DUI Help

[krakensmashu]

Hello. I just got my first DUI recently in Arizona. I hit a curb and stalled my car on the side of the road while intoxicated. I was at the scene not driving my vehicle for at least two hours waiting for a ride before police actually showed up. I was a couple hundred yards away from my vehicle at an intersection trying to give my location to a friend. So I got picked up, did the FST's and they took me to the station. Probably a good 2-3 hours after the accident they gave me a breathalyzer (.17) and took my blood probably 20 minutes after that. I gave my admission, but the police didn't pull me over and never had me at anytime actually in my vehicle. They gave me a DUI, failure to control my vehicle and leaving the scene of an accident even though I was just down the street still in view of my vehicle. Given the timeframes and the fact that they didn't pull me over, do I have any type of defense here? Thanks.

 

[justalayman]

when they asked you if you were driving the car, what did you say?

 

[dave33]

It depends what you want to do. Are you going to get an attorney? Trial?
You may be able to get the leaving the scene dropped if you plead guilty to the d.u.i. or something along those lines.
It will depend on what the report says and what your attorney advises after a review of the case.goodluck.

 

[tranquility]

Get an attorney who will give you your options.

 

[krakensmashu]

I admitted to driving. I got a lawyer and have a pretrial conference next month.

 

[Antigone*]

I admitted to driving. I got a lawyer and have a pretrial conference next month.

The admission was a big mistake. Speak to your attorney and no one else.

 

[dave33]

The admission was a big mistake. Speak to your attorney and no one else.

Agreed, the o.p. no longer has any defense or even any leverage for a plea deal. A confession pretty much throws a wrench into the whole defense thing.

 

[tranquility]

Agreed, the o.p. no longer has any defense or even any leverage for a plea deal. A confession pretty much throws a wrench into the whole defense thing.

Except for the fact BAC usually has to be taken within some time limit of driving to be relevant and there seems no evidence of impaired driving. I think with the time issues involved, the OP has a good chance.

Info edit:

28-1381. Driving or actual physical control while under the influence; trial by jury; presumptions; admissible evidence; sentencing; classification

A. It is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state under any of the following circumstances:

1. While under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances if the person is impaired to the slightest degree.

2. If the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more within two hours of driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle and the alcohol concentration results from alcohol consumed either before or while driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle.

3. While there is any drug defined in section 13-3401 or its metabolite in the person's body.

4. If the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle that requires a person to obtain a commercial driver license as defined in section 28-3001 and the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more.

 

[dave33]

Except for the fact BAC usually has to be taken within some time limit of driving to be relevant and there seems no evidence of impaired driving. I think with the time issues involved, the OP has a good chance.

Info edit:

I'm not so sure about a good chance. He was legally impaired and admitted to driving. That does not sound like a foundation for a good chance. I suspect that the report will reflect that the test was done within a reasonable amount of time. But, who knows, it's always possible the officer will make a mistake.

 

[tranquility]

I'm not so sure about a good chance. He was legally impaired and admitted to driving. That does not sound like a foundation for a good chance. I suspect that the report will reflect that the test was done within a reasonable amount of time. But, who knows, it's always possible the officer will make a mistake.

He admitted to driving. Please describe the state's evidence he was "legally impaired". Please describe the state's evidence any impairment was from alcohol taken before or during driving.

The officer is not going to be that important in this case and I don't see what mistake he could make that would help the OP.

 

[dave33]

He admitted to driving. Please describe the state's evidence he was "legally impaired". Please describe the state's evidence any impairment was from alcohol taken before or during driving.

The officer is not going to be that important in this case and I don't see what mistake he could make that would help the OP.

In the original thread the o.p. took a breath test and gave blood. They both indicated he was legally impaired. He also admitted to driving the vehicle. I guess he can try the ol' "I got drunk after the accident on the side of the road", but I wouldn't bet the farm on that. Ya know?

 

[tranquility]

In the original thread the o.p. took a breath test and gave blood. They both indicated he was legally impaired.

No. They indicated he had alcohol in his system, not that he was "impaired". Because of the sometime difficulty of the police having to prove impairment due to drugs or alcohol, states created a "per se" law where merely being over a certain BAC was a crime separate from driving under the influence. That is not appropriate here because of the time factor involved.

I guess he can try the ol' "I got drunk after the accident on the side of the road", but I wouldn't bet the farm on that. Ya know?

Again, no. The state must prove up the elements of its case. If the tests were done within two hours of driving or having physical control of the vehicle, then he would need to try the ol'... Here, no.

 

[dave33]

No. They indicated he had alcohol in his system, not that he was "impaired". Because of the sometime difficulty of the police having to prove impairment due to drugs or alcohol, states created a "per se" law where merely being over a certain BAC was a crime separate from driving under the influence. That is not appropriate here because of the time factor involved.

Again, no. The state must prove up the elements of its case. If the tests were done within two hours of driving or having physical control of the vehicle, then he would need to try the ol'... Here, no.

Well, the o.p. will need to wait to get the report and see what time frame the officer indicates. The o.p. himself was very vague, the police usually are not. The officer will be aware of the time limit situation.

 

[CdwJava]

As Tranq indicates, the state will have to show impairment at the time of the collision. Depending on how long he had been at the scene this may not be possible to nail down with any certainty.

I do not know about AZ, but many states allow for a presumption of impairment on a test within 2 or 3 hours of the test. But, if they cannot nail down the time of the collision, what if it had been four hours? More? The defense might argue a rising BAC such that he was fine at the time of the collision, but .17 later. Certainly the state can argue a declining BAC just as easily. Unless they can get some objective proof as to the actions before the collision/detention/arrest, the case will be largely circumstantial. Yes, common sense says he drive impaired and slammed into the curb. yes, he admitted to it. But, there is still a chance that a defense argument can be made to place at least his BAC into question.

A lot might depend on how much the OP is willing to spend to have a shot at winning. Chances are an offer will be made for a plea to a lesser offense and that might be the more expedient route to take ... after he consult with his attorney.

 

[tranquility]

I do not know about AZ, but many states allow for a presumption of impairment on a test within 2 or 3 hours of the test.

I supplied the statute:
28-1381. Driving or actual physical control while under the influence; trial by jury; presumptions; admissible evidence; sentencing; classification

A. It is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state under any of the following circumstances:

1. While under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances if the person is impaired to the slightest degree.

2. If the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more within two hours of driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle and the alcohol concentration results from alcohol consumed either before or while driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle.

3. While there is any drug defined in section 13-3401 or its metabolite in the person's body.

4. If the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle that requires a person to obtain a commercial driver license as defined in section 28-3001 and the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more.