, wouldnt tell me what i blew and brought me to the police station. there i blew over a .1 and get released with a dui ticket. on the ticket it shows on the road side, i blew a .079 (.001 under the limit)

on these terms, is it fightable even though at the police station i blew over the limit since he had no probable cause or anything to arrest me for?

[CdwJava]

Hire an attorney and see if you can successfully challenge the reasonable suspicion for the detention. If he had his rotating lights on, he had effectively detained you (not sure if they are red, blue, or red AND blue in your state). To affect a detention he has to have reasonable suspicion to do so. If your tail lights were messed up, that would be enough. You will have to argue that they were not messed up.

Next time, do not drink and then drive. The fact that you were .079 at the initial blow does not mean you were not impaired. Impairment can begin to be measured at as low as .02.

- Carl

[BrianWI]

thank you for the quick response. so basically all i can argue is it was not justified to be detained when my tail lights were actually functioning properly?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by BrianWI

thank you for the quick response. so basically all i can argue is it was not justified to be detained when my tail lights were actually functioning properly?

That would seem to be the best shot. Most DUI cases are lost if the detention and original contact survives any motion to dismiss.

If the lights even appeared to be dim or malfunctioning, that could be sufficient. It's a long shot, but it may be all you have. But, an attorney may find some additional weaknesses in the officer's contact and evaluation, so you really need to hire an attorney ASAP. If the case is strong, a decent attorney might be able to work out a decent deal to minimize the impact to you. And, in the future, do not drink and drive and this won't be an issue.

- Carl

[xylene]

The .1 at the station was on the Breathalyzer - that is the evidentiary reading which establishes that you were over the statutory limit.

The device you blew into on the road is a field screener. Your reading of .079 was enough for you to be arrested under suspicion of DUI.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by BrianWI

thank you for the quick response. so basically all i can argue is it was not justified to be detained when my tail lights were actually functioning properly?

Yep, you have to present evidence that will over-ride the evidence the state has against you. Of course, the state's evidence is the testimony of an unbiased officer, while yours is that of a drunk trying to get out of the punishment.

[HighwayMan]

How do you know you passed the sobriety tests?

Maybe you just think you did.

[chrismiles]

if you were drunk they will just say you wre acting all crazy and drunk...the police are pretty corrupt so they will get there way...

[Adalaide78]

Originally Posted by chrismiles

if you were drunk they will just say you wre acting all crazy and drunk...the police are pretty corrupt so they will get there way...

That's absurd. Sure there are corrupt cops, and probably in nearly every town but this guys admits in his post that he was drinking and driving. He even points out that he didn't start drinking until less than 2 hours before last call. I'm sure drunk people think they pass FSTs all the time. I'm confidant that the reason they believe this is the same reason they shouldn't be driving... they are impaired. This particular case probably hangs on the tail light issue. OP has a very steep uphill battle since it will be very difficult to prove that nothing was wrong with his tail light that night.