Narcolepsy and sleeping in car = DUI 1st offense

[Fickey]

Yes the smell of an acoholic beverage emanating from a person can be distinctive, but, to repeat, technically speaking ethanol is odorless. So any statement that refers to a smell of alcohol without some sort of qualification is leaving an opening. Not saying that it is an adequate defense or would count for a lot. But, the DUI attorneys I have spoken with are not going to turn down an opportunity to play such word games with an officer on the stand to try and lessen his credibility. Since most court cases related to DUI, speeding, etc. hinge heavily on the officer's percieved credibility, I would be surprised if an attorney would not jump at the chance to challenge semantics and try to make the officer look foolish or self-contradicting. Others are welcomed to their opinion, I am just going by what i have heard specific DUI attorneys say on this matter.

 

[Zigner]

Yes the smell of an acoholic beverage emanating from a person can be distinctive, but, to repeat, technically speaking ethanol is odorless. So any statement that refers to a smell of alcohol without some sort of qualification is leaving an opening. Not saying that it is an adequate defense or would count for a lot. But, the DUI attorneys I have spoken with are not going to turn down an opportunity to play such word games with an officer on the stand to try and lessen his credibility. Since most court cases related to DUI, speeding, etc. hinge heavily on the officer's percieved credibility, I would be surprised if an attorney would not jump at the chance to challenge semantics and try to make the officer look foolish or self-contradicting. Others are welcomed to their opinion, I am just going by what i have heard specific DUI attorneys say on this matter.

What you are doing is throwing out a red herring. It is absolutely, positively moot in THIS thread, since the officer didn't state that he smelled alcohol. If you want to correct ME for saying the OP stank of alcohol, that's fine. It's silly, but it's fine.

 

[Fickey]

Ok, then you stand corrected LOL.

 

[dmcc10880]

What you are doing is throwing out a red herring. It is absolutely, positively moot in THIS thread, since the officer didn't state that he smelled alcohol. If you want to correct ME for saying the OP stank of alcohol, that's fine. It's silly, but it's fine.

Excuse me... OP's first post, and quoting from the police report:

"I woke him up and spoke to him. As he spoke to me, I detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage upon his breath. I saw that his eyes were bloodshot, watery, and glassy. His speech seemed to be somewhat slurred..."

Of course a cop would never lie, just as much as a good defense attorney wouldn't pick apart the police report looking for any way to lessen the charge or have it dismissed.

 

[Zigner]

Excuse me... OP's first post, and quoting from the police report:

"I woke him up and spoke to him. As he spoke to me, I detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage upon his breath. I saw that his eyes were bloodshot, watery, and glassy. His speech seemed to be somewhat slurred..."

Of course a cop would never lie, just as much as a good defense attorney wouldn't pick apart the police report looking for any way to lessen the charge or have it dismissed.

Read the thread, then apologize.

 

[dmcc10880]

Read the thread, then apologize.

Apologize for what? Your inability to read and comprehend the original post?

Per your post Zigner, "It is absolutely, positively moot in THIS thread, since the officer didn't state that he smelled alcohol."

Well per OP's post, ""I woke him up and spoke to him. As he spoke to me, I detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage upon his breath. I saw that his eyes were bloodshot, watery, and glassy. His speech seemed to be somewhat slurred..."

If you can not see the clear and utter contradiction you made, then I guess it's your problem.

Just admit you're wrong again and move on...

 

[Zigner]

Apologize for what? Your inability to read and comprehend the original post?

Per your post Zigner, "It is absolutely, positively moot in THIS thread, since the officer didn't state that he smelled alcohol."

Well per OP's post, ""I woke him up and spoke to him. As he spoke to me, I detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage upon his breath. I saw that his eyes were bloodshot, watery, and glassy. His speech seemed to be somewhat slurred..."

If you can not see the clear and utter contradiction you made, then I guess it's your problem.

Just admit you're wrong again and move on...

Ok, Mr. Pb...I'll break it down for you.

OP stated that the officer stated he smelled an alcoholic beverage on the OP's breath.
Later, I paraphrased by saying that the OP "stank of alcohol". This changed the character of the officer's statement to the extent that a later poster felt the need to point out that alcohol itself doesn't smell.
I then went on to say that the officer never actually said that OP smelled of alcohol...rather that he smelled of an alcoholic beverage. Semantically different.
Then, you come on here and make yourself look like an arse (something you are particularly adept at).

Get it?

 

[dmcc10880]

Ok, Mr. Pb...I'll break it down for you.

OP stated that the officer stated he smelled an alcoholic beverage on the OP's breath.
Later, I paraphrased by saying that the OP "stank of alcohol". This changed the character of the officer's statement to the extent that a later poster felt the need to point out that alcohol itself doesn't smell.
I then went on to say that the officer never actually said that OP smelled of alcohol...rather that he smelled of an alcoholic beverage. Semantically different.
Then, you come on here and make yourself look like an arse (something you are particularly adept at).

Get it?

Ok, Mr. Os. Perhaps you should stop paraphrasing in order to keep your record of unsubstantiated, sarcastic and snarky one liners without basis in order to create drama that has no relevance to the facts or the original post.

.

 

[CdwJava]

Yes the smell of an acoholic beverage emanating from a person can be distinctive, but, to repeat, technically speaking ethanol is odorless. So any statement that refers to a smell of alcohol without some sort of qualification is leaving an opening. Not saying that it is an adequate defense or would count for a lot. But, the DUI attorneys I have spoken with are not going to turn down an opportunity to play such word games with an officer on the stand to try and lessen his credibility.

I have yet to see one of those semantics games played here. Perhaps CA is different then your state.

I work with DUI attorneys with some frequency and provide instruction in the SFSTs and DUI enforcement. While I suppose anything is possible, I have yet to hear of such a semantic argument being made out here. It may have occurred from time to time, but it seems that it is so inconsequential as to not make it onto the radar of the training material.

Though, the training emphasizes the articulation of the odor of an alcoholic beverage and not simply "alcohol." So, if they follow the training, it will never be an issue anyway.

 

[Fickey]

But IF they didn't follow training then their statement can be challenged as part of an overall questioning of their credibility. Not a major issue, but certainly something that a judge would (or should) allow. The prosecution can try to get the officer back on track in redirect, but if you have a good attorney, and the officer is easily rattled, then the redirect MAY be reduced to damage control. Like i said earlier, people are welcomed to their opinion of this subject, but I am not going to discuss it further, since some people have already crossed the line into ad hominem attacks rather than discussing the matter rationally.

 

[cyjeff]

Boys...

Y'all did notice that the OP didn't return after we asked him the BAC question, right?

That should tell you a great deal.