Bs Dui

[AHA]

So I guess you cant go out and have a good time any more that really pissses me off.

What total bs!!!!!!!! Keep telling yourself that when you or a loved one gets run down by a drunk driver, "but the driver was just out having a good time so it's ok that he killed someone I care about". Stop being a fool, no 30 year old gets away with that. First of all, if you can't have a good time without getting drunk then you have serious problems, second, OF COURSE anyone can go out and have a good time without being stupid enough to drive after drinking!!!!!!

Alot of the people out there just dont know and even a little will get you introuble these days.

Wrong, most of us in our 30s KNOW that it's not only wrong, but pretty pathetic to drink and drive. Hope you learned your lesson at the very advanced age of 30!!!!

 

[BigMistakeFl]

BigMistakeFl

There is a bit of ambiguity as to the law and how it can be prosecuted. All of us would be better served if there were no "legal limit" and it was simply illegal to drink and drive. The best rule is simply never drive after consuming even the first drink.

 

[tsifreak]

There is a bit of ambiguity as to the law and how it can be prosecuted. All of us would be better served if there were no "legal limit" and it was simply illegal to drink and drive. The best rule is simply never drive after consuming even the first drink.

Yea may as well be a "0" tolarace law of all ages.

 

[xylene]

All of us would be better served if there were no "legal limit" and it was simply illegal to drink and drive.

Yeah the law would be ALOT less ambiguous if there were not a biochemically quantifiable, legally definable and physiologically based standpoint for INTOXICATION.

Because its INTOXICATION (Imparment) that + driving is the crime. Perhaps sooner than we think there will be an imparement-alyzer... really.

BigMistakeFL, I often agree with your wisdom... but as long as alcohol remains a LEGAL BEVERAGE in the United States... then your plan borders on the absurdly stupid.

 

[Betty]

Yea im over it but I have to vent this. Drunk no but according to a .08 I guess yea.

According to the law you were drunk & that's what counts - you blew a .08 at scence and a .102 at station.

 

[Job_Hunting]

I agree with Betty.

The details of how much you drank aren't going to matter in IL. All that will matter is you blew a .08 +. Unless you can find something on this "same street" clause, you are pretty much out of luck.

Get an attorney, Traffic Law or whatever, pay his fee and make sure he asks for Court Supervision. YOu can expect to still have you license suspended for a min of 30 days (law in IL) and probably restricted driving for the remaining 5 months. You will most likely be ordered some kind of driving/drinking class, and do it respectfully. You will also have court fines and the fees of the classes.

If you comply with this, and it's your first offense, you have a shot at supervision and then it will not be on your record for insurance purposes.

 

[tsifreak]

I agree with Betty.

The details of how much you drank aren't going to matter in IL. All that will matter is you blew a .08 +. Unless you can find something on this "same street" clause, you are pretty much out of luck.

Get an attorney, Traffic Law or whatever, pay his fee and make sure he asks for Court Supervision. YOu can expect to still have you license suspended for a min of 30 days (law in IL) and probably restricted driving for the remaining 5 months. You will most likely be ordered some kind of driving/drinking class, and do it respectfully. You will also have court fines and the fees of the classes.

If you comply with this, and it's your first offense, you have a shot at supervision and then it will not be on your record for insurance purposes.

What about my attorney to plea for a lesser charge?? How does that work or will it always be on my record for life no matter what??
Thanks for all the comments

 

[tsifreak]

According to the law you were drunk & that's what counts - you blew a .08 at scence and a .102 at station.

Betty you are right and very few people dont know even a little can get you a DUI. Like I said before may as well be a .000 tolorance law. Theres a fine line between .08 and .000.
I was thinking 90% of the people leaving bars are already at .08 or higher and dont realize it. Sure shocked me!!

 

[Echo1]

Whoa! Everybody slow down here. This post sounds exactly like the classic example of a 28th Amendment violation (see, e.g. https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=212597&highlight="home+base"). While it usually is applied to one's own driveway, recent IL case law has extended the privilege to one's own street, if it's within one block of the driveway.

I'd advise the poster to fight this travesty all the way. Make sure you tell the judge that you know your rights and won't be bullied by the MADD conspiracy. Feel free to cite to these posts in your defense.

Good luck!

"bulllied by the MADD conspiracy"?? First off let me say this..."You Are Guilty"? You're a complete idiot. This guy drives drunk ~ under the definition of his state ~ and somehow you feel that MADD is responsible? MADD didn't write the laws in his state. Or didn't you know that.

And quoting a 28th amendment violation? He wasn't a block from him home, he was a MILE from his home....and drunk nonetheless.

OPer? It does NOT matter that you didn't "feel" drunk. "Feeling" drunk is not the definition of the law. That's what most people fail to understand. The guidelines for intoxication don't require that you slur your speech, fail your FST, or stumble when you walk. It is ONLY that you are at a .08. It's a fine distinction and you failed.

Of course, having said that....there are any number of sleazy, low rent attorneys who would just LOVE to champion you as a poor put upon innocent man.

Suck it up, pal. You were drunk....no, not slurring your words. No, not stumbling around. But by the laws of your state? You WERE drunk. You DO understand that, don't you? Because, if you don't you are beyond explanations, in COMPLETE denial and only looking for someone to applaud your idiocy. Not me, pal......not me, no way. You're a drunk driver. Plain and simple.

 

[CdwJava]

Echo ... YAG was being facetious.

In other words, he had his tongue firmly planted in his cheek.

- Carl

 

[tsifreak]

Suck it up, pal. You were drunk....no, not slurring your words. No, not stumbling around. But by the laws of your state? You WERE drunk. You DO understand that, don't you? Because, if you don't you are beyond explanations, in COMPLETE denial and only looking for someone to applaud your idiocy. Not me, pal......not me, no way. You're a drunk driver. Plain and simple.

Im not here for someone to applaud what I did at all Im just stating for others to see how little can get you in trouble even though your not impared. I was drunk well according to you I was after 1 I guess. The thing is I did pass the FST wasnt that enough I thought? Whats the reason for this if you pass and blow over I dont get it? Lets say you dont pass the FST and blow under then what??

 

[CdwJava]

Im not here for someone to applaud what I did at all Im just stating for others to see how little can get you in trouble even though your not impared. I was drunk well according to you I was after 1 I guess. The thing is I did pass the FST wasnt that enough I thought? Whats the reason for this if you pass and blow over I dont get it? Lets say you dont pass the FST and blow under then what??

WHAT makes you think you "passed" the FST? Not fallin gdown or stumbling is no tpassing. There are a number of clues we look for in an FST.

And if you fail the FST and still blow under the per se BAC, then you can still be arrested for whatever other DUI charge your state allows for impaired driving.

- Carl

 

[BigMistakeFl]

BigMistakeFl

"but as long as alcohol remains a LEGAL BEVERAGE in the United States... then your plan "

I know what you mean, it seems like a double standard. But you can be successfully prosecuted even if you're BAC is below 0.08. I'm not saying drinking should be illegal. As it stands, it is perfectly legal to drink alcohol and drive. That's a problem because "impairment" is too vague. And when you drink, the first sense you lose is your sense of judgement. If driving after drinking were illegal, there would be no more confusion as to whether or not a grey line had been crossed.

 

[Echo1]

CDW....I'm new here. I don't know "personalities" well enough to be able to "read" people, so I appreciate you're setting me straight.

"You Are Guilty"? I am sorry and hope that you will accept my sincere apology. I hope that as I get to know people better here, I'll be less likely to jump to conclusions and assumptions.

Again, I apologize.

 

[You Are Guilty]

CDW....I'm new here. I don't know "personalities" well enough to be able to "read" people, so I appreciate you're setting me straight.

"You Are Guilty"? I am sorry and hope that you will accept my sincere apology. I hope that as I get to know people better here, I'll be less likely to jump to conclusions and assumptions.

Again, I apologize.

Don't sweat it. I've been trying for years to get a drunk to actually use the "28th Amendment" defense at their trial, but so far, no takers