DUI and I was sober??? wth??

[ERAUPIKE]

Thank you so much for your advice...I did hire a lawyer IMMEDIATELY. I am hoping when I go to court that the test results are so low that it gets thrown out. The cop says I ran a stop sign..I did a rolling stop to turn right, used my turn signal and had my seat belt on. I didn't stop 3 seconds but I didn't blow it either.

In other words, you didn't stop at the stop sign.

 

[GoIllini]

It will come down to the observations of impairment coupled with the presence of drugs in your system. The pharmacist would be of little help. About all he could do is say that it might not impair some people ... which still doesn't m,ean it was reasonable to assume it would not impair you.

But the whole point is that the pharmacist can raise reasonable doubt, especially with the lack of a per-se limit. And if we can assume that some people can drive a car on the full dose, the pharmacist is effectively setting a floor to the per-se limit. If OP had 1/4 of that full dose in her blood, the lawyer can argue that the case is like claiming that someone with a BAC of .02 is guilty of DUI if it actually does go to court.

Sure, ANYTHING is possible, but I suspect a lot of jurors are going to be wondering why prosecution even brought this to trial.

In any event, listen to your attorney. If the officer is half way decent at his job and can articulate the objective signs of impairment, the state may well have a good case - even if the officer is an unlikeable lout.

Yes, but if the officer is an unlikeable lout and the OP had 1/4 the per-se amount in her system, OP's lawyer has to just go up there and laugh about .02 BACs for a little bit and remind the jury that drowsy driving could have been a much better explanation.

Prosecution has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that either OP had so much medication in her system that a reasonable person would have been impaired or that OP would not have been impaired without the medication but was driving impaired with it. If the prosecutor can't prove it beyond all reasoanble doubt, OP should be found not guilty.

2nd listening to the attorney, though. He seems intent on bringing this to trial if prosecution pursues it.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

But the whole point is that the pharmacist can raise reasonable doubt, especially with the lack of a per-se limit. And if we can assume that some people can drive a car on the full dose, the pharmacist is effectively setting a floor to the per-se limit. If OP had 1/4 of that full dose in her blood, the lawyer can argue that the case is like claiming that someone with a BAC of .02 is guilty of DUI if it actually does go to court.

Sure, ANYTHING is possible, but I suspect a lot of jurors are going to be wondering why prosecution even brought this to trial.


Yes, but if the officer is an unlikeable lout and the OP had 1/4 the per-se amount in her system, OP's lawyer has to just go up there and laugh about .02 BACs for a little bit and remind the jury that drowsy driving could have been a much better explanation.

Prosecution has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that either OP had so much medication in her system that a reasonable person would have been impaired or that OP would not have been impaired without the medication but was driving impaired with it. If the prosecutor can't prove it beyond all reasoanble doubt, OP should be found not guilty.

2nd listening to the attorney, though. He seems intent on bringing this to trial if prosecution pursues it.

You are presenting an argument by comparison. The assumption you make is that a dose of whatever drug this girl took is equal to or has the same effect as alcohol. The truth of the matter is that opiates and alcohol have very different physical effect on the body. The two are not even metabolized in the same way. Your argument is not valid and would easily be dismissed by any judge worth their salt at the very first mention of such a ridiculous claim.

 

[CdwJava]

Sure, ANYTHING is possible, but I suspect a lot of jurors are going to be wondering why prosecution even brought this to trial.

And if the state presents objective signs of impairment, then they have made their case. It won't matter if the pharmacist says that many people - maybe even MOST people - would not be impaired. There is no way he will say that NO person would be impaired.

As a practical matter, the pharmacist will not be called a an expert witness. It would require a medical doctor who specializes in such things and these witnesses might cost at a low end of about $3,000+ per sitting.

If the prosecutor can't prove it beyond all reasoanble doubt, OP should be found not guilty.

The burden is not beyond ALL reasonable doubt, only beyond reasonable doubt. There can always be some level of doubt, but the key is whether or not the doubt is reasonable or not.

My experience is that most juries will convict an impaired driver when the state can show the impairment. I have been involved in a great number of these and they rarely go well for the defendant if they go to trial. I'd say about 8 of 10 that result in acquittals are beaten on the stop or the arrest and not at trial.

Bottom line is that WE do not know what kind of case the state has. The state may have a great case. They may have a weak case. They might not even bring it. If the DA sees the officer as an idiot, he likely won't pursue it. I know DAs that will rarely - if ever - pursue cases by officers that they believe to be numbskulls or stretching the truth.

 

[gurl33]

Im not sayin he didn't have probable cause to pull me over, I'm just sayin...there was noone coming down the lane of traffic that I was pullin out in I didn't stop a whole 3 seconds...I had to go pee, my car was cold and I was in a hurry to get to the gas station.

I am pretty confident I will beat this...happy thoughts, happy thoughts =)

 

[justalayman]

You don't have to stop for 3 seconds. You have to come to a complete stop, that's it.




any word on the test results yet? has your attorney gotten a copy of the officers report yet? Those two things are pretty much going to be your win or lose cards with what the officer observed that he based the impairment on being the most important.

 

[gurl33]

meeting with lawyer this week, he got my court date pushed back 2 wks..he said we would need to file a motion of discovery to get my result s.

I am still wearing a boot on my left leg from a serious injury that occured in October. I have a good job and I don't get in trouble. I find this whole thing a joke, and feel I will beat this.

I did stop, used turn signal as well...it wasn't a long stop but I did stop. He got me in front of the gas station, like seriously in the parking lot...he really made a hard effort to embarrass me and he succeeded.

Don't think if I was messed up I would be touting around the gas station at 3 am in the morning in a boot none the less.

Pardon my language but the cop is a known douche bag...wish I would have realized who he was prior to copping an attitude with him.

 

[Zigner]

I did stop, used turn signal as well...it wasn't a long stop but I did stop.

Funny...previously you stated:

The cop says I ran a stop sign..I did a rolling stop to turn right, used my turn signal and had my seat belt on.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_stop:
...some drivers practice a maneuver called a rolling stop...slowing down significantly but not stopping completely at the sign.

From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rolling_stop:
Noun

rolling stop (plural rolling stops)

1. An automobile driving maneuver in which a driver slows down, but does not stop, at a stop sign.



From http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/rolling-stop/:
A rolling stop is a term used in traffic law to refer to when a vehicle fails to come to a complete stop. A complete stop is when there is no forward momentum and the needle on the speedometer is at 0. In a rolling stop, the car wheels are still in motion and the car is moving at less than 5 m.p.h. Failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign is a traffic violation governed by state laws, which vary by state. The longer the stop, the more discernable it is to the naked eye, giving a motorist a better chance of avoiding a ticket.


I'm sure I could pull up more if you'd like

 

[Zigner]

Pardon my language but the cop is a known douche bag...wish I would have realized who he was prior to copping an attitude with him.

I've found that people in general (and, yes, police officers are people) tend to respond in kind when people treat them like asses.

 

[justalayman]

Don't think if I was messed up I would be touting around the gas station at 3 am in the morning in a boot none the less.
.

I'm pretty sure there is no "preferred" or "not allowed" time to be stoned. Well, actually there might be a preferred time and strangely enough, it's right about 3 am when bars close for the night and it's munchie time.

and the boot has no relevance. You apparently were not impeded by it so it really means nothing to the situation other than you were taking drugs to sooth the pain from the underlying issue.

You really don't get this. It has nothing to do with all of the superfluous arguments you make. It will come down to: were there any drugs in you that could cause you to be impaired and; can the officer support his claim you were impaired. If those elements are not met, you are not guilty of the charge. If they are, you are guilty.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

meeting with lawyer this week, he got my court date pushed back 2 wks..he said we would need to file a motion of discovery to get my result s.

I am still wearing a boot on my left leg from a serious injury that occured in October. I have a good job and I don't get in trouble. I find this whole thing a joke, and feel I will beat this.

I did stop, used turn signal as well...it wasn't a long stop but I did stop. He got me in front of the gas station, like seriously in the parking lot...he really made a hard effort to embarrass me and he succeeded.

Don't think if I was messed up I would be touting around the gas station at 3 am in the morning in a boot none the less.

Pardon my language but the cop is a known douche bag...wish I would have realized who he was prior to copping an attitude with him.

If you were messed up then what time would you be touting around the gas station?

 

[gurl33]

man you guys really lay it on thick don't ya...ha!

cop did have a reason to stop me, NEVER said he didn't...he was a jerk and I was a B@!#$ so guess who wins in that situation???

you can point every argument you want b/c that is what I asked for and I appreciate that however I know the circumstances and I didn't deserve a DUI.

 

[CdwJava]

I know the circumstances and I didn't deserve a DUI.

Unless, of course, you were impaired by medication.

 

[gurl33]

IF there was even the slightest chance that takin those meds as prescribed would impair a person so much that he/she was a danger then I would hope the script would say DO NOT DRIVE. Would also like to believe that my doctor would stress to me what a danger I would be if I were to get behind the wheel while on medication.

I think it would be pretty hard to convince an entire jury (especially if some of them have taken prescription meds themselves) that I was too impaired to safely drive.

 

[CdwJava]

IF there was even the slightest chance that takin those meds as prescribed would impair a person so much that he/she was a danger then I would hope the script would say DO NOT DRIVE. Would also like to believe that my doctor would stress to me what a danger I would be if I were to get behind the wheel while on medication.

Did you ask?

No label is going to say that you CAN NOT drive, only that some actions might be inadvisable.

I think it would be pretty hard to convince an entire jury (especially if some of them have taken prescription meds themselves) that I was too impaired to safely drive.

My experience with juries is that when juries are confronted with proof of impairment, they usually convict. Responsible prescription users understand that they or their families might be on the same road with such an impaired driver.

You never know.

But, if there is no evidence of the objective signs of impairment, and there is no positive test, I doubt the matter will even get to trial.

In the meantime, you might want to seriously evaluate the effects your medication might have on you. If they ARE having an effect, wouldn't you prefer to know that?