URGENT HELP PLEASE. I refuse to believe that this is legal....

[7itanium]

My mother in law was arrested last night for a DUI. However there is several discrepencys in this case. First off all she was NOT DRIVING when the police arrived nor did they see her do so. She drove 1 block and realized she was too intoxicated to drive so she pulled over at a local McDonalds to call me to come get her. As she pulled over some local citizen vigilantes took it upon themselves to call the police and hold her there physically until they arrived. The police did not do a breathalyzer nor a field sobriety test or blood test. She was booked and is being charged with a DUI. The car was impounded and we havent recieved any notification of its whereabouts nearly 24 hours later. Also she possesses a Consealed Weapons Permit. She did have a weapon in her purse but it was never taken out of her purse and she is legally allowed to carry it. They confiscated the weapon and refused to give it back to her upon her release.

So I guess I have a few questions. How can they hold her for a DUI when they never saw her driving and when they did not do any sort of sobriety test? What would be my best grounds to deal with this? also how can they hold her gun like that when she is allowed to have a concealed carry and it had nothing to do with the "Crime" at hand?

One more thing. They booked her under her OLD OLD married name which has not been valid in 20 years... even though her ID, credit cards, CWE, everything- clearly states her new name and has no record of her married name on it. does this matter?

 

[7itanium]

also note that I am in the city of Spokane, Washington state

 

[justalayman]

so, there are multiple witnesses to her driving, right?

you do realize that most crimes are not directly observed by a cop, right? and many of them are successfully prosecuted, right?

How did the cops learn of her name that she hasn't used for over 20 years? Did they simply make up a name and it just happened to be the one she used 20 years ago?


so, we are down to them retaining the gun and your claim of no BAC test.

To the gun: I don't know.

to the no BAC test: Washington has a law to where DUI can be charged regardless of the BAC if it can be shown the person is under the influence of alcohol.

(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:

(a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

(b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or

(c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.

 

[7itanium]

As as far as I know nobody saw her driving. The witness report simply states that they observed her intoxicated sitting in her car... she went into the mcdonalds and I am not doubting that she was most likely above the limit and likely acting intoxicated.

But in my opinion the fact that she was not witnessed driving, the fact that she drove literally 1 city block (yes I know this is still breaking the law) and stopped to call someone for a ride. Why come arrest her and charge her with a DUI when the police didnt witness anyone driving (nor did the witnesses.. they were at mcdonalds).

I just dont understand how there would be enough solid evidence to convict in this situation. No BAC or FST? Wasnt witnessed driving.. its all heresay? HELD against her will when she wasnt even trying to go anywhere to begin with (yes probably a seperate issue)

I guess I am probably not wording things the best I could but I think there are several things here that point to her not deserving to be charged with a DUI... public intoxication or something I could agree with.. but how do you get a DUI when you arent witnrssed driving (by anyone let alone officers), and on top of that you make the conciouse dicision to pull over a BLOCK later and call a ride.

as to the issue with her name I have no idea. but i can tell you this much- she has nothing on her person nor in her wallet that would identify her under the name that they had her booked under, and I can guarentee you 100% that she wouldnt use this name as she goes out of her way NOT to identify herself as that name (bad marriage). I am assuming they got this name from her SSN or something in the public records... but why would they use it when all of her documentation states her current name? again I doubt this is probably a legal issue but it really confused me

 

[justalayman]

7itanium;3006251]As as far as I know nobody saw her driving. The witness report simply states that they observed her intoxicated sitting in her car... she went into the mcdonalds and I am not doubting that she was most likely above the limit and likely acting intoxicated.

this is from your first post:

As she pulled over some local citizen vigilantes took it upon themselves to call the police and hold her there physically until they arrived.

as she pulled over...they acted. That would mean they saw her drive. It doesn't matter if it was a block or a mile.

I just dont understand how there would be enough solid evidence to convict in this situation.

has she been convicted? If not, then nobody knows if there is enough evidence to convict her or not.

I guess I am probably not wording things the best I could but I think there are several things here that point to her not deserving to be charged with a DUI... public intoxication or something I could agree with.. but how do you get a DUI when you arent witnrssed driving (by anyone let alone officers),

you keep saying "wasn't witnessed driving" Does that somehow make her actions any safer while she was driving that block?

and on top of that you make the conciouse dicision to pull over a BLOCK later and call a ride.

You don't get to earn your way out of criminal charges by doing something good after you broke the law.

as to the issue with her name I have no idea. but i can tell you this much- she has nothing on her person nor in her wallet that would identify her under the name that they had her booked under, and I can guarentee you 100% that she wouldnt use this name as she goes out of her way NOT to identify herself as that name (bad marriage). I am assuming they got this name from her SSN or something in the public records... but why would they use it when all of her documentation states her current name? again I doubt this is probably a legal issue but it really confused me

well, they got it from somewhere. It really doesn't make any difference though unless the person whose name is on the charging instruments is not and never has been her (not just her name but actually not her).


does she have a lawyer? She needs one.

 

[dave33]

You will have to wait for the police report to find out why she was charged with d.u.i. It could be something as simple as the police showed up and asked and she said "yes". You do not know what you are up against until you get the discovery package.

The most useful thing you can do now is help her retain an attorney with experience with these type of cases. Goodluck (to you and mom).

 

[7itanium]

I guess I mis-worded my original post... Witnesses came quite some time after she stopped. Witness report clearly states that.

I am not denying that the block she drove was certainly unsafe, and I am certainly not someone who thinks driving while intoxicated is OK. I am simply questioning legal right and reason to prosecute a DUI when no officer nor witness saw anyone driving. In my opinion based on the evidence and the facts this is a case of public intoxication, not driving while intoxicated.

again I am not denying that she drove a block while most likely over the limit... but where is the proof? witnesses saw nobody acctually driving.. and it seems very strange to me that there was no sobriety test of any sort conducted... and this is fact because I have paperwork to prove that they didnt do any tests.

 

[7itanium]

You will have to wait for the police report to find out why she was charged with d.u.i. It could be something as simple as the police showed up and asked and she said "yes". You do not know what you are up against until you get the discovery package.

The most useful thing you can do now is help her retain an attorney with experience with these type of cases. Goodluck (to you and mom).

yes I agree.. I was questioning obtaining legal representation but I think that is best.

I will also note (though many on here are not going to care for it) that the city I live in is one of the highest in the nation for cases of officer negligence, several cases even resulting in death. The mayor is acctually considering putting small cameras on each officers uniform due to this case, so I am obviously not the only one who feels this way.
I also have no problem with officers of the law nor authority when its conducted in a professional manner... I appreciate the people that put their lives on the lines every day for my freedom... what I DONT appreciate are people that abuse their authority and put innocent people in jail or in a grave just because they think they can.

 

[justalayman]

Ok, when asked how she got to where she was, what was her response. It was either no answer; I drove here; or some martians transported me here against my will when I was setting at home minding my own business.


I am presuming she had the keys to the car, yes? I would have to check but in some states that is enough to charge DUI. I have not found if it is in Washington.

 

[CdwJava]

My mother in law was arrested last night for a DUI. However there is several discrepencys in this case. First off all she was NOT DRIVING when the police arrived nor did they see her do so.

Depending on the law in your state, actual driving may not be required. In fact, most states have a number of exceptions to allow for DUI charges even if the person manages to get out of the car before being spotted behind the wheel.

But, that was not the case here, was it?

She drove 1 block and realized she was too intoxicated to drive so she pulled over at a local McDonalds to call me to come get her. As she pulled over some local citizen vigilantes took it upon themselves to call the police and hold her there physically until they arrived.

Ah! So, the driving WAS observed. There are witnesses that apparently felt so concerned for her driving or condition that they felt a call to the police was necessary. I'd say she was probably pretty bad off if that happened.

The police did not do a breathalyzer nor a field sobriety test or blood test. She was booked and is being charged with a DUI.

It could be she was too inebriated to do any of the FSTs and could not blow in a machine. Agency policy may not permit a forced blood draw for misdemeanor offenses, so they may not have felt th eneed to draw the blood.

But, it is likely she was clearly looped and there was a strong odor of alcohol emanating from her person. That might be more than enough in the local courts.

Also she possesses a Consealed Weapons Permit. She did have a weapon in her purse but it was never taken out of her purse and she is legally allowed to carry it. They confiscated the weapon and refused to give it back to her upon her release.

She can call and ask how to get it back. She may have to go through a clearance process before it can be released to her - many states are doing that for firearms seized when a person is arrested.

So I guess I have a few questions. How can they hold her for a DUI when they never saw her driving and when they did not do any sort of sobriety test?

Because they have witnesses that saw her drive and because they apparently have what they feel is sufficient evidence to suggest she was driving while impaired. Her attorney can always try to argue that she spilled a six pack on herself and that she was just tired and not impaired at all. But, that's not likely to work since even you state that she realized she was too impaired and pulled over ... that certainly implies that she was kinda looped.

What would be my best grounds to deal with this?

YOU have no grounds. I presume that your mother-in-law is an adult ... as such, this is HER problem, not yours. About all you can do for her is help her pay for an attorney that specializes in DUI defense (which could be $10,000 or more, easily).

also how can they hold her gun like that when she is allowed to have a concealed carry and it had nothing to do with the "Crime" at hand?

Probably because she needs to go through a state-mandated clearance prior to release. She can call the agency that has it and ask what that process might entail and how to get started.

One more thing. They booked her under her OLD OLD married name which has not been valid in 20 years... even though her ID, credit cards, CWE, everything- clearly states her new name and has no record of her married name on it. does this matter?

Nope.

 

[Isis1]

it's called a citizen's arrest. she was not "held against her will" in that sense. she called enough attention to herself that strangers noticed she was intoxicated while sitting still in a parker car? really?

 

[CdwJava]

I guess I mis-worded my original post... Witnesses came quite some time after she stopped.

That could change things, but may not.

WA state may allow for her admission or other evidence of recent driving be permitted to support the allegation of driving while impaired. Her attorney will know how to address that and whether or not it is a viable defense.

If their case is made all the weaker for not having a chemical test, then she might get lucky. But, until her attorney gets involved, it's all speculation.

 

[wrongsometimes]

I think that she went to MDs for a hamburger and was so wasted that people would not let her leave to drive away.

The OP has NO IDEA what actually happened. The OP was not there.

Gotta be pretty drunk for this to have happened.

 

[Cali408nia]

Ok, when asked how she got to where she was, what was her response. It was either no answer; I drove here; or some martians transported me here against my will when I was setting at home minding my own business.

Well, she could stated that she had been at the liquor store buying booze and then drove to the McD's parking lot and consumed it all after parking the car and turning it off. That might have been the best answer to give to avoid the charge but she probably couldn't think of that being intoxicated as she was.

 

[7itanium]

YOU have no grounds. I presume that your mother-in-law is an adult ... as such, this is HER problem, not yours. About all you can do for her is help her pay for an attorney that specializes in DUI defense (which could be $10,000 or more, easily).

I understand that I didnt plan on taking the law into my own hands I was simply asking for the best way for her to go about dealing with things as I am helping her with the case.


also to the other comments (I dont feel like quoting all of them)
I DO KNOW what happened and I do know that she didnt "go to McDonalds to get a hamburger and then get stopped before she could leave"... I know this because I got a phone call from her (while sitting in her car calmly) asking me to come get her.. apparently about 10 min before she was arrested. My family and I (mother in law included.. especially considering the fact that she lives with me) are extremely close and if she truly was at fault she would tell me the full story.. she has never lied to me about anything like that to date even when it has dissapointed me (not talking about law... this is her first offense ever in her life with literally anything). So no im sorry but I dont buy the fact that she is lying to me, and im certainly not lying because what good does it do me or her to convince random people on a forum of her case? none. I am simply telling you what I know to be true and asking for the best way for her (us) to go about dealing with it.

as to the note about the citizens arrest... I am aware of what a citizens arrest is- HOWEVER it is NOT legal to make a citizens arrest in the state of WA. In fact there are strict laws against it. anyway though that really doesnt have much to do with the DUI.


Thanks for the advice I have recieved... and thanks for the advice on getting the gun back