DUI w/o chemical test?

[RBitt]

I was charged with Drunk In Public in California. No chemical test was done at the jail. Because I was found parked in a vehicle on the road, it is presumed that I drove while intoxicated to get there, so the charge became DUI. How can the DA get a conviction without a chemical test establishing the level of BAC?

 

[nuyuky]

You have to argue that a presumption is not enough to convict in a court of law. I know that it always was that presumptions of law was, but now the rules have changed and I think that you should argue that point and stick with your guns. This "advice" IS UP TO YOU TO ACCEPT. You have a constitutional right to due process and the like. Since I tell you that, it is not really advice, but it is a constitutional violation to convict you on a presumption, no matter how big or small. It is time to fight back folks. Please dig deep into your souls and find the will to fight for your God given rights. If their were a conflict between an individual right and an public interest, which one would prevail?

 

[D Phillips]

DUI w/o chemical tests in a non-moving vehicle

My husband is facing a DUI charge in GA where he was found asleep at the wheel of his truck at 3:30am. He was at a red light and a passing motorist called 911. The EMTs responded thinking he had had a heart attack while driving. A policeman responded at the same time. He smelled of alcohol according to the policeman. (He had just left my job where I am a bartender where he had three quick beers and then left - certainly not enough alcohol or time lapse for intoxication). Upon waking (my husband was exhausted from working 16 hours),he refused all roadside tests in a gruff manner. (We were advised years ago by our attorney in Ohio to NEVER allow any roadside tests and my husband followed his advice). He has lost his license for a year. In court, there were seven cases and his was the only one where he was not allowed to keep a license to drive to work. I have contacted the ACLU because the law says you can't be held accountable for decisions made under the influence of drugs or alcohol, under the age of 18 or insane. If he was intoxicated, as the policeman believed, then he was not capable of making a decision about taking roadside tests. If he was not intoxicated, then the tests weren't needed. The deck is stacked against drunk drivers. "Implied Consent" is a joke. We paid a very good lawyer $2500 and it hasn't helped a bit.

 

[nuyuky]

What kind of hearings has your husband had so far? It is good that the roadside tests were refused. The attorney did a good thing by that advice. It will be difficult for the government to prove a DUI. I've had my wife acuse me of alcohol on my breath and it was due to what is called candida. It is a condition where yeast and sugar in ones stomach causes a chemical reaction which produces the alcohol breath. The three beers contributed to the strong smell of alcohol. I believe if your husband hangs in there, the DUI will be dropped and he will eventually be charged with a refusal. That is the goal you should achieve if you can, together. Do not give in to the intimidation of the prosecution. Challenge the legality of the criminal proceeding in which your husband was charged. Challenge the jurisdiction of the court. Once jurisdiction is challenged, then the burden of proof is on the government to prove that jurisdiction exists. It cannot be implied. Then again, your husband can beat the refusal charge because of the competency issue. If you can't win your case using the facts, you can win using their own law, and visa versa. Good luck. Please, be careful. This is a dog eat dog world.