DUI follow-up

[Lot249]

What is the name of your state? New Jersey
DUI charge made August 8, 2023.
The attorney was engaged in mid-August of 2023.
Three virtual court hearings have been held on this matter.
No resolution as yet, awaiting the next court hearing date.
Once resolved, I'll post the outcome.

Thank you again for all your responses, it's been an education.

What have I learned you ask, here's a few enlightenments:
1. Attornies only want input from their client,
2. The legal system will always provide a way for the police can justify their actions,
3. Breathalyzer tests are always accepted as proof of guilt but never of innocence,
4. Mistakes made by the police are rarely, if ever, acknowledged,
5. Mis-reporting of test results is treated as a simple clerical error, regardless of the error's serious consequences,
6. If you are stopped by police, be polite, but never volunteer any information other than your license, registration, and proof of insurance,
7. Be cognisant that any interaction with the police (legal system) is adversarial, and one should act accordingly.
8. Understand and accept, that any resolution within the legal system must always have the legal system coming away with some degree of victory.

 

[Zigner]

You've learned some good lessons, but also have some misperceptions.

Post Hx (his 77 year old wife got into an accident and admitted at the scene to drinking):
https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/do-i-need-to-engage-legal-representation-in-this-case.663435/

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state? New Jersey
DUI charge made August 8, 2023.
The attorney was engaged in mid-August of 2023.
Three virtual court hearings have been held on this matter.
No resolution as yet, awaiting the next court hearing date.
Once resolved, I'll post the outcome.

Thank you again for all your responses, it's been an education.

What have I learned you ask, here's a few enlightenments:
1. Attornies only want input from their client,
2. The legal system will always provide a way for the police can justify their actions,
3. Breathalyzer tests are always accepted as proof of guilt but never of innocence,
4. Mistakes made by the police are rarely, if ever, acknowledged,
5. Mis-reporting of test results is treated as a simple clerical error, regardless of the error's serious consequences,
6. If you are stopped by police, be polite, but never volunteer any information other than your license, registration, and proof of insurance,
7. Be cognisant that any interaction with the police (legal system) is adversarial, and one should act accordingly.
8. Understand and accept, that any resolution within the legal system must always have the legal system coming away with some degree of victory.

These lessons would have been better added to your other thread, as you’ve been previously advised.

You are correct that attorneys are representing the best interests of their clients. Uninvolved parties (like spouses of their clients) may have an interest in what happens but they are not part of the legal action. Their “input” generally only works to increase attorney costs.

I question the validity of most of the rest of what you said.

 

[Lot249]

You've learned some good lessons, but also have some misperceptions.

Post Hx (his 77 year old wife got into an accident and admitted at the scene to drinking):
https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/do-i-need-to-engage-legal-representation-in-this-case.663435/

 

[Lot249]

Thanks for your response, but could you please elaborate on those misperceptions?

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state? New Jersey
DUI charge made August 8, 2023.
The attorney was engaged in mid-August of 2023.
Three virtual court hearings have been held on this matter.
No resolution as yet, awaiting the next court hearing date.
Once resolved, I'll post the outcome.

Thank you again for all your responses, it's been an education.

What have I learned you ask, here's a few enlightenments:
1. Attornies only want input from their client,
2. The legal system will always provide a way for the police can justify their actions,
3. Breathalyzer tests are always accepted as proof of guilt but never of innocence,
4. Mistakes made by the police are rarely, if ever, acknowledged,
5. Mis-reporting of test results is treated as a simple clerical error, regardless of the error's serious consequences,
6. If you are stopped by police, be polite, but never volunteer any information other than your license, registration, and proof of insurance,
7. Be cognisant that any interaction with the police (legal system) is adversarial, and one should act accordingly.
8. Understand and accept, that any resolution within the legal system must always have the legal system coming away with some degree of victory.

2. The legal system does not always provide a way for the police to justify their actions. There are numerous former police officers sitting in prison cells because their actions were not justified.

3. Breathalyzer tests can be, and often are, challenged successfully in court.

4. See number 2. “Mistakes” by police have sent many police officers to jail.

5. The mistaken reporting of test results may or may not be attributed to clerical errors. Facts matter.

6. For the most part, this is good advice. Circumstances may dictate that you provide more information.

7. Having worked with and around the police, and volunteered at community events with police agencies in the past, your statement is much too broad. Approaching all interactions with the police as adversarial ones shows a disdain for all police that is not deserved.

8. Those who have been successful with legal actions taken against “the legal system” would disagree, as would the legal system.

Lot249, your wife was in a car accident and ticketed for reckless driving and DUI, after she admitted drinking and after she failed a field test. Your wife hit another (or other) vehicles. Her attorney will look at the charges and see what evidence supports those charges and work to get them dismissed or reduced. That’s how the legal system works.

 

[Lot249]

These lessons would have been better added to your other thread, as you’ve been previously advised.

You are correct that attorneys are representing the best interests of their clients. Uninvolved parties (like spouses of their clients) may have an interest in what happens but they are not part of the legal action. Their “input” generally only works to increase attorney costs.

I question the validity of most of the rest of what you said.

I can accept your questioning of the validity of the logical assumptions I may have made, but not my posting's factual content. To ask for advice and guidance on factually incorrect matters serves no purpose, and is simply a waste of time.

 

[quincy]

I can accept your questioning of the validity of the logical assumptions I may have made, but not my posting's factual content. To ask for advice and guidance on factually incorrect matters serves no purpose, and is simply a waste of time.

I don’t find what you posted to be “logical assumptions” and I only repeated the information you have provided in your threads.

Your wife needs to rely on the advice and direction of her attorney. The attorney can work best without outside interference.

I agree that discussing this further is a waste of time.

Good luck.

 

[Zigner]

Thanks for your response, but could you please elaborate on those misperceptions?

Quincy did an excellent job.

 

[quincy]

Thank you, Zigner.

 

[Lot249]

2. The legal system does not always provide a way for the police to justify their actions. There are numerous former police officers sitting in prison cells because their actions were not justified.

3. Breathalyzer tests can be, and often are, challenged successfully in court.

4. See number 2. “Mistakes” by police have sent many police officers to jail.

5. The mistaken reporting of test results may or may not be attributed to clerical errors. Facts matter.

6. For the most part, this is good advice. Circumstances may dictate that you provide more information.

7. Having worked with and around the police, and volunteered at community events with police agencies in the past, your statement is much too broad. Approaching all interactions with the police as adversarial ones shows a disdain for all police that is not deserved.

8. Those who have been successful with legal actions taken against “the legal system” would disagree, as would the legal system.

Lot249, your wife was in a car accident and ticketed for reckless driving and DUI, after she admitted drinking and after she failed a field test. Your wife hit another (or other) vehicles. Her attorney will look at the charges and see what evidence supports those charges and work to get them dismissed or reduced. That’s how the legal system works.

Let me be very clear about

2. The legal system does not always provide a way for the police to justify their actions. There are numerous former police officers sitting in prison cells because their actions were not justified.

3. Breathalyzer tests can be, and often are, challenged successfully in court.

4. See number 2. “Mistakes” by police have sent many police officers to jail.

5. The mistaken reporting of test results may or may not be attributed to clerical errors. Facts matter.

6. For the most part, this is good advice. Circumstances may dictate that you provide more information.

7. Having worked with and around the police, and volunteered at community events with police agencies in the past, your statement is much too broad. Approaching all interactions with the police as adversarial ones shows a disdain for all police that is not deserved.

8. Those who have been successful with legal actions taken against “the legal system” would disagree, as would the legal system.

Lot249, your wife was in a car accident and ticketed for reckless driving and DUI, after she admitted drinking and after she failed a field test. Your wife hit another (or other) vehicles. Her attorney will look at the charges and see what evidence supports those charges and work to get them dismissed or reduced. That’s how the legal system works.

My comments are a reaction to the handling of the matter at hand. The mistakes made in this case, in no way warrant anything more than a discussion with the officer(s) involved.

The interaction between the public and law enforcement is and will always be adversarial.
Adversarial doesn't mean disrespecting the police. It doesn't mean one shouldn't be truthful. It means be careful in what you say, and how you say it. It also means to be cautious about the amount of trust you are willing to extend.

An example of this adversarial relationship is when the office asked my wife if she had been drinking. She was truthful and trusting when she responded yes, she had a single glass of wine at 4:30 pm. The accident happened at 7:45 pm. So how did the officer record this, "she admitted she had a drink". No mention the drink took place 3 hours before the accident. Not mentioning the time gap between the glass of wine and the accident leaves the reader with the impression she had been "drinking". Drinking is then left to the reader to interpret. If you take the time to read the other responses, all of them when referring to the DUI, make mention of the fact that she admitted having a drink.
If you think not mentioning the time of the drink isn't adversarial, you should think again. What if she said the glass of wine was taken at 1 pm, would that have made a difference in what or how the officer reported? Adversarial? I think so.

She PASSED the Breathalyzer Test but was still fingerprinted and photographed as if she failed. Adversarial? I think so.

The police strongly advised seeking legal representation because she had failed the Breathalyzer Test. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

We needed to pay thousands of dollars for legal representation when there was no need to do so. Will we be compensated for this mistake? Don't hold your breath. Adversarial? I think so.

 

[Zigner]

She PASSED the Breathalyzer Test but was still fingerprinted and photographed as if she failed. Adversarial? I think so.

The police strongly advised seeking legal representation because she had failed the Breathalyzer Test. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

How is it that you STILL don't understand what you've been told about the BAC? At this point, it seems you are being deliberately obtuse.
A breathalyzer is not pass/fail. It simply does an analysis and shows a number showing the blood alcohol content of the person being tested. Your wife blew a .014. One does not have to be at or above .08 in order to be driving under the influence. All the .08 represents is the point at which the BAC is automatically indicative that one is impaired. In other words, it's the per se limit. If the reading is under .08, then the state has to prove that one is impaired with additional evidence.

Again, blowing under .08 doesn't automatically mean one is not impaired.
Again, blowing under .08 doesn't automatically mean one is not impaired.
Again, blowing under .08 doesn't automatically mean one is not impaired.

All it means is the state has to prove impairment with additional evidence. Things like stumbling and being involved in an accident are types of evidence that might be used.

There was no mistake and the police officer was right to advise that your wife seek out an attorney.

 

[Lot249]

How is it that you STILL don't understand what you've been told about the BAC? At this point, it seems you are being deliberately obtuse.
A breathalyzer is not pass/fail. It simply does an analysis and shows a number showing the blood alcohol content of the person being tested. Your wife blew a .014. One does not have to be at or above .08 in order to be driving under the influence. All the .08 represents is the point at which the BAC is automatically indicative that one is impaired. In other words, it's the per se limit. If the reading is under .08, then the state has to prove that one is impaired with additional evidence.

Again, blowing under .08 doesn't automatically mean one is not impaired.
Again, blowing under .08 doesn't automatically mean one is not impaired.
Again, blowing under .08 doesn't automatically mean one is not impaired.

All it means is the state has to prove impairment with additional evidence. Things like stumbling and being involved in an accident are types of evidence that might be used.

There was no mistake and the police officer was right to advise that your wife seek out an attorney.

You are right. I am completely ignorant of the legalities of a DUI infraction, as I am sure is the majority of the general public.

If you could tolerate my ignorance for just a bit longer, could you please educate me on what would be "additional evidence" in this case?
I would have to assume, in the context of this case, that the field test results and the officer's suspicion of DUI would be this evidence.
You know very well that failing a field test can be caused by a myriad of factors that have nothing to do with alcohol or drug impairment.
If the officer's suspicion is considered additional evidence, in my mind, doesn't seem right.
If in your world, suspicion is proof of guilt, and if the legal system embraces this premise, we're all doomed.

 

[Zigner]

You are right. I am completely ignorant of the legalities of a DUI infraction, as I am sure is the majority of the general public.

If you could tolerate my ignorance for just a bit longer, could you please educate me on what would be "additional evidence" in this case?

I offered examples of the additional evidence.

I would have to assume, in the context of this case, that the field test results

Yes

and the officer's suspicion of DUI

No

would be this evidence.
You know very well that failing a field test can be caused by a myriad of factors that have nothing to do with alcohol or drug impairment.

Yes, and an attorney will be able to address that issue.

If the officer's suspicion is considered additional evidence, in my mind, doesn't seem right.

An officer's suspicion is not evidence. An officer's observations and professional opinion, on the other hand, are evidence.

If in your world, suspicion is proof of guilt, and if the legal system embraces this premise, we're all doomed.

It's a great thing that, in my world (and yours), at least in this country, suspicion is NOT proof of guilt.

 

[Lot249]

I offered examples of the additional evidence.
Yes
No
Yes, and an attorney will be able to address that issue.
An officer's suspicion is not evidence. An officer's observations and professional opinion, on the other hand, are evidence.
It's a great thing that, in my world (and yours), at least in this country, suspicion is NOT proof of guilt.

I’m fully cognizant that a BAC test does not report a pass/fail result. Referencing the test results in this way is a misnomer, but is commonly viewed and referenced as a pass/fail statement by the general public.

I should have referenced the BAC resulting number value used in determining if an individual’s alcohol impairment, registered no impairment.

I think we can agree that accidents can happen when individuals are impaired or not. Determining fault, in some cases, can prove to be a very difficult task. In our case, it’s a he said, she said, situation with no objective witnesses providing definitive information to confidently place fault.

In our case, the officer determined the fault based on two things. First, the officer accepted, as fact, the other driver stating he had the right of way, but with no evidence to substantiate that statement. Secondly, and most importantly, were the officer’s professional opinion and observations, where he concluded my wife was DUI. Unfortunately, the second factor, consciously or subconsciously, placed a greater sense of truth to the other driver’s statement in the officer’s mind.

The subsequent analysis of the BCA testing showed the officer’s professional opinion and observations of impairment were found to be flawed. I wouldn’t think this could be considered good evidence.

What frustrates me the most, is that this situation could have been resolved easily. An acknowledgment that the analysis of the BAC results was incorrect and the dropping of the DUI charge.

We could accept (not embrace) the judgment my wife was the cause of the accident. The circumstances surrounding the accident would make it impossible to prove otherwise.