duii for failing sobriety testing and 0.00

[CdwJava]

actually, no, they wouldn't. A perfectly sober and clean (without any drugs) person can be found to be impaired.

But, to be DUI one has to be driving while impaired on drugs or alcohol. Just being a bad driver, in pain, sleepy, etc., is not DUI. It might be some other offense depending upon the laws in the particular state, but it would not be DUI or a similar impaired driving offense.

Now, if you are implying that the impairment can be proven without a chemical test? Sure. We did it in San Diego County all the time. If a DRE trained officer conducted the evaluation they could prosecute and get a conviction even without a positive chemical test.

 

[neurology]

Dui, yes, impaired driving, no. Regardless what the doctor states, if the OP drives in an unsafe manner or appears to be impaired, then he can be ticketed. His medical condition, doctors blessing or not, does not allow him to drive if he is unsafe.

Care to explain scientifically how a person can be cleared medically and be unsafe after which my medical records state that an increase impairment that I have gained tolerance and therefore the effectiveness is quite limited. Hence double the dose and add in anti-parkinsoniasm drug, tremor meds etc...

How do you define unsafe? Parking in your spot? I guess I would like you to actually think, how do you test for cranial nerve functions? What tests are affect with a positive babinski sign? What does that mean in terms of using the FSTs?

Do you now know? There are a number of tests to test cranial nerves, functions to isolate which lesion is responsible. How do I know? I live it man

And for those who think I need a therapist. I have one. A vietnam veteran is my anti-suicide therapy. He got shot in the forehead in vietnam and we discuss the experience every week and the experience. While in the southern hemisphere in the asian region. I was hit in Jan 2010 in the upper right of my head. I dont know what happened. I was literally pulled from the darkness. Everyone screaming "STAY DOWN STAY DOWN< GET DOWN" I was like get the **** off of me and fighting them, a huge rush of nausea, then I looked on the ground and a huge mass of blood (from my head) like soup. I said, ok, Ill lay down. From there I was evaced via helicopter and I have no memory except for nausea and I recall being driven by ambulance and then flying with a new zealander and I was in the front seat chatting away. Apparently none of that happened.

So I talk to my counselor, he's got a bullet hole right in his forehad from nam. Anyways, he says with my post injury hallucinations that I was just born in the wrong century. I chaulk up the music coming out of the refrigerator and air conditioner as just part of brain injury. Better than the alternive, sitting in a gymnasium picking up pieces of flesh with tweezers and mikeyboy saying "I got a big piece" of skin. Or holding your best friend with a bullet cutting him in half. There's not anything you can do and its not fast and easy either. Its about 15-20 minutes of thinking how to say 'no' and knowing.

For ****sakes, I cant speak, I could not say goodbye to my father, he looked for me to say something. I cant talk, how can I go on like this, I cant even say goodbye to my dying father.

You guys, go out and enjoy the sunny days, forget the net, you dont know what you are missing until you cant do it

 

[neurology]

Understand that one can be impaired even on a prescribed amount. The onus is on the person taking the medication to understand its effects on them. It is not a defense to DUI to have consumed only the prescribed amount because even that could - and likely will - result in impairment.


They are essentially two different issues. You have to be medically capable of safely operating the motor vehicle while UN-impaired, and cannot operate it while impaired. The medical evaluation would simply have said that when not under the influence your condition should not negatively effect your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. it does not grant you a pass to drive with impairing medication in your system.

Ok, if I understand that one can impaired even on a prescribed amount.

bear with me wise sage.

So if one can be impaired even on a prescribed amount, one can also NOT be impaired on a prescribed amount. The onus would be on the state to prove that rather than an assumption of guilt until onus is proven. I certainly can prove it, if they want eegs, emg wires to my muscles proving, ct's mri's, surgery you name it I got it. But what vexes me is that the extent of ME being honest and the extent of their intentional fraudulent documents filed against me.

I am by my own phsycians capable to drive. Neurologists and physicians who have doctoral degrees in their speciality, 20,000 hours of experience vs. a DRE of 100 hours of training and self supporting field time. If I have top notch neurologists curious as to what exactly is wrong with my brain and wanting expensive PET scans and all sorts of tests. I am pretty dang gun sure that some guy with a 100 hours of biased training can discern the extent of my brain damage. I mean it falls into the "gimme a break" category. How can I have a dozen different doctors offer a dozen different dianoses with a combined experience of what, 500,000 years of clinical experience vs a 3 week DRE training course?

Its like a bizzaro world in the USA where you are not innoncent until proven guilty. The onus is on the innocent to prove the state wrong, but through alot of this, I mean anyone can meet the definition of impairment if there is anything in there system. All it takes is a blood test and an FST that is designed to fail.

Look, like I said, I dont give a **** about myself, its just sad that this country has come to up-end the very liberties that we fight for all for political marbles or greed. Very sad, human dignity and personal privacy as well as eroding the rights of the common man. Thats what I fought for.
Now I am just discarded flesh for the dui cops looking to get another pizza party by MADD, **** the guy with the documented head injury. I got my extra pepperoni cheezy pizza "lets go whack a mole"

Point being, if someone asks to be sent to a surgeon and ask for it, I say welll hold a second before I send you to a surgeon, lets figure out what to do. Mainly b/c if I sent you to surgeon, guess what you'll get? surgery. When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail ( a flaw in human sociology, characterized by several studies). Meaning if you send a patient to surgery, you close them off to more effective treatments and proper evaluation as to what may be happening. The trap usually is set with bleeding issues. Particularlly in the head but occuring anywhere. If they have a clotting disorder like Leiden factor V etc... they are escpecially prone to airborne clots forming in their legs and then growing large enough to dislodge and block pulmonary arteries leading to death within a few minutes.

The huge issue is the fact that, there is inherent bias to these tests.

Isnt there got to be a better system than to actually gauge a person who is impaired versus me? Why should I show that I was not impaired? Why is the onus on me? Someone with traumatic brain injury? How does it square with the framers of the constituion?

Guess Ill just have to go to foxnews or some place. Id like to have cameras in the courtroom on this one.

 

[stealth2]

What good does that do for a cripple?

I wonder how Steve Reeves or Stephen Hawking would answer you...

For ****sakes, I cant speak, I could not say goodbye to my father, he looked for me to say something. I cant talk, how can I go on like this, I cant even say goodbye to my dying father.

You can look in his eyes. You can hold his hand. You can type what you want to say, and ask your wife/someone to read it to him. Would you rather *he* have to bury *you*?

As much as I sympathize with your plight, I can't help but think you should go to a pediatric ward at a local hospital. Spend some time with young cancer patients, other kids with life-altering/ending diseases. You might be surprised at their optimism.

 

[justalayman]

But, to be DUI one has to be driving while impaired on drugs or alcohol. Just being a bad driver, in pain, sleepy, etc., is not DUI. It might be some other offense depending upon the laws in the particular state, but it would not be DUI or a similar impaired driving offense.

Now, if you are implying that the impairment can be proven without a chemical test? Sure. We did it in San Diego County all the time. If a DRE trained officer conducted the evaluation they could prosecute and get a conviction even without a positive chemical test.

and that was exactly what I stated in a following post. Impaired is something very different from DUI. You yourself have stated so many times. If this charge gets continued, I would expect the charge to be altered to reflect that since OP would obviously not be guilty of DUI.

 

[justalayman]

first, let me say, (and you most likely do not want people feeling sorry for you but...) I do feel sorry for you. I am a somewhat healthy guy that although I have my share of problems, they are nowhere near what you experience. You have my sympathy. I enjoy driving immensely, just as an activity in itself. I would hate to lose that ability let alone the myriad of other activities I enjoy that you are now losing the ability to do, let alone actually enjoy. So, with that, please accept I am not trying to make you feel worse than you already do but the legal aspects are very different from the personal aspects of your situation.

neurology;3043731]Care to explain scientifically how a person can be cleared medically and be unsafe after which my medical records state that an increase impairment that I have gained tolerance and therefore the effectiveness is quite limited. Hence double the dose and add in anti-parkinsoniasm drug, tremor meds etc...

How do you define unsafe? Parking in your spot? I guess I would like you to actually think, how do you test for cranial nerve functions?

car to explain why any of that makes a difference?

What tests are affect with a positive babinski sign? What does that mean in terms of using the FSTs?

from a medical info website:

A person older than an infant who has a Babinski's reflex will often also have incoordination, weakness, and difficulty with muscle control.

Safety is important to prevent injury. The person may need help with activity. The environment should be kept free of hazards.

that in itself screams "driving may not be a safe activity". I have not met you face to face. The cop has. If he determines you were impaired to the point it was not safe to drive, you will have to prove otherwise. Sorry but regardless what a doctor says about your condition, it is a real world assessment at the time of the situation that will be important.

Do you now know? There are a number of tests to test cranial nerves, functions to isolate which lesion is responsible. How do I know? I live it man

but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is: are you too impaired to drive safely, not just when you are being examined but when you are actually out there driving.

And for those who think I need a therapist. I have one. A vietnam veteran is my anti-suicide therapy.

psych treatment is an adjunct therapy due to the physical debilitation. People get depressed when faced with situations such as yours.

So I talk to my counselor, he's got a bullet hole right in his forehad from nam. Anyways, he says with my post injury hallucinations that I was just born in the wrong century. I chaulk up the music coming out of the refrigerator and air conditioner as just part of brain injury.

so, what other delusions do you experience? No cars where there are cars or just as dangerous: car where there are none that you now have to avoid hitting so you might hit another car that is actually there?

For ****sakes, I cant speak, I could not say goodbye to my father, he looked for me to say something. I cant talk, how can I go on like this, I cant even say goodbye to my dying father.

verbally, no but there are other ways to express yourself. I do understand the lack of verbal communications is difficult but there are many other ways to express yourself.

You guys, go out and enjoy the sunny days, forget the net, you dont know what you are missing until you cant do it

and you cannot enjoy a sunny day? You obviously do understand what a sunny day means to most people. That means you also enjoy a sunny day. While you may be limited in many areas, it is apparent you to can still enjoy a sunny day.

Care to explain scientifically how a person can be cleared medically and be unsafe after which my medical records state that an increase impairment that I have gained tolerance and therefore the effectiveness is quite limited. Hence double the dose and add in anti-parkinsoniasm drug, tremor meds etc...

being cleared medically was first, based upon the moment of examination. Just as a person that drinks is fine, even if drinking, at some point but can be worse at other times. Your ability to perform is going to wax and wane. I am sure fatigue itself will alter your ability to function just as it does a healthy person. You do realize that several (at least) states have made driving drowsy illegal, right? If a drowsy person is impaired, what makes you believe you are any less impaired given your condition?

 

[las365]

what's the point of taking a man with debilitating, disabling disease and charge him duii?

The point of DUI laws is to protect other people from a driver who can't safely operate a vehicle. Police officers do not have specialized training in recognizing or assessing neurological disorders. Their task is simply to try to recognize and deal with a potentially dangerous situation. The judicial process is where your defenses are asserted and judged by a judge or jury.

I sympathize with your situation, and as long as you don't endanger anyone else it is no one's business whether you drink alcohol.

I get that this is personal for you, but I don't think there is any vendetta or persecution going on here. You acknowledge that your oral communication is impaired. It is possible that the police report reflects the inability the cops had to understand what you were saying. It may also indicate that no matter what you said, they thought you were intoxicated. They are not scientists or medical professionals. That isn't their job.

 

[CdwJava]

So if one can be impaired even on a prescribed amount, one can also NOT be impaired on a prescribed amount.

True. However! The drug panels used by most law enforcement labs include a cutoff level of x ng/ml. That is to say that if the concentration of the substance or metabolite in the system is BELOW the amount that would generally be considered to be legally impairing, the result would come back negative. So, if the prescription amount is not generally sufficient to impair, then the test would come back negative even if you had consumed it.

I am by my own phsycians capable to drive.

That's fine. But, you aren't being charged with driving outside of medical conditions, you are being charged with driving while impaired on drugs or alcohol.

Neurologists and physicians who have doctoral degrees in their speciality, 20,000 hours of experience vs. a DRE of 100 hours of training and self supporting field time.

Very few of the those doctors will have ANY experience in the evaluation of the skills and tasks necessary for driving, whereas the DRE's focus is specifically on the effects of those substances on one's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

But, we are not talking about your ailment, we are talking about an allegation of a chemically induced impairment. if the chemical test comes back positive for benzos above the cutoff level, and your performance on the FSTs was sufficiently poor to show impairment, then you will likely be found guilty.

Now I am just discarded flesh for the dui cops looking to get another pizza party by MADD, **** the guy with the documented head injury. I got my extra pepperoni cheezy pizza "lets go whack a mole"

There is a difference between someone suffering from a head injury and someone chemically impaired. A sufficiently trained officer or evaluator will be able to discern the difference in most instances.

But, again, you may have that positive chemical test to tilt things towards guilt. It might be a wise practice in the future to not operate a motor vehicle when you have consumed any potentially impairing medication.

Isnt there got to be a better system than to actually gauge a person who is impaired versus me? Why should I show that I was not impaired? Why is the onus on me? Someone with traumatic brain injury? How does it square with the framers of the constituion?

The onus is NOT on you, it is on the state. The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were operating a motor vehicle while you were impaired on drugs or alcohol. With poor FSTs and a positive test (above the accepted cutoff level) for an impairing chemical substance, the state will arguably have met that burden. It is then the job of the defense to cast reasonable doubt upon the evidence to explain why the evidence should not be relied upon as conclusive evidence of guilt. That is where the medial issues might come into play. But, the issue of the positive chemical test will continue to haunt you and your ability to raise reasonable doubt (especially if they have a secondary test that evaluates the actual concentration rather than simply a positive one above the cutoff).