Was there ever a moment when you thought about the consequence of drunk driving before you went out and boozed it up with your car?
Although Hitbylaw hit a stationary object (which is troubling), there is nothing to show Hitbylaw was “boozing it up” other than the officer saying he smelled alcohol and the results of the officer’s abbreviated field test.
Thanks for the input. I do take responsibility for not knowing the consent laws. I got my dl 20 years ago and in a much more relaxed state Fl. I’m sure they covered it but I never even took drivers ed in high school. Still I see your point and honestly don’t need/want to drive , so I accept losing liscene for a year or more for refusing. Some lessons in life are learned the hard way...sorry meant to reply to the original comment
I recommend you consult with an experienced DUI lawyer in your area (worth the cost) and let the lawyer handle everything for you while you concentrate on your hospitalized infant.
Hogwash.
Yeah understandable, but to be 100% honest in Maryland all I did was transfer it. No test no anything. I would assume I signed something on the consent laws tho. And yes how dumb am I to not read the back of the dl. I’ve just never even had a dui stop, so never went through the process. Still your right it’s my fault for not knowing
READ A NEWSPAPER ONCE IN A WHILE.
Here's the problem. What the state has is testimony from the officer as to the smell of alcohol being present, the bit of the field sobriety test that was done, apparently other observations, e.g. it appeared you were swaying, and that you hit a parked vehicle. All that the state needs to do to win a DUI case is prove one of two things: (1) that were driving with a blood alcohol level (BAC) of .08 or more or (2) that you were driving a vehicle while you were impaired by drugs or alcohol. The state doesn't have the BAC because you refused the tests. But it can prove you were driving the car, the cop's testimony of smelling alcohol can establish that you were drinking, and the observations of the cop of your condition and the fact that you hit a parked vehicle help establish that you were impaired by that alcohol. The accident is perhaps the most damning part. Unless you can offer a convincing explanation of how that happened that doesn't involve alcohol a jury is likely to assume from the fact of the accident that you were impaired by the alcohol because if you had been in control of the vehicle the accident would not have happened.
Thanks for the thorough response. I will look into both attorneys. Essentially I was also trying to assess if it’s worth paying for an attorney if there’s a slim chance to win. As you stated I believe they have compiling evidence which would make it hard either. I would probably take a probation before judgement at this point. But with severity of refusal I have a feeling they won’t. I thought my only other slight chance was that when we got to the station I was under the impression we were still going to do the test. At the point he read me the form very quickly, I even asked him to slow down, but from there or anywhere at the station I was not asked again to do the test. I’m fairly sure the cop knew what he was doing by reading it quickly and moving on. Still I feel like that is a slim avenue bc they will most likely say I should have known the consent laws anyhow.
Thank you Quincy. He is actually home now after a month. But yeah definitely being stretched think with work and baby. Legit the worst time for all this. I feel such a bad/stupid person just in general for getting in this mess
Here's the thing: the cost of a DUI is more than the fines you pay. How about those insurance premiums? How about those employment applications? You want to mitigate the long term adverse consequences that will dog you. That's why it's worth it to get a lawyer.
I am happy that your baby is home.
By administrative do you you mean the dmv hearing?