Charged for DUI, Officer Didn't Witness, Arrested in my home.

[Mass_Shyster]

We have a high cost of living

Yeah - I keep forgetting about that.

In the words of Emily Litella: "Never Mind"

 

[Silverplum]

This is all sound and thank you.

Your question: the bottle was a half pint I believe. The small bottles that cost about $5. I drank the entire thing. I say chug but really think it took three drinks to drink the entire thing.

By the way, I didn't hit a light pole. I was in parked position, put the car in forward instead of reverse, bumped the parking pole in front (a sign that said something like 30 min parking"). It was no more a traffic accident than if you were to accidentally bump against the pole near the drive thru at McDonald's or something.

As for the system comment, it's clear that it's mostly about money and/or who you know.And as for "you're the one that chose to drive drunk", as far as you know, I'm neither innocent nor guilty. So let's say I'm innocent and I'm about to get a DUI. Wouldn't that be seen as an injustice to you?

I have a question for you. You mentioned 21 years of witnessing DUI cases. Have you ever seen a case come through similar to mine, where the person was home for a period of time before contact was made?

Regarding the bolded:

Try this viewpoint on for size: The System doesn't know about you till you bring yourself to their attention. You drove drunk. Got caught. It's not "The System's" fault. It's your fault. Accept it and move on.

And why on earth would the grownups here waste their time pretending you're innocent? Your posts prove otherwise.

 

[Devante]

WOW! I'm moving to California.

Around here (Mass) a top shelf DUI attorney is $5K for first offense, $10K for second. It's around $2K for a middle of the road criminal defense attorney.

Was that trial or pretrial?

Mine is $2,500 and that includes all pretrial plus DMV hearing stuff.

 

[Devante]

Regarding the bolded:

Try this viewpoint on for size: The System doesn't know about you till you bring yourself to their attention. You drove drunk. Got caught. It's not "The System's" fault. It's your fault. Accept it and move on.

And why on earth would the grownups here waste their time pretending you're innocent? Your posts prove otherwise.

In that case, why would a grown up waste time trying to prove someone they don't know and is on the internet is lying to other people they barely know through a message board?
I certainly wouldn't.

And your viewpoint is not necessarily always true.

 

[tranquility]

In that case, why would a grown up waste time trying to prove someone they don't know and is on the internet is lying to other people they barely know through a message board?
I certainly wouldn't.

From Wikipedia:

Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.[1] The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.[1] An example of this would be the conflict between wanting to smoke and knowing that smoking is unhealthy; a person may try to change their feelings about the odds that they will actually suffer the consequences, or they might add the consonant element that the smoking is worth short term benefits. A general view of cognitive dissonance is when one is biased towards a certain decision even though other factors favour an alternative.[2]

Some would say it is the fact you are trying to reconcile how you think of yourself. Either you get others to believe of you the same way you believe of yourself OR you change your beliefs to what the State (and others) seems to believe.

 

[CdwJava]

Your question: the bottle was a half pint I believe. The small bottles that cost about $5. I drank the entire thing. I say chug but really think it took three drinks to drink the entire thing.

Those are about 8 ounces ... at best, it would have likely brought your BAC up to .16 within an hour provided you are a male of about 165-170 lbs ... give or take. But, you still have an uphill fight to make the claim you actually drank the bottle. Maybe iof you had been able to produce the empty bottle at the time of the police contact it would have helped your claim.

By the way, I didn't hit a light pole. I was in parked position, put the car in forward instead of reverse, bumped the parking pole in front (a sign that said something like 30 min parking"). It was no more a traffic accident than if you were to accidentally bump against the pole near the drive thru at McDonald's or something.

Either way, you hit a pole ... and you should not have. And if there was ANY damage at all, then it was a traffic collision.

And you really think that such an error in judgement (Drive instead of Reverse) was NOT the result of alcohol impairment?

As for the system comment, it's clear that it's mostly about money and/or who you know.

I suppose it could be about jail time. Would you prefer financial penalties, or jail time?

It's about penalties to reduce the prevalence of DUI drivers - and, statistically, it is working. (Sadly, DUI drivers that kill are still woefully under-punished at least in CA.)

And as for "you're the one that chose to drive drunk", as far as you know, I'm neither innocent nor guilty. So let's say I'm innocent and I'm about to get a DUI. Wouldn't that be seen as an injustice to you?

But, you weren't. Everything you have written tends to indicate impairment. No, you have not been convicted, yet, but I suspect that is a matter of time and will likely come about as part of a plea deal.

I have a question for you. You mentioned 21 years of witnessing DUI cases. Have you ever seen a case come through similar to mine, where the person was home for a period of time before contact was made?

Yes I have. The only time they have tended to avoid charges or prosecution (after charges) was when there was no witness to the events that transpired and a significant time had passed between the incident and contact (2 or more hours, for the most part if memory serves). While it might be clear that they drove their car and wrecked it (as this is how most of these come to light) it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But, add a witness to drinking and then driving, the case can become much more viable!

 

[CdwJava]

Was that trial or pretrial?

Mine is $2,500 and that includes all pretrial plus DMV hearing stuff.

And not an attorney that specializes in DUI, I'll wager. At least not a good one.

 

[Zigner]

Now, it's:

Your question: the bottle was a half pint I believe.

Before, it was:

So I move the car, our ride comes, drops me off, I chug I believe a pint of vodka, and lie down to sleep.

So, I ask again - were you lying then, or now?

 

[Antigone*]

Now, it's:




Before, it was:




So, I ask again - were you lying then, or now?

I object!!! Argumentative!!!

 

[Zigner]

Darn those logic arguments!

 

[Willlyjo]

Problem is, one of the first things to go when one is even moderately impaired is judgement.


Oops!

This may be important later on as this is an exception to the rule that the driving must be committed in the officer's presence.


Of COURSE you did. You went open, powered down some booze, and went to sleep ... and the cops and the court haven't heard THAT one before.


Yes, it is, because it kinda puts your claim into question.


Well, that sort of did you in. In court you will be painted as lying ... either lying on the stand when you claim you drank at home (and cannot prove it) or lying when you spoke to the officers. A jury will see that you have a motive to lie, you were moving your car in a parking lot after leaving a bar, and you got into a crash. Furthermore, you were waiting for a ride home presumably because you were aware of your impairment. This looks bad for you.


How long ago did this occur? Blood results wouldn't be back for at least a month ... if using the DOJ labs, possibly longer.

Either way, this can be an aggravated DUI so no real likelihood of a plea deal to wet reckless (per VC 23103.5).


What pretrials? An arraignment and ... what? A pretrial conference? A motion hearing?


Easy, you were involved in a collision and a witness places you there at the time of the crash after having left a bar ... and, I imagine, will testify that you appeared tipsy or impaired.


VERY lucky for you!


Only if you think it absurd that you not get the enhancement.

You are certainly free to reject the offer and go to trial ... maybe a jury will not snicker at the chugging a half a bottle of vodka claim.


You're wrong.

VC 40300.5 allows an officer to arrest for DUI (23152(a)) when there is probable cause to believe that the person has been driving while under the influence and the person:

- was involved in a "traffic accident"; or
- is in or about a vehicle that is obstructing a roadway; or
- will not be apprehended unless immediately arrested; or
- may cause injury to himself or herself or damage property unless immediately arrested; or
- may destroy or conceal evidence of the crime unless immediately arrested.

From CPOLS:
VC 40300.6 provides that section 40300.5 must be "liberally interpreted" so as "to permit arrests to be made pursuant to that section within a reasonable time and distance away from the scene of a traffic accident." (See Corrigan (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 230, 235, which upheld an arrest made 2 hours and 15 minutes after the defendant had walked home (six houses away) from the scene of the accident (hitting a fire hydrant).)


Your defense is not a strong one. The state seems to have a pretty good case against you.

You are certainly free to make a battle of it, but be prepared to pay $10,000 or more for a roll of the dice through trial.

Even a GREAT attorney cannot make a bad case a winner.


I think that a man who has himself as an attorney has a fool for a client.

You also understand that the enhancements will be off the table if you go to trial and you face up to 6 months of jail time including enhanced penalties if convicted, right?

Of course, the choice is yours. But, from what you have written, your defense relies SOLELY on your claim that you consumed a bottle of vodka before the officers arrived, and you apparently denied this and your wife also denied that you did this. Ouch! Plus, the state has a crash, a witness to your possible inebriation at the time of the accident, and your apparent consciousness of impairment as you accepted a ride home rather than drive. This does not look good for you.

"I think a man who has himself as an attorney has a fool for a client."

Such an intelligent statement, Abe...er, ah, I mean Cdw!

 

[Zigner]

"I think a man who has himself as an attorney has a fool for a client."

Such an intelligent statement, Abe...er, ah, I mean Cdw!

This saying predates Lincoln...just thought you'd like to know

 

[Devante]

Now, it's:

So, I ask again - were you lying then, or now?

Neither. So I was mistaken on the volume of the small $5 bottles.

Anyway, as CdwJava stated, indeed my blood alcohol level was .16 an hour and a half later.
Also one of the only positive things the lawyer had to say, or rather one of the only things that wasn't vague, was that my blood alcohol level rose from .16 in 1.5 hours to .21 in 2 hours, which would verify that I had been drinking when I got home.

What do you guys think about that?

Oh and CdwJava... sorry I forgot to mention 160 lbs.
And according to him, his firm's secretary, AVVO (lawyer rating website), and another lawyer I spoke with before choosing this one, my lawyer does specialize in DUIs.

 

[tranquility]

What do you guys think about that?

Ah, the inherent inaccuracy of the PBT as opposed to the breathalyzer. I believe you had the PBT up front and not the breathalyzer up front. The blood test, if within two hours of driving, will be the correct figure. That it is rising does give credence to the story you drank more just before the test. It does NOT give rise to the claim you were not under the influence when driving.

 

[CdwJava]

Anyway, as CdwJava stated, indeed my blood alcohol level was .16 an hour and a half later.
Also one of the only positive things the lawyer had to say, or rather one of the only things that wasn't vague, was that my blood alcohol level rose from .16 in 1.5 hours to .21 in 2 hours, which would verify that I had been drinking when I got home.

What do you guys think about that?

I think you don't understand the difference between the tests. The two tests (breath and blood) are different and are rarely equal for a number of reasons. Also, if the breath test you took was in the field on the handheld PBT and NOT the state-issued Drager EPAS, then the results are not nearly as accurate as the blood test would have been and this would be inconclusive evidence of a rising BAC.

And according to him, his firm's secretary, AVVO (lawyer rating website), and another lawyer I spoke with before choosing this one, my lawyer does specialize in DUIs.

Then at $2,500 you got a heck of a deal! That would likely be the retainer for a general criminal defense attorney here in the north state, and less than half what I hear most DUI attorneys hereabouts ask for up front.

I guess you may have to ask him if he ONLY does DUIs, or if he does everything as well. Attorneys that specialize in DUI defense often command high dollars. But, if you are in a place where there are a lot of DUI attorney, then maybe he needs to be much more competitive.