DUI

I am a 33 year old male who received a DUI on 6/23 in Contra Costa County, California. I had a few beers with my brother and was driving home about midnite in my jeep. My brother will testify that I was perfectly ok to drive. My mom had to pick me up and she attests I would have been fine to drive, but the two female CHP officers told us not to. I was picked up for going too slow obstensibly. The jeep is old, it has no shocks, it can't
go up the grade to the tunnel above the speed limit. I was not impaired, and I was not endangering anyone. When I got the CHP report, it was practically untrue from start to finish. The breathilizer was 1. I took a blood test, and have not gotten back the results. If I had been truly "under the influence" and impaired, I would take my medicine, but when the report is untrue I'm wondering if something else is going on here. I appreciate any and all information that can help me. Thanks!

What do you mean by 1, you mean .01 or .1? that would make a big differece...

It was .1

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PLP:
It was .1<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

The only qualifications I have to answer this question are I am also from Contra Costa County California and here is what I know about the laws, and just common sense input.
First common sense....I know the Caldocott grade you speak of in your post. It is a good long grade to climb for a vehicle that is failing from age. But, it isn't a very good arguement I'm sorry to say. 99.8% of the cars in this area are newer and in good condition enough to come up on your a$$ at 65+ with a quickness. Hill or no hill. Especially when the 5 or 6 open free flying lanes quickly merge into 2 lanes. Then if 2 of the 4 tunnels be closed, your begging for trouble! You must not remember the 7 people killed in the tanker explosion in the tunnel from the tanker moving to slow and another vehicle ramming it from behind? Of course they prohibit tankers during regular driving hours now. But, DO permit them at the hours you were driving! So going "obstensively slow", is definately a good reason to pull you over for the safety of others....not to mention yourself and your passenger. BTW, you didn't say what your "exact" speed was when you were pulled over.
I am fully aware, and you should have also known, that "going "to slow" is as good a reason as driving to fast to get your butt pulled over. It's all in the DMV driver test manual, and common sense should tell ya so. Using the "my car was mechanically unsound" defense.......isn't going to get you any sympathy or excused of the charge. IMHO

As to the legal end....California legal limits on blood alcohol is .08 , and your breathalizer test read .1 That would put you OVER the legal limits. I don't know how it works should your blood analysis come back under the .08 limit for some reason (expired time & absorbtion?). But I speak from experience, (I was a juror on a DUI contested charge), and DUI charges in any state are tough, tough, tough, to beat! The limits are set in stone, and so far.....your goose is cooked.

The only way I can see you slidin out o this is.....hire the best attorney possible, contest your charges under your rational the report was written wrong, your vehicle had no shocks, (but the test was .1) spend big big bucks, take it to jury and PRAY rrrreal hard one of the TWO CHP's just HAPPEN to be too busy to show up in court to testify to the validity of their statements. It ain't gonna happen!

Or you can tuck in your tail, sell that JEEP, save the money you would have given an attorney to find you guilty, (and they will), pay your fines, take your classes, and maybe you'll still have enough money to buy a good, SAFE, reliable car/jeep!!!

Sorry wish I could cheer ya on man.....I just can't see it knowing what I know from reading your post.

Good Luck!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The only way I can see you slidin out o this is.....hire the best
attorney possible, contest your charges under your rational the report
was written wrong, your vehicle had no shocks, (but the test was .1)
spend big big bucks, take it to jury and PRAY rrrreal hard one of the
TWO CHP's just HAPPEN to be too busy to show up in court to testify to
the validity of their statements. It ain't gonna happen!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Should have said.....Pray rrreal hard that BOTH CHP officer's are too busy to show.

2laydback, I have to disagree. If this fella was DUI, I pray pray pray pray pray! that he gets his carcass canned. I have an idea for dealing with DUI's. Upon conviction they should live in a halfway house for a while, and for the entire duration of staying there they should be in a wheelchair. Nothing fancy, just some wheelchair the local hospital is gonna throw out. Have the convicted DUI go to work, church, and the mall in a wheelchair with a sign on the chair saying "CONVICTED DUI". I think that 3 to 6 months is should do the trick. What do you think?

------------------
I ain't a lawyer. I ain't a copper. I'm a true blue American that believes in Freedom for all. Provided they ain't criminals.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dsut:
2laydback, I have to disagree. If this fella was DUI, I pray pray pray pray pray! that he gets his carcass canned. I have an idea for dealing with DUI's. Upon conviction they should live in a halfway house for a while, and for the entire duration of staying there they should be in a wheelchair. Nothing fancy, just some wheelchair the local hospital is gonna throw out. Have the convicted DUI go to work, church, and the mall in a wheelchair with a sign on the chair saying "CONVICTED DUI". I think that 3 to 6 months is should do the trick. What do you think?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi dsut,

Actually, my statement was not actually in defense of the guy. It was actually a bit of hypothetical sarcasm to draw a picture of how far-fetched and weak his case would appear if he spent time fighting the charge. But, that's just MY opinion.

What do I think? Your idea of wheelchair confinement is...well, rather unique and creative! Since you asked what I thought and we are being creative here is another penalty to ADD to the punishments already in effect.

Paragraph I
Anyone convicted of driving under the influence shall be required to manditorily attend all non conflicting funerals that take place within their county, or county's, determined by an adaquate population to fulfill required minimum of the law, set forth in Paragraph 2. The funeral's to be attended will be due to alcohol related deaths, but, NOT limited to victims of accidents caused by DUI. This includes, but not limited to.. deaths from, liver failure, stroke/high blood pressure, heart attack, violent acts, accidental falls, and suicide.

Paragraph II
The number of attendances will be with in pre-determined guidelines set forth by the courts. But shall be determined by families who suffered from the loss of a family member, and must be limited to, the cause of death. The death must be due to the hands of another who chose to drink and drive.

Paragraph III
The convicted party shall introduce himself as such, and have a statement or ulogy prepared that express's, the dangers, the cause, and the effects for having taken the risk of drinking and driving.
SECTION A
The convicted party must also attend any family gatherings, (provided the families agree), but is to observe and listen only. No conversation will be exchanged. This required observance is in order to allow the convicted to "get to know" the victim, through the eyes, words, memories, pictures, stories, and through the hearts of the surviving family and friends.

You asked, you got it! LOL

I guess I lean more towards the idea that exposing the person to the emotional, psychological, and long term effects on a family would way heavier and be more influencial on a human being than a faux physical restriction? However, some humans just aren't capable of emotion...I those cases, your idea could be put in action!

Unfortunately,
I am not sure how this will SAVE the lives of victims or spare injury. &lt;sigh&gt; The success of attempting to lower alcohol related injuries and deaths comes not only with the threat or act of punishment. But, also with alternatives, and that would be the promotion of preventative measures, since punishment is done on hindsight of wrong-doing. It's WAY more difficult to create a punishment than it is to create a plan of diversion, and stop it BEFORE someone drinks and then gets behind the wheel!

Now WHAT DO YOU THINK?

[This message has been edited by 2laydback (edited August 21, 2000).]