actually you should have gotten a better lawyer. That kind of crap usually doesn't fly in DD cases (although it does in every other kind of case). They have to first present evidence, not testimony of your drinking AND that you were over the limit (assuming DUI not DWI). To do this they need 2 readings with in .02 of each other.
What are you talking about?

I DIDN'T BLOW! Get it!? He charged me with a DUI (and not to mention a slew of other shit (fabricated, I might add)) with ZERO fucking evidence of my line test (other than his word, which was incredibly convenient for the prosecution) only to have his ass-partner testify subsequently (and all while being coached by this androgynous man-bitch of a prosecutor who then "recommend" that he take a second and "brush up" on the "facts" of that evening using the rankly falsified report - YET again) and that, in turn, convicted me. Trust me, it was a done deal at that point.

I lost my license for a fucking year, and why???? Because I fought it instead of rolling over in court. Had I done that, I'd be driving right now, which just goes to show someone looking for "their day in court" - you fight, you lose. As it stands currently, I've had to sell my car, I've taken a pay cut for lost hours, I spend 3 hours a day taking public transportation (which is a fucking nightmare - take my word for it), and I've had to pay over 5K dollars in fines to the state alone.

Those cops are lucky my crazy Irish ass doesn't take a blowtorch to their families, friends, and neighbors for what they've put me through.

What are you talking about?

I DIDN'T BLOW! Get it!? He charged me with a DUI...

It would seem we don't have all the facts here Prae, or maybe I'm just confused.

You say you didn't take a breathalyzer test at all? Did they draw blood?

If they did neither, what evidence did they present that you were intoxicated?

Just out of curiosity, what did your attorney say about the whole situation?


Those cops are lucky my crazy Irish ass doesn't take a blowtorch to their families, friends, and neighbors for what they've put me through.

Perhaps the problem was that you actually spoke at your trial. ;-)

It would seem we don't have all the facts here Prae, or maybe I'm just confused.

You say you didn't take a breathalyzer test at all? Did they draw blood?

If they did neither, what evidence did they present that you were intoxicated?

Jumping the gun here admittedly, but i'm betting the answer is that they did not do a breathalizer OR draw blood, but made the case on the testimony of the cops.

It seeems to me that some people here --from their atitude toward this topic-- live in areas where the people charged with upholding the laws actually follow the rules.............that isn't the way it works where I live.

Here, if they don't like you or want to get you, you're screwed because they'll make sure that whatever charges they make stick.........OTOH, if you know the right people you can (it happened here a couple of years ago) get away with cold blooded murder.

I DIDN'T BLOW! Get it!? He charged me with a DUI (and not to mention a slew of other shit (fabricated, I might add)) with ZERO fucking evidence of my line test (other than his word, which was incredibly convenient for the prosecution) only to have his ass-partner testify subsequently (and all while being coached by this androgynous man-bitch of a prosecutor who then "recommend" that he take a second and "brush up" on the "facts" of that evening using the rankly falsified report - YET again) and that, in turn, convicted me. Trust me, it was a done deal at that point.

Fucking worthless piss pots.

What are you talking about?

I DIDN'T BLOW! Get it!? He charged me with a DUI

I lost my license for a fucking year, and why???? Because I fought it instead of rolling over in court. Had I done that, I'd be driving right now, which just goes to show someone looking for "their day in court" - you fight, you lose. As it stands currently, I've had to sell my car, I've taken a pay cut for lost hours, I spend 3 hours a day taking public transportation (which is a fucking nightmare - take my word for it), and I've had to pay over 5K dollars in fines to the state alone.

Those cops are lucky my crazy Irish ass doesn't take a blowtorch to their families, friends, and neighbors for what they've put me through.

i believe you, it's becoming a common event apparently.
a buddy of mine in ny had the same thing happen to him. he was pulled over and refused to blow, apparently it's an automatic felon if you refuse.
he's looking at 1-3 years in prison and fines up the ass.
he used to be a trouble maker but cleaned up his act about 5 years ago when he met a woman he fell in love with. they are trying to hold his past convictions against him. he's lost his job and car too, he's hoping not to lose his kids. good luck.

It would seem we don't have all the facts here Prae, or maybe I'm just confused.

You say you didn't take a breathalyzer test at all? Did they draw blood?

If they did neither, what evidence did they present that you were intoxicated?
Jumping the gun here admittedly, but i'm betting the answer is that they did not do a breathalizer OR draw blood, but made the case on the testimony of the cops.
BINGO!
Just out of curiosity, what did your attorney say about the whole situation?
After paying him 400 dollars an hour; sadly, not much. He advised me against fighting the charge because (and I suppose I should've listened) I stood the chance of losing the bench trial based on the testimony of the two cops (who, incidentally, both served as "expert witness'" while lying through their f&%k1NG teeth on stand), which, in turn, stiffened the penalty considerably.

Apparently, they caught wind of me wanting to fight this (my attorney didn't approach the prosecution, they approached us), and they offered (and I quote, a "really sweet deal" (their parlance, not mine - READ; no loss of license/no community service) if I pled guilty to the intoxication charge (which, obviously, I refused to do based on principle). Well, to make a long story short - here I am today because I fought those lying-ass motherfuckers in court (and how does the last refrain of that terribly stupid song go again;...) "and the "law" won", right?
Perhaps the problem was that you actually spoke at your trial. ;-)
My testimony wasn't pretty, but I was so pissed off (I literally pictured myself removing the cop's ear with knife ala Michael Madsen in "Reservoir Dogs") that I couldn't control my emotions, and I'm NOT joking.

In all honesty, you're probably right. OTOH, testifying felt pretty good even though I tried to avoid it.

i believe you, it's becoming a common event apparently.
a buddy of mine in ny had the same thing happen to him. he was pulled over and refused to blow, apparently it's an automatic felon if you refuse.
Refusal to blow is admissible as evidence against you in court. The prosecution will ask the jury "why would an innocent person refuse to blow?" Even if you believed at the time the police asked you to blow that the test is not accurate (though there is evidence to support that).
Second, a refusal to blow will usually result in a suspension of your license for 180 days.

However you can not get jailtime for not blowing

How is that remarkable at all? It's his word against mine, and in a court of law, who's the judge gonna listen to?


Ask for a jury trial. It's your constitutional right.

On another note, it's less remarkable if you had two officers testifying against you, you refused to blow, you testified, and you blew your cool on the stand. I'm a criminal attorney and defendants always hurt themselves when they act like jerks on the stand.

Ask for a jury trial. It's your constitutional right.
In retrospect, I should've.
On another note, it's less remarkable if you had two officers testifying against you, you refused to blow, you testified, and you blew your cool on the stand. I'm a criminal attorney and defendants always hurt themselves when they act like jerks on the stand.
I guess so, but in this case, if telling the truth equals acting like a jerk (I called the cop a liar when I took the stand, and was admonished by the judge for doing so), then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

Yeah you can't call the cops liars. This is a government proceeding. You have to cover your truths with lies. The system is fucked.

You have to say something like..." I think the officers getting confused with another stop, which is perfectly understandable when you do so much..."

But yeah the courts are a joke.

I remember an article last year about a cop who would purposefully have people walk the line off camera and then say how they are drunk and failing even when they did it perfectly. He'd done this tens if not hundreds of times until he got caught by another camera on someones property.

I got pulled over riding my bike one time. I fought it and the cop even lied over that.

Had a friend who traded in their crappy old car for a nice looking station wagon. Said they always got pulled over in the old car and not once in 5 years in the new one.

Now imagine if you are black or look poor and this happens to you all the time...

Yeah you can't call the cops liars. This is a government proceeding. You have to cover your truths with lies. The system is fucked.

I doubt there is a country where a defendant gets more protection than in the United States. You have the right to a jury trial, you have the right not to speak, you have the right to appeal to a higher court in case you think the ruling was unfair, and you have the right to an attorney. If anything about the system is "fucked", it's how much time and money our country spends making sure defendants have all of these rights.

It's just common sense not to call someone "A liar!" in a formal proceeding. You can speak the truth without making things personal. You don't know if people are lying or are mistaken. I'll tell you one thing, even if everyone is telling the truth, you will hear many, many different stories about what happened in one incident....that's just because different people perceive identical situations in different ways.


Had a friend who traded in their crappy old car for a nice looking station wagon. Said they always got pulled over in the old car and not once in 5 years in the new one.

Now imagine if you are black or look poor and this happens to you all the time...

I think this is true. Stereotypes play a big role in police work as in all of life, but that's just a reality that no one will ever be able to change.


For whatever it's worth, rich people get at least some problems too....The local bar is well aware when one of the local attorneys picks up a DWI.

Also, poor people are more likely to get out of paying fines and attorneys due to their "indigent" status, so rich people get screwed a little harder when they do get caught.

Also, poor people are more likely to get out of paying fines and attorneys due to their "indigent" status, Only if they are willing to face jail time. Otherwise poor people get screwed by not having a lawyer.
I doubt there is a country where a defendant gets more protection than in the United States. Funny you say this right after we were discussing how cops get away with lies in court. If we were truely protected they would have to produce actual evidence rather then words. Their testimony should hold no more weight then anyone elses in court.

There was an incident where I was accused of something I didn't do. The accuser (called a 'victim' in court) filmed the incident. Try as I might I was told by numerous people at the court (including the judge) that I was not allowed to subpoena this tape as I was 'the accused.' The case was brought on the word of the suppossed 'victim' alone. It was dropped the first day of the trial because the suppossed 'victim' changed his mind about lying on the stand. Leaving me harrassed and intimidated with no recourse.

I'm a criminal attorney and defendants always hurt themselves when they act like jerks on the stand.

A criminal attorney in Texas? How depressing!

It's a pity that drunk drivers frequently hurt others, when off the stand.

A criminal attorney in Texas? How depressing!

Depends which side you're on! :)

It's a pity that drunk drivers frequently hurt others, when off the stand.
Yeah, especially when they're legitimately drunk.

Only if they are willing to face jail time. Otherwise poor people get screwed by not having a lawyer.
Funny you say this right after we were discussing how cops get away with lies in court. If we were truely protected they would have to produce actual evidence rather then words. Their testimony should hold no more weight then anyone elses in court.

There was an incident where I was accused of something I didn't do. The accuser (called a 'victim' in court) filmed the incident. Try as I might I was told by numerous people at the court (including the judge) that I was not allowed to subpoena this tape as I was 'the accused.' The case was brought on the word of the suppossed 'victim' alone. It was dropped the first day of the trial because the suppossed 'victim' changed his mind about lying on the stand. Leaving me harrassed and intimidated with no recourse.

If people in power are willing to conspire against you, there's no system that's going to do a good job of protecting you. With that said, I don't believe that cops conspiring to arrest DWI offenders is a prevalent problem in this country; The cops I've dealt with deal with drunk people all of the time and really couldn't care less about another drunk guy getting a break.

Another thing is that words are evidence. If someone sees an incident and is able to describe that incident, then that is good evidence. Most criminal cases are based on a witnesses' testimony. I mean, if someone walked up to you at an ATM and took your money at gunpoint, wouldn't you be upset if your testimony about what happened wasn't good enough to prosecute the guy?

I mean, if someone walked up to you at an ATM and took your money at gunpoint, wouldn't you be upset if your testimony about what happened wasn't good enough to prosecute the guy? Which is all fine and good with other evidence to corroborate it.

What if you turned on the robber and beat the shit out of him. He then claims you approached him with a gun and beat him to try and steal his money. You then can't subpeona video (not like the bank wouldn't give it up but...) because he is now the victim...

To grant subpeona powers to only one side is to no longer be fair and just.

To grant subpeona powers to only one side is to no longer be fair and just.
Is there a lawyer in the house....ahem....attn - Lionel and Leper....

Is that really true??? :eek:

he was pulled over and refused to blow, apparently it's an automatic felon if you refuse.... they are trying to hold his past convictions against him. The only felonies in NYS occur when your are convicted and have a prior conviction or if yiou are convicted and your vehicle was over a certain weight.

Refusing to blow is not against the law.

Your friend's version of events has been exaggerated a bit.


Digested Version of DWI Laws


1192-A Zero Tolerance Law - Violation. Operate a motor vehicle with a BAC of .02 to .07 by a person under 21 years old.

1192-1 Driving While Ability Impaired Alcohol - Traffic Infraction. Operate a motor vehicle while ability impaired by alcohol.

1192-1 Driving While Ability Impaired Alcohol - Misdemeanor. Operate a “special” vehicle while ability impaired by alcohol. Taxi/livery vehicle with paying passenger, or a non-commercial motor vehicle weighing more than 18000 lbs. but not more than 26000 lbs.---i.e. motor homes and recreational vehicles.

1192-1 Driving While Ability Impaired Alcohol - Misdemeanor. Current charge escalates to a misdemeanor if two prior convictions in N.Y.S. within ten years of any 1192 offense.

1192-1 Driving While Ability Impaired Alcohol - Felony. Operate a “special” vehicle plus prior conviction for “special” vehicle within ten years.

1192-2 Driving with .08 or More BAC - Misdemeanor. Operate a motor vehicle with a BAC of .08 or more. Escalates to a felony with prior conviction in N.Y.S. for 1192-2 or 3 within ten years or a conviction of Vehicular Assault or Vehicular Manslaughter. Charge will also escalate to a felony if operating a more than 18000-lb. motor vehicle carrying dangerous cargo or operating a school bus with passengers.

1192-3 Driving While Intoxicated - Misdemeanor. Operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Escalates to a felony with a prior conviction in N.Y.S. for 1192-2 or 3 within ten years or a conviction of Vehicular Assault or Vehicular Manslaughter. Charge will also escalate to a felony if operating a more than 18000lb. motor vehicle carrying dangerous cargo or operating a school bus with passengers.

Is there a lawyer in the house....ahem....attn - Lionel and Leper....

Is that really true??? :eek:

In Texas, both sides can have witnesses subpeona'd. I'm fairly certain that otherwise would be unconstitutional (right to confront witnesses), at least in a criminal trial.

not witnesses, evidence, and its in AZ

They might be coming for you, next!

MADD wants breath-test vehicle locks for all offenders (http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/52499.html)

The rest of the country would emulate New Mexico's ignition interlock law if Mothers Against Drunk Driving has its way.

The national organization, along with the U.S. Department of Transportation, on Monday launched an anti-DWI campaign that includes efforts to get states to require breath-test interlock devices in vehicles for everyone convicted of drunken driving -- even after the first offense. Only New Mexico has such a law for first offenders ,while 45 states and the District of Columbia allow the device for some offenders.

The campaign also includes tougher DWI enforcement measures around the country.

In response to M.A.D.D., and similar efforts 2 counter groups have been formed: D.A.M.M. and D.A.R.E. Membership in these groups is voluntary and there are no dues.

D.A.M.M. - Drunks Against Mad Mothers

D.A.R.E. - Dealers Against Rehab Efforts

The national organization M.A.D.D. has launched an anti-DWI campaign that includes efforts to get states to require breath-test interlock devices in vehicles for everyone convicted of drunken driving -- even after the first offense. ......The campaign also includes tougher DWI enforcement measures around the country.

These women had a relevant issue in beginning their movement........but they're now driving it right into the goddamned ground. It is insane --IMO-- to try to have the allowable BAC for driving lowered -as MADD would like- below 8/100ths of 1 percent.

Driving after having taken a dose of Nyquil would make you a criminal subject to thousands of dollars in fines and fees, if MADD has their way.

Driving after having taken a dose of Nyquil would make you a criminal subject to thousands of dollars in fines and fees, if MADD has their way.Wow, that'd be awful of them. How could someone be against driving after taking a sleep aid.

Wow, that'd be awful of them.

Well Brooks, when you get to the point where you're affecting more innocent people than guilty people, it's time to take a step back and think about things. Unless you're a member of the "you can never be too safe" crowd. If the safety crowd has their way, pretty soon we'll all be sitting in our round foam houses wearing our helmets while we watch TV from behind a radiation filtering window.

Well Brooks, when you get to the point where you're affecting more innocent people than guilty people....Firstly, how is that being done.

When pro-abortion brilliantly became pro-choice the debate was re-cast as a freedom issue. While I don't see it that way, I at least see the point that there is a pro and con here.

I don't quite see the same pro and con with the drunk driving issue. The major gripe seems to come down to changing the limit from .10 to .08.
So we've lost our right to legally drive at .09. Wowee!
It's not quite as impressive as the right to be secure in your person, houses, papers and effects.

If the safety crowd has their way, pretty soon we'll all be sitting in our round foam houses wearing our helmets while we watch TV from behind a radiation filtering window.Those precautions would be a personal choice.
What's not a matter of choice is if you do everything carefully and somebody who isn't so careful drives drunk and kills you.

I don't quite see the same pro and con with the drunk driving issue. The major gripe seems to come down to changing the limit from .10 to .08.
So we've lost our right to legally drive at .09. Wowee!

What? My response was regarding your comment about false positives for Nyquil.

What's not a matter of choice is if you do everything carefully and somebody who isn't so careful drives drunk and kills you.

I absolutely agree. But the line has to be drawn somewhere, or we'll keep going until we hit an allowable BAC of zero, because "you can never be too safe."

1. What? My response was regarding your comment about false positives for Nyquil.
2. I absolutely agree. But the line has to be drawn somewhere, or we'll keep going until we hit an allowable BAC of zero, because "you can never be too safe."1. Oh, we went in different directions with the Nyquil. I thought Free was suggesting that MADD would have the audacity to complain about driving after taking a sleep aid.
The false positive scenario went over my head.

2. With the gnashing of teeth required to get it to .08 I don't think we have to worry about it getting much lower.
Praetorian pointed out that some people may not drive that bad at .08. Unfortunately others aren't so talented.
Since intoxicated driving ability can't be codified into the law, we all have to live under the same BAC.