U.S. Supreme Court Cuts Back Police Officers' Vehicle Search Options

[Hot Mega]

This happened in Cleveland, OH.

Do you have any sense of reality? I was 21 years old at the time (I think). What 21 year old, with a bottle of liquor in their car, doesn't have anything to be suspicious about?

When the police officer arrived at the scene, this is what he saw...

Me, standing outside of my car in the rain. My car, ripped in half, trunk destroyed. Semi-open trunk with a bottle of liquor inside.

Now, what would YOU assume happened if you saw that? You would assume exactly what the officer did:

21 year old male + mangled car + bottle of liquor = drunk driving accident

I was IN that situation and even I don't think the officer did anything wrong. So, I poured out a bottle of liquor? So what? I knew I didn't HAVE to, but what did I honestly care? Also, he had every reason to search my vehicle, stemming from the little math equation that I previously stated.

Instead of a bottle of liquor, what if I had a bag of weed? What if that bag of weed was tightly sealed and clearly unopened? Do you think the officer is going to assume that I haven't smoked weed before that point or do you think he's going to assume that I have smoked weed before that point? Of course he's going to assume that I smoked weed before that point, as common sense would tell you that I probably did. At that point, the officer would have every reason to search my car, as a bag of weed probably means that I have a bowl or some other paraphanalia in my car and possibly even more drugs. The same goes for liquor in the trunk. If someone has liquor in their trunk, they could very well have more of it lying around; maybe even an open container.

"Weed" is illegal unless you have a prescription and you may not possess it without one. If a police were to see what you described in plain view they would have probable cause to believe it was contraband and seize it as evidence.

What you personally think is fairly irrelevant as there are people who could and should object to being forced to destroy their property for no good or legally recognized reason.

A police has the right to confiscate evidence of and in a crime...in this case we're talking a potential DUI. What is evidence is an opened container not an unopened container. And even by your assertion and viewpoint...if we accept that it is evidence, the cop would have just committed a crime by making you destroy it.

I think you stated this was a multi-vehicle collision...if the unopen container is evidence of negligence or a crime, the idiot has just made you complicit in destroying evidence the other driver may have used against you in a civil matter.

What it sounds more like is he was some kind of zealot bullying a kid with his own personal beliefs.

Again, what some police do is not evidence of their legal authority to do so.

Police are suppose to go where the evidence leads them. If you exhibit no apparent signs of drug or chemical influence and your statements are consistent with the apparent circumstances then what reason is there to believe that alcohol was involved?? An unopened container in a mangled trunk??

Sorry, that doesn't even pass the common sense test.

 

[Facial_King]

Hot Mega's right here, on every point that I can see, but here's what I don't get. What was the PURPOSE - whether it was legal or not - for the cop to have you dump the alcohol?

To make sure that if he turned his back on you before he administered the breathalyzer test that you wouldn't crack open the bottle of alcohol and get good and sauced so that you'd fail the test and go to jail?

As a public service of some (bizarre) sort, to keep liquor out of the hands of those of legal age to purchase and consume it?

People buy alcohol and transport it to various places (home, work, parties, BYOB restaurants, etc.) all the time. Having alcohol in the trunk of one's car doesn't seem at all suspicious to me, especially considering that you were 21 when the accident occurred and that the Prohibition era is in the distant past.

 

[ChefChiTown]

"Weed" is illegal unless you have a prescription and you may not possess it without one. If a police were to see what you described in plain view they would have probable cause to believe it was contraband and seize it as evidence.

The police officer didn't know that I was 21 years of age. If I was, for example, only 18 years old, the alcohol in my trunk would also be illegal.

What you personally think is fairly irrelevant as there are people who could and should object to being forced to destroy their property for no good or legally recognized reason.

I could say the same thing about what you think too. Hell, we could all say that about what one another thinks.

A police has the right to confiscate evidence of and in a crime...in this case we're talking a potential DUI. What is evidence is an opened container not an unopened container. And even by your assertion and viewpoint...if we accept that it is evidence, the cop would have just committed a crime by making you destroy it.

He didn't forcefully make me do anything. He told me to dump it out and I complied. I didn't care that I was pouring out some liquor. I had just been in a near-tragic car accident, so pouring out some booze was the least of my concerns.

Now, if he would've forced me to pour out the bottle of alcohol, you would have a valid point. Police officers don't have the right to make you destroy your own property, so if an officer used force and physically made you destroy something, they would be in the wrong. In my case, the officer just told me to do it and I just did it. Once again, I didn't care about the alcohol at that point.

I think you stated this was a multi-vehicle collision...if the unopen container is evidence of negligence or a crime, the idiot has just made you complicit in destroying evidence the other driver may have used against you in a civil matter.

What it sounds more like is he was some kind of zealot bullying a kid with his own personal beliefs.

My car was the only car involved in the accident. It was raining hard, I hit a huge spot of water which was around a curve in the road, my car hydroplaned across the water, spun out on the wet grass and I hit a tree, which tore the back end of my car completely apart from the rest of it.

Police are suppose to go where the evidence leads them. If you exhibit no apparent signs of drug or chemical influence and your statements are consistent with the apparent circumstances then what reason is there to believe that alcohol was involved?? An unopened container in a mangled trunk??

Sorry, that doesn't even pass the common sense test.

So, if you were a police officer and you came upon the situation of a 21 year old who had just been in a bad accident and you saw that there was a bottle of liquor in the trunk, you WOULDN'T assume that the 21 year old had been drinking? I'm willing to bet that if you asked a police officer what they would think in that situation, almost all of them would say that they would have a suspicion that the 21 year old would have been drinking, which would give them every right to search their car.

Also, how do you know that the officer knew the bottle was unopen when he first saw it? Just because there was a cap on it doesn't mean that the seal hadn't been broken and none of the alcohol had been consumed yet.

Hot Mega's right here, on every point that I can see, but here's what I don't get. What was the PURPOSE - whether it was legal or not - for the cop to have you dump the alcohol?

To make sure that if he turned his back on you before he administered the breathalyzer test that you wouldn't crack open the bottle of alcohol and get good and sauced so that you'd fail the test and go to jail?

As a public service of some (bizarre) sort, to keep liquor out of the hands of those of legal age to purchase and consume it?

People buy alcohol and transport it to various places (home, work, parties, BYOB restaurants, etc.) all the time. Having alcohol in the trunk of one's car doesn't seem at all suspicious to me, especially considering that you were 21 when the accident occurred and that the Prohibition era is in the distant past.

I've always wondered that myself. I'm not sure of the exact law or if it varies from state to state, but I know that police officers don't actually have the right to make you dump out liquor that you own. What I do know is that a lot of police officers give you the option of either dumping out your liquor or getting a ticket/going to jail, depending on how serious the situation is. For example, here in Cleveland, most police officers will make kids just dump out their beer if they get busted for underage drinking, instead of writing them a ticket and/or taking them to jail. So, they tell the kids to pour out their beer and, if they do, the officers leave it at that and let them go.

 

[Hot Mega]

The police officer didn't know that I was 21 years of age. If I was, for example, only 18 years old, the alcohol in my trunk would also be illegal.

Well, how did he even know it was your car, you weren't a fugitive or you were old enough to possess alcohol???

He can't! That's why one of the very first things that is done is to ask you for you driver's license and registration. To confirm who you are and ownership of the vehicle.

I could say the same thing about what you think too. Hell, we could all say that about what one another thinks.

With respect to the law, it doesn't matter if you think something is okay or not or whatever. It matters if it's legal or not...so in that sense, what you think is fairly irrelevant in terms of your compliance with his "request".

He didn't forcefully make me do anything. He told me to dump it out and I complied. I didn't care that I was pouring out some liquor. I had just been in a near-tragic car accident, so pouring out some booze was the least of my concerns.

I guess if you want to go around pouring your money down the drain merely because some cop says jump....be my guest. The cop still had no authority to make get rid of something you claim you were in legal possession of.

Now, if he would've forced me to pour out the bottle of alcohol, you would have a valid point. Police officers don't have the right to make you destroy your own property, so if an officer used force and physically made you destroy something, they would be in the wrong. In my case, the officer just told me to do it and I just did it. Once again, I didn't care about the alcohol at that point.

So what did you think the consequence to be if you declined this "kind request"??

My car was the only car involved in the accident. It was raining hard, I hit a huge spot of water which was around a curve in the road, my car hydroplaned across the water, spun out on the wet grass and I hit a tree, which tore the back end of my car completely apart from the rest of it.

Assuming that's all the damage that happened there could have been the issue of who's tree, grass or whatever that you may still have been liable for restitution if you were grossly negligent. Which is what it would have been considered had the cop sought to use evidence of chemical or drug influence against you.

So, if you were a police officer and you came upon the situation of a 21 year old who had just been in a bad accident and you saw that there was a bottle of liquor in the trunk, you WOULDN'T assume that the 21 year old had been drinking? I'm willing to bet that if you asked a police officer what they would think in that situation, almost all of them would say that they would have a suspicion that the 21 year old would have been drinking, which would give them every right to search their car.

No. A bottle in the trunk doesn't suggest to me someone has been drinking or is drunk. Which is what the standard is...not a simple suggestion that a person may drink. I would asked your permission to inspect the bottle (as he may have been required to do) to see if it's opened or not. Then I might have asked had you been drinking since if it was opened you could have simply put in the trunk. But if you exhibited no other signs of influence I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to create a circumstance where there is none.

Also, how do you know that the officer knew the bottle was unopen when he first saw it? Just because there was a cap on it doesn't mean that the seal hadn't been broken and none of the alcohol had been consumed yet.

Maybe he didn't...see above.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Well, how did he even know it was your car, you weren't a fugitive or you were old enough to possess alcohol???

He can't! That's why one of the very first things that is done is to ask you for you driver's license and registration. To confirm who you are and ownership of the vehicle.

It's called an assumption, which is what 100% of police officers go by while assessing every situation that they come across. If it was a stolen car or if I was a fugitive, chances are, I wouldn't have hung around and waited for a police officer to come assist me. That is exactly why he assumed it was my car.

Also, he didn't know I was old enough to possess alcohol until he did end up looking at my license as he filed an accident report. His first duty in that situation isn't to ask me for my license and registration. It's to see if I'm ok, in the sense of being injured, which is exactly what he did. Then, and only then, did he care to see my license.

With respect to the law, it doesn't matter if you think something is okay or not or whatever. It matters if it's legal or not...so in that sense, what you think is fairly irrelevant in terms of your compliance with his "request".

I guess if you want to go around pouring your money down the drain merely because some cop says jump....be my guest. The cop still had no authority to make get rid of something you claim you were in legal possession of.

So what did you think the consequence to be if you declined this "kind request"??

Once again, I didn't care about the alcohol. My car hydroplaned, spun out of control and miraculously missed two trees (which were just under a car length apart) which would've killed me if I hit them. I was just happy to be alive at the moment and didn't give a shit about the $20 or so of alcohol that I was pouring onto the ground.

What would've happened if I didn't pour out the alcohol? Nothing, probably. But, once again, I didn't care about the liquor which is why I didn't think twice to pour it out.

Assuming that's all the damage that happened there could have been the issue of who's tree, grass or whatever that you may still have been liable for restitution if you were grossly negligent. Which is what it would have been considered had the cop sought to use evidence of chemical or drug influence against you.

In the accident report, the police officer cited bad weather and poor road conditions to be responsible for the accident occuring. I was given zero responsibility for the accident, making me liable for nothing more than my insurance deductible which was paid to fix my car.

No. A bottle in the trunk doesn't suggest to me someone has been drinking or is drunk. Which is what the standard is...not a simple suggestion that a person may drink. I would asked your permission to inspect the bottle (as he may have been required to do) to see if it's opened or not. Then I might have asked had you been drinking since if it was opened you could have simply put in the trunk. But if you exhibited no other signs of influence I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to create a circumstance where there is none.

HAHAHA, you honestly expect anyone to believe that you would ask permission to inspect the bottle if you were a police officer in that situation?!?!?! Would you also run tests on the content of the bottle, just to be 100% sure that it was even alcoholic to begin with?

:dunno:

Before the officer even saw the bottle, he asked if I had been drinking. I told him "no", as I hadn't had a drink at all. Once he saw the bottle sitting in my trunk, he asked me again. I told him "no" for the second time, which is when he made me take a breathalyzer and when he told me to pour out the liquor.

Do you think that people are honest with police officers most of the time? Because, they're not. Police officers don't just take your word for it and give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that you're going to be giving them honest answers. People lie ALL OF THE TIME (especially to police officers) which is exactly why they have every reason to be suspicious in situations like that.

In regards to asking if someone has been drinking...

A police officer approaches the scene of an accident. There are no other cars on the road, other than the one involved in the accident. Standing next to the car is a 21 year old male who looks visibly shaken. The car is torn in two. While approaching closer to the vehicle, the officer spots a bottle of liquor in the trunk of the car. Piecing the pieces of the situation together, the officer wants to find out if the male has been drinking, which could've been the cause of the accident...

POLICE OFFICER: "Sir, have you been drinking tonight?"
GUY: "No, I haven't been drinking, Officer."
POLICE OFFICER: "Well, ok then. Have a nice day."

That is NEVER going to happen. Police officers ask questions, but not just to get answers. They ask questions to measure your response, so they can judge your answers and determine if they are believable or not. In my situation, just because I said that I hadn't been drinking doesn't mean that it was true. How many people in that situation would say "Yes, Officer...I have been drinking"...??? Not many. That is exactly why police officers get suspicious, giving them every right and every reason to search the car and even administor a sobriety test.

 

[TITS KING]

Vow......great discussion

 

[Hot Mega]

It's called an assumption, which is what 100% of police officers go by while assessing every situation that they come across. If it was a stolen car or if I was a fugitive, chances are, I wouldn't have hung around and waited for a police officer to come assist me. That is exactly why he assumed it was my car.

Also, he didn't know I was old enough to possess alcohol until he did end up looking at my license as he filed an accident report. His first duty in that situation isn't to ask me for my license and registration. It's to see if I'm ok, in the sense of being injured, which is exactly what he did. Then, and only then, did he care to see my license.



Once again, I didn't care about the alcohol. My car hydroplaned, spun out of control and miraculously missed two trees (which were just under a car length apart) which would've killed me if I hit them. I was just happy to be alive at the moment and didn't give a shit about the $20 or so of alcohol that I was pouring onto the ground.

What would've happened if I didn't pour out the alcohol? Nothing, probably. But, once again, I didn't care about the liquor which is why I didn't think twice to pour it out.



In the accident report, the police officer cited bad weather and poor road conditions to be responsible for the accident occuring. I was given zero responsibility for the accident, making me liable for nothing more than my insurance deductible which was paid to fix my car.



HAHAHA, you honestly expect anyone to believe that you would ask permission to inspect the bottle if you were a police officer in that situation?!?!?! Would you also run tests on the content of the bottle, just to be 100% sure that it was even alcoholic to begin with?

:dunno:

Before the officer even saw the bottle, he asked if I had been drinking. I told him "no", as I hadn't had a drink at all. Once he saw the bottle sitting in my trunk, he asked me again. I told him "no" for the second time, which is when he made me take a breathalyzer and when he told me to pour out the liquor.

Do you think that people are honest with police officers most of the time? Because, they're not. Police officers don't just take your word for it and give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that you're going to be giving them honest answers. People lie ALL OF THE TIME (especially to police officers) which is exactly why they have every reason to be suspicious in situations like that.

In regards to asking if someone has been drinking...

A police officer approaches the scene of an accident. There are no other cars on the road, other than the one involved in the accident. Standing next to the car is a 21 year old male who looks visibly shaken. The car is torn in two. While approaching closer to the vehicle, the officer spots a bottle of liquor in the trunk of the car. Piecing the pieces of the situation together, the officer wants to find out if the male has been drinking, which could've been the cause of the accident...

POLICE OFFICER: "Sir, have you been drinking tonight?"
GUY: "No, I haven't been drinking, Officer."
POLICE OFFICER: "Well, ok then. Have a nice day."

That is NEVER going to happen. Police officers ask questions, but not just to get answers. They ask questions to measure your response, so they can judge your answers and determine if they are believable or not. In my situation, just because I said that I hadn't been drinking doesn't mean that it was true. How many people in that situation would say "Yes, Officer...I have been drinking"...??? Not many. That is exactly why police officers get suspicious, giving them every right and every reason to search the car and even administor a sobriety test.

Honestly, now you're just arguing to keep from being quiet IMO.

None of what you're ranting about is based on any law or facts or anything but your experienced as a scared 21 year old being bossed around by a zealot cop IMO.

Based on your posts you were shitting bricks hoping not to get arrested even though you apparently did nothing wrong and merely had the misfortune of hydroplaning over a puddle.

For the record, if you ever have the misfortune of seeing the xmas lights in your rear view and you've consumed a few adult beverages....don't admit to having a "couple of beers" because now you've just given the cop probable cause to investigate a DUI. You think you mean a couple of bottles or cans of beer... What the cop is now going to investigate is whether you've had 2 pint glasses or 2 schooner glasses, 2 40ozs, etc. Two beers can mean a variety of different levels of alcohol.

The reality is, when a cop suspects a crime, misdemeanor or infraction...every question they ask is designed to illicit evidence of guilt. From the very second they make contact with you they are attempting to establish probable cause (for an arrest or citation). Now you're a fool if you think otherwise.

When you get pulled over and a cop asks the typical question, "do you know why I stopped you?". What they're hoping you respond with is something dumb and incriminating like, "yeah, I was speeding". When you say something like that, you foreclose almost any opportunity to now fight that ticket in court because he now has a contemporaneous confession.

In fairness some cops have stopped me but then let me go with a warning. In the overwhelming majority of those cases it was because I dropped a name or flashed the mini badges in my wallet or I didn't open my mouth and confess when they asked me why they stopped me.

Long and short of this is, rights of US citizens are enhanced by this supreme court ruling not diminished

 

[ChefChiTown]

Honestly, now you're just arguing to keep from being quiet IMO.

None of what you're ranting about is based on any law or facts or anything but your experienced as a scared 21 year old being bossed around by a zealot cop IMO.

Tell me, with exact detail, what the officer did that was illegal in that situation. He didn't force me to pour out the bottle of liquor, he didn't illegally search my car and he didn't make me submit to any unreasonable search and/or seizure. So, once again, what exactly did the officer do that was illegal in that situation?

My opinion has nothing to do with what the officer actually did that night. He didn't violate any laws (unless you want to keep on focusing on the bottle of liquor that I poured out - even which, he didn't force me to do) and he followed protocol as he was trained to do, which prevented him from breaking any laws or violating any of my rights.

Based on your posts you were shitting bricks hoping not to get arrested even though you apparently did nothing wrong and merely had the misfortune of hydroplaning over a puddle.

Maybe you missed the part where I said that my car barely missed hitting two trees, which would've killed me if I hit them, but still managed to hit a third tree, which tore my car in half. You get into an accident like that and see how composed you are. And, see if you give a shit about a bottle of Jagermeister.

Was I afraid of getting arrested? No, because I didn't do anything wrong. Was I extremely shaken up and terrified due to my near-fatal accident? Fuck yes.

For the record, if you ever have the misfortune of seeing the xmas lights in your rear view and you've consumed a few adult beverages....don't admit to having a "couple of beers" because now you've just given the cop probable cause to investigate a DUI. You think you mean a couple of bottles or cans of beer... What the cop is now going to investigate is whether you've had 2 pint glasses or 2 schooner glasses, 2 40ozs, etc. Two beers can mean a variety of different levels of alcohol.

There are plenty of reasons as to why a police officer can have probable cause to suspect somebody of a DUI, even before they admit to having a few drinks. If police officers waited for people to openly admit to a DUI before they took action, nobody would be getting arrested for a DUI in this country. Nobody is going to admit to driving under the influence, which is why police officers look for signs that give them probable cause to suspect somebody of a DUI.

And, yes...2 beers can mean a lot of different things. 2 glasses of Coors Light is going to effect somebody differently than 2 glasses of Guinness would, for example, as Guinness has a higher alcohol content and sits heavier on the stomach. But, that's just another reason as to why police officers don't just take a suspect's word for it and believe everything that they say. 2 beers? Maybe that 2 beers is really 8 beers. Or, 12 beers. Or, a bottle of vodka. Who knows? Certainly not the police officer, which is why they have breathalyzers and sobriety tests that they administor to people whom they suspect to be driving under the influence.

The reality is, when a cop suspects a crime, misdemeanor or infraction...every question they ask is designed to illicit evidence of guilt. From the very second they make contact with you they are attempting to establish probable cause (for an arrest or citation). Now you're a fool if you think otherwise.

When you get pulled over and a cop asks the typical question, "do you know why I stopped you?". What they're hoping you respond with is something dumb and incriminating like, "yeah, I was speeding". When you say something like that, you foreclose almost any opportunity to now fight that ticket in court because he now has a contemporaneous confession.

You're right. The questions that police officers asked are 100% designed to get a confession of some sort. But, that's because most people are too stupid to realize that they'll end up confessing to something that the police officer was clueless too.

POLICE OFFICER: "Do you have any idea as to why I pulled you over?"
DRIVER: "Yeeeeeah, I was speeding pretty fast, blew some stop signs and failed to use my turn signal at that last intersection."
POLICE OFFICER: :writes ticket:

That police officer could've pulled that person over because they had a busted tail light, but the driver just screwed themselves by openly admitting to numerous other laws that he/she had broken - laws of which the officer had no clue were being broken at the time. That's why the questions that police officers ask are open ended questions which can easily result in a confession of some sort.

In fairness some cops have stopped me but then let me go with a warning. In the overwhelming majority of those cases it was because I dropped a name or flashed the mini badges in my wallet or I didn't open my mouth and confess when they asked me why they stopped me.

Long and short of this is, rights of US citizens are enhanced by this supreme court ruling not diminished

I used to raise money for the PBA here in Ohio for about 7 years, so I'm very familiar with those little badges, even the stickers and "get out of jail free" cards that police-related organizations hand out. Unfortunately, my hometown isn't a member of the Ohio PBA, so all of those little perks hardly ever worked for me because none of the officers benefited from my work.

 

[Facial_King]

^^^ Wow, a lot to chew on in that post. I've gotta run now, but I want to go over this one in detail later on...

 

[Hot Mega]

What I do know is that a lot of police officers give you the option of either dumping out your liquor or getting a ticket/going to jail, depending on how serious the situation is.

Didn't you make this^^^statement??? That suggests to me you may have feared a consequence if you didn't comply back then as a 21 year old, shaken, naive kid. Now you're trying today to talk like a tough man about it.:dunno:

 

[Hot Mega]

There are plenty of reasons as to why a police officer can have probable cause to suspect somebody of a DUI, even before they admit to having a few drinks. If police officers waited for people to openly admit to a DUI before they took action, nobody would be getting arrested for a DUI in this country. Nobody is going to admit to driving under the influence, which is why police officers look for signs that give them probable cause to suspect somebody of a DUI.

And, yes...2 beers can mean a lot of different things. 2 glasses of Coors Light is going to effect somebody differently than 2 glasses of Guinness would, for example, as Guinness has a higher alcohol content and sits heavier on the stomach. But, that's just another reason as to why police officers don't just take a suspect's word for it and believe everything that they say. 2 beers? Maybe that 2 beers is really 8 beers. Or, 12 beers. Or, a bottle of vodka. Who knows? Certainly not the police officer, which is why they have breathalyzers and sobriety tests that they administor to people whom they suspect to be driving under the influence.

You're not exactly correct on a couple of things state. Probable cause is a legal standard for warrant or arrest. Reason to believe is a judgement cops use to pursue a probable cause case against you. Once they have a reason to believe, from that point forward EVERY action and question you're subjected to is designed to create probable cause.

Generally if you're dealing with an ethical cop, in most cases reasonable explanations and behavior will suffice for getting you out of a DUI by mitigating their probable cause case (assuming you're not sloppy drunk or in an accident).

If you're asked about some driving error you made, pass yourself off as being tired.

Have you been drinking? "No".

I smell alcohol. "Well I drink allot of fruit juice and eat spicy foods..I tried to rinse my mouth with mouthwash" (Helps to keep a small bottle of mouthwash in the car to help make your case).

If the cop doesn't buy any of that, don't do a field sobriety as they are completely voluntary and since the cop hasn't established probable cause he'll likely use that as his opportunity..and no matter if you perform everything correctly you won't "pass". And don't submit to being tested by the little plastic breathalyzer they have on them as that's voluntary too and it's just another probable cause tool.

At this point, the cop most likely has not established probable cause because you have given reasonable doubt explanations for each of his questions and you haven't provided him with overt actions he can use that suggest you're under the influence.

If you go down to be tested submit only to a blood test. Acceptable BAC tests must be done within 3 hours of your first contact with the officer. In some cases they have to wake up a nurse or take you to a hospital which may have a lot of people waiting ahead of you...you may sober up by the time you're tested or defeat the 3 hour window.

Now unless you are utterly shit faced (for which you should face the consequences of that action) most lawyers can get that case dismissed on the grounds of no probable cause even if you test over the legal limit.

Since we were talking about open containers most people don't know an open container in your vehicle if you're suspected of a DUI is an asset. First, it creates a case against a DUI conviction based on a rising blood alcohol theory and an open container conviction carries far few sanctions than a DUI.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Didn't you make this^^^statement??? That suggests to me you may have feared a consequence if you didn't comply back then as a 21 year old, shaken, naive kid. Now you're trying today to talk like a tough man about it.:dunno:

Yeah, talking about things on the internet makes me manly. Are you serious?

Maybe you didn't see where I said that I raised money for (AKA - worked with) police officers for about 7 years. What would I have to be afraid of in that situation? I didn't do anything wrong. Now, if I was drunk, then I would be afraid, as I would be getting a DUI. But, since I was completely sober and knew that the road conditions caused the accident, I wasn't afraid of getting into trouble. Once again, I didn't care about the bottle of liquor...I was just happy to be alive.

You're not exactly correct on a couple of things state. Probable cause is a legal standard for warrant or arrest. Reason to believe is a judgement cops use to pursue a probable cause case against you. Once they have a reason to believe, from that point forward EVERY action and question you're subjected to is designed to create probable cause.

Generally if you're dealing with an ethical cop, in most cases reasonable explanations and behavior will suffice for getting you out of a DUI by mitigating their probable cause case (assuming you're not sloppy drunk or in an accident).

To be fair (as you were earlier), I know police officers who will let people free from a DUI, just as long as they compose themselves in a mature manner and don't act like a drunken idiot. Not every single police officer on the face of the planet will try and trap someone into confessing to a crime by using open-ended questions.

If you're asked about some driving error you made, pass yourself off as being tired.

Have you been drinking? "No".

I smell alcohol. "Well I drink allot of fruit juice and eat spicy foods..I tried to rinse my mouth with mouthwash" (Helps to keep a small bottle of mouthwash in the car to help make your case).

If the cop doesn't buy any of that, don't do a field sobriety as they are completely voluntary and since the cop hasn't established probable cause he'll likely use that as his opportunity..and no matter if you perform everything correctly you won't "pass". And don't submit to being tested by the little plastic breathalyzer they have on them as that's voluntary too and it's just another probable cause tool.

At this point, the cop most likely has not established probable cause because you have given reasonable doubt explanations for each of his questions and you haven't provided him with overt actions he can use that suggest you're under the influence.

If you go down to be tested submit only to a blood test. Acceptable BAC tests must be done within 3 hours of your first contact with the officer. In some cases they have to wake up a nurse or take you to a hospital which may have a lot of people waiting ahead of you...you may sober up by the time you're tested or defeat the 3 hour window.

Now unless you are utterly shit faced (for which you should face the consequences of that action) most lawyers can get that case dismissed on the grounds of no probable cause even if you test over the legal limit.

In the state of Ohio, if you refuse a breathalyzer, you automatically lose your driver's license. It doesn't matter if you are completely sober and blow a completely normal BAC; you still lose your license if you refuse a breathalyzer.

I don't know what the law is in regards to the "3 hour window" that you mention, but that doesn't matter (unless you are one of the few, few people who spend thousands and thousands of dollars fighting the case in court - which just ends up costing you more money than a DUI fine after it's all said and done). Not everybody reacts in the same exact way to alcohol. For instance, I blew a .212 when I got my DUI, but I passed all of my field sobriety tests. I was nearly 3 times over the legal limit, but I was still coherent and functional, so much so that I was "this close" to getting off without a ticket. It was even filed in the police report that I passed all field sobriety tests. The only reason I was arrested is because I told the officer earlier in the night that I was drunk - LONG STORY.

Also, let's say that 3 or more hours pass before the officer has you take a breathalyzer - what does that matter? The police officer can still cite you for a DUI for the reason I stated above. Not everybody reacts in the same exact way to alcohol, which is why police officers are given the authority to make an on-the-spot decision as to whether someone is capable of driving a vehicle, no matter what their BAC is.

One of my former co-workers was arrested for a DUI after leaving an Olive Garden, which is where he drank 2 glasses of wine with his dinner. He blew under the legal limit, but the officer cited him with a DUI, as the officer felt that his driving was that of a drunk driver. Is that cool? Heeeeell no. Is it legal? Yup. Police officers are allowed to make judgment calls, whether we like it or not.

Since we were talking about open containers most people don't know an open container in your vehicle if you're suspected of a DUI is an asset. First, it creates a case against a DUI conviction based on a rising blood alcohol theory and an open container conviction carries far few sanctions than a DUI.

How is an open container in your car an asset to you in that situation? It's illegal to have an open container in your car, so you would just be screwing yourself by trying to use that as an argument against a DUI. Plus, when your case went to court, the judge would probably consider you to be a scumbag who probably IS guilty of a DUI. I mean, not many people drive around with open containers that aren't drunk.

 

[Hot Mega]

In the state of Ohio, if you refuse a breathalyzer, you automatically lose your driver's license. It doesn't matter if you are completely sober and blow a completely normal BAC; you still lose your license if you refuse a breathalyzer.

Most if not all jurisdictions require that you submit to a chemical test when suspected of DUI as a condition of being licensed..not necessarily a breathalyzer. Many cops carry a small, portable breathalyzer with them that is used to detect the presence of alcohol but not legal for determining your actual BAC. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SUBMIT TO THAT TEST. Most jurisdictions allow the right to decide which type of test (blood, urine or breath). If you chose to blow, the ONLY one you must blow in is the one at the station.

I don't know what the law is in regards to the "3 hour window" that you mention, but that doesn't matter (unless you are one of the few, few people who spend thousands and thousands of dollars fighting the case in court - which just ends up costing you more money than a DUI fine after it's all said and done). Not everybody reacts in the same exact way to alcohol. For instance, I blew a .212 when I got my DUI, but I passed all of my field sobriety tests. I was nearly 3 times over the legal limit, but I was still coherent and functional, so much so that I was "this close" to getting off without a ticket. It was even filed in the police report that I passed all field sobriety tests. The only reason I was arrested is because I told the officer earlier in the night that I was drunk - LONG STORY.

Well, in some cases it's worth it for an individual to not have a DUI conviction on their record and it's not about the fines. The point of all this is people should know their rights. The cops have to provide evidence that you were over the legal limit when they stopped you. Not over the legal limit sitting in the police station. Your BAC is not static, it's either going up or going down. You could theoretically have been under the legal limit when you were driving but become over the legal limit sometime later depending on your last drink and other factors. That's why a 3 hr. window is established.

Also, let's say that 3 or more hours pass before the officer has you take a breathalyzer - what does that matter? The police officer can still cite you for a DUI for the reason I stated above. Not everybody reacts in the same exact way to alcohol, which is why police officers are given the authority to make an on-the-spot decision as to whether someone is capable of driving a vehicle, no matter what their BAC is.

You can be cited for anything the question is can the case hold up against you in court? Or dismissed outright in pretrial.

One of my former co-workers was arrested for a DUI after leaving an Olive Garden, which is where he drank 2 glasses of wine with his dinner. He blew under the legal limit, but the officer cited him with a DUI, as the officer felt that his driving was that of a drunk driver. Is that cool? Heeeeell no. Is it legal? Yup. Police officers are allowed to make judgment calls, whether we like it or not.

Well I don't know the facts of that case and all you know is what he told you. Based on what he told that you are now reiterating I would say I could see a couple of problems with his case. Wine generally has a higher alcohol content than most beers for example. Most people tend to forget that when they tell cops they "only" had 2 glasses of wine. That's an immediate red flag to a cop. Depending on the person (body mass index) it can take up to 2 hrs. for alcohol to metabolize out of their system that can be even longer on a full stomach and depending on what you've eaten.

Even taking into account all of that...you still seem hung up on the notion that a citation or arrest is an automatic conviction. That he was cited for it doesn't mean there is a legal or effective case against him

How is an open container in your car an asset to you in that situation? It's illegal to have an open container in your car, so you would just be screwing yourself by trying to use that as an argument against a DUI. Plus, when your case went to court, the judge would probably consider you to be a scumbag who probably IS guilty of a DUI. I mean, not many people drive around with open containers that aren't drunk.

Well, unless you choose to have a judge hear your case you'll most likely be judged by a jury. You Missed the part where I stated in the case of a impending DUI arrest an open container can be an asset since all BAC tests are based on what is presumed to be you limit while you were driving. Depending on what you have and when you tell you last drank from it...you may only face a conviction for an open container and not a DUI.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Most if not all jurisdictions require that you submit to a chemical test when suspected of DUI as a condition of being licensed..not necessarily a breathalyzer. Many cops carry a small, portable breathalyzer with them that is used to detect the presence of alcohol but not legal for determining your actual BAC. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SUBMIT TO THAT TEST. Most jurisdictions allow the right to decide which type of test (blood, urine or breath). If you chose to blow, the ONLY one you must blow in is the one at the station.

Of course you don't HAVE TO submit to a breathalyzer, but you'll automatically lose your license if you don't. Just like you don't HAVE TO follow the speed limit, you don't HAVE TO pay taxes, you don't HAVE TO wear clothes to school...just be ready to suffer the consequences if you don't.

Well, in some cases it's worth it for an individual to not have a DUI conviction on their record and it's not about the fines. The point of all this is people should know their rights. The cops have to provide evidence that you were over the legal limit when they stopped you. Not over the legal limit sitting in the police station. Your BAC is not static, it's either going up or going down. You could theoretically have been under the legal limit when you were driving but become over the legal limit sometime later depending on your last drink and other factors. That's why a 3 hr. window is established.

The police officer doesn't have to prove that your BAC was over the legal limit to arrest you for a DUI. The police officer can use his judgment and make his own decision on whether you were driving under the influence, regardless of what your BAC is at the moment.

My best friend was arrested for a DUI almost a year ago, which caused my friend to lose his license for an entire year. At the time of his arrest (at the station), my friend had a BAC of .07, which is under the legal limit in the state of Ohio. The legal limit in the state of Ohio is .08, but my friend was still arrested, charged and found guilty of driving under the influence (DUI). Why? Because, when the officer initially pulled him over, my friend was going the wrong way on a one-way street. He was in an unfamiliar area and made a wrong turn. The officer, making a judgment call, decided that my friend's driving was being impaired by the alcohol in his system. Even though my friend was within the legal limit of BAC, the police officer deemed him to be driving under the influence - the officer saw how my friend was driving and came to the conclusion that he should not be behind the wheel, due to the presence of alcohol in his system.

You can be cited for anything the question is can the case hold up against you in court? Or dismissed outright in pretrial.

That's very true. Unfortunately, it's cheaper a lot of the time to just eat the ticket and pay the fine. Once you add up the cost of lawyers, court costs and time lost from work, it can easily become a sum that is much greater than that of a ticket.

I had to eat a bullshit ticket that totalled up to be around $600 once. Even though the ticket was totaly bullshit and even though I had witnesses that could prove it, it would've cost me more money to fight the ticket, rather than just pay it. So, my lawyer told me to just suck it up and pay the fine. It sucked, but it was cheaper to just eat it.

Well I don't know the facts of that case and all you know is what he told you. Based on what he told that you are now reiterating I would say I could see a couple of problems with his case. Wine generally has a higher alcohol content than most beers for example. Most people tend to forget that when they tell cops they "only" had 2 glasses of wine. That's an immediate red flag to a cop. Depending on the person (body mass index) it can take up to 2 hrs. for alcohol to metabolize out of their system that can be even longer on a full stomach and depending on what you've eaten.

Even taking into account all of that...you still seem hung up on the notion that a citation or arrest is an automatic conviction. That he was cited for it doesn't mean there is a legal or effective case against him.

No, just because you're cited with something, it doesn't mean that you are automatically guilty - I'm well aware of that. But, when a situation involves an officer's judgment call (IE - DUI), then it becomes much, much harder to fight your citation in court. Whether we like it or not, judges aren't going to take the word of a suspect over the word of a police officer. The police officer is going to win that battle in just about every single court hearing ever.

And, you just supported my argument of saying that police officers use their judgment a lot of the times when it comes to DUI arrests. Why? Because, you're right...depending on the person and their body, alcohol will effect them (metabolize) differently, making the system of using our BAC as the guideline for arrest a very shaky one. If I have a BAC of .08, I can guarantee you that I would act differently than you if you had a BAC of .08 and vice versa - that can be said for anybody. This is exactly why police officers are given the authority to use their judgment in a DUI situation; because our legal system, even though it uses BAC as a guideline, knows that BAC can be a somewhat inaccurate way to judge a person's level of intoxication and overall coherence.

Well, unless you choose to have a judge hear your case you'll most likely be judged by a jury. You missed the part where I stated in the case of a impending DUI arrest an open container can be an asset since all BAC tests are based on what is presumed to be you limit while you were driving. Depending on what you have and when you tell you last drank from it...you may only face a conviction for an open container and not a DUI.

Honestly, I still have no idea what you are trying to say here.

It doesn't matter if you drank from the open container 5 minutes prior to your arrest or 5 hours prior to your arrest - you are still driving with an open container (which is illegal) and, if you have BAC which is above the legal limit, the time that you had your last drink isn't going to matter. Why? Because, you'd still have a BAC that would be over the legal limit, rendering you guilty of driving under the influence.

 

[Hot Mega]

Of course you don't HAVE TO submit to a breathalyzer, but you'll automatically lose your license if you don't. Just like you don't HAVE TO follow the speed limit, you don't HAVE TO pay taxes, you don't HAVE TO wear clothes to school...just be ready to suffer the consequences if you don't.

Did you even read what I wrote??? YOU DON'T HAVE TO SUBMIT TO A BREATHALYZER. YOU MUST SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL TEST (IF YOU'RE SUSPECTED OF DUI AS A CONDITION OF MAINTAINING YOUR LICENSE)...WHICH COULD COME IN THE FORM OF A BREATHALYZER, BLOOD TEST OR URINE TEST. YOU HAVE A CHOICE OF WHICH ONE. I suggest you decline the breathalyzer and take a blood test for the reasons I stated in my last post. Is that clear enough?? (Actually it was clear the last time....you just didn't read).

The police officer doesn't have to prove that your BAC was over the legal limit to arrest you for a DUI. The police officer can use his judgment and make his own decision on whether you were driving under the influence, regardless of what your BAC is at the moment.

Right but he DOES have to prove you were over the legal limit at the time you were driving for you to get CONVICTED of a DUI. In order to be convicted of a crime (unless you cop to it without making them prove it), the prosecution has to establish you being guilty of the elements of a crime. In this case we're talking a DUI which means they must establish that you were over what the law says is the limit. If the law says .08 is the limit and the evidence against you says you were .06..GUESS WHAT they haven't established the element of the crime. Now if you want to roll over and cop a plea (which you seem prone to doing) that's on you. But in that case they haven't established the key element of the crime..being you were .08 while driving.

My best friend was arrested for a DUI almost a year ago, which caused my friend to lose his license for an entire year. At the time of his arrest (at the station), my friend had a BAC of .07, which is under the legal limit in the state of Ohio. The legal limit in the state of Ohio is .08, but my friend was still arrested, charged and found guilty of driving under the influence (DUI). Why? Because, when the officer initially pulled him over, my friend was going the wrong way on a one-way street. He was in an unfamiliar area and made a wrong turn. The officer, making a judgment call, decided that my friend's driving was being impaired by the alcohol in his system. Even though my friend was within the legal limit of BAC, the police officer deemed him to be driving under the influence - the officer saw how my friend was driving and came to the conclusion that he should not be behind the wheel, due to the presence of alcohol in his system.

Okay, now the case is becoming clearer based on what you're saying. If he lost his license for a year that suggests to me he has a prior conviction for DUI. I'm not aware of a jurisdiction that suspends the license of a first time offender for a year unless they are grossly intoxicated (which you say he wasn't)...even then that's not a year suspension. With a prior conviction usually there is a 3 year summary probation..one of the conditions of that probation is that you not drive with ANY measurable amount of alcohol in your bloodstream. So when the cop pulled him over...he knew based on his license and vehicle registration data that he'd been convicted before and he was still under probation so establishing .08 was not necessary as any measurable amount violated him.

That's very true. Unfortunately, it's cheaper a lot of the time to just eat the ticket and pay the fine. Once you add up the cost of lawyers, court costs and time lost from work, it can easily become a sum that is much greater than that of a ticket.

I had to eat a bullshit ticket that totalled up to be around $600 once. Even though the ticket was totaly bullshit and even though I had witnesses that could prove it, it would've cost me more money to fight the ticket, rather than just pay it. So, my lawyer told me to just suck it up and pay the fine. It sucked, but it was cheaper to just eat it.

It may be cheaper for you. But for others who's jobs and livelihoods depend on their ability to drive it may be worth it to fight it.

No, just because you're cited with something, it doesn't mean that you are automatically guilty - I'm well aware of that. But, when a situation involves an officer's judgment call (IE - DUI), then it becomes much, much harder to fight your citation in court. Whether we like it or not, judges aren't going to take the word of a suspect over the word of a police officer. The police officer is going to win that battle in just about every single court hearing ever.

And, you just supported my argument of saying that police officers use their judgment a lot of the times when it comes to DUI arrests. Why? Because, you're right...depending on the person and their body, alcohol will effect them (metabolize) differently, making the system of using our BAC as the guideline for arrest a very shaky one. If I have a BAC of .08, I can guarantee you that I would act differently than you if you had a BAC of .08 and vice versa - that can be said for anybody. This is exactly why police officers are given the authority to use their judgment in a DUI situation; because our legal system, even though it uses BAC as a guideline, knows that BAC can be a somewhat inaccurate way to judge a person's level of intoxication and overall coherence.

You missed everything here. First of all, whether you're convicted or not is not about his judgement. It's about the facts. One fact must be that you're .08. And your BMI doesn't have anything to do with the cop nor his/her judgement it has to do with you ability to metabolize alcohol which has to do with what your BAC is over a given time after having consumed alcohol. And again, a judge is not likely to decide your case....unless you choose that over a jury. You seem to not understand one of your constitutional rights is to a jury trial.

Honestly, I still have no idea what you are trying to say here.

It doesn't matter if you drank from the open container 5 minutes prior to your arrest or 5 hours prior to your arrest - you are still driving with an open container (which is illegal) and, if you have BAC which is above the legal limit, the time that you had your last drink isn't going to matter. Why? Because, you'd still have a BAC that would be over the legal limit, rendering you guilty of driving under the influence.

Let me say it slower and simpler. An open container conviction is not as bad as a DUI conviction. You may be convicted of an open container violation but not convicted of a DUI depending on the situation. While having an open container in you car makes you pretty much guilty of an open container violation, it can help you beat a DUI case. One of the ways it can help you is if you just drank from it...a breathalyer test will not be accurate...therefore not reliable evidence. Now a cop will not tell you that but your lawyer will.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Did you even read what I wrote??? YOU DON'T HAVE TO SUBMIT TO A BREATHALYZER. YOU MUST SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL TEST (IF YOU'RE SUSPECTED OF DUI AS A CONDITION OF MAINTAINING YOUR LICENSE)...WHICH COULD COME IN THE FORM OF A BREATHALYZER, BLOOD TEST OR URINE TEST. YOU HAVE A CHOICE OF WHICH ONE. I suggest you decline the breathalyzer and take a blood test for the reasons I stated in my last post. Is that clear enough?? (Actually it was clear the last time....you just didn't read).

Yes, I read what you wrote, but I'm positive that you didn't read what I wrote. I agree that you don't HAVE TO submit to a breathalyzer. I thought I made that perfectly clear when I said...

Of course you don't HAVE TO submit to a breathalyzer, but you'll automatically lose your license if you don't. Just like you don't HAVE TO follow the speed limit, you don't HAVE TO pay taxes, you don't HAVE TO wear clothes to school...just be ready to suffer the consequences if you don't.

And, you can't decline the breathalyzer and opt for a blood test because you'd still lose your license for a year. Once again, you don't HAVE TO take the breathalyzer, but you'd be a complete moron if you didn't.

Right but he DOES have to prove you were over the legal limit at the time you were driving for you to get CONVICTED of a DUI. In order to be convicted of a crime (unless you cop to it without making them prove it), the prosecution has to establish you being guilty of the elements of a crime. In this case we're talking a DUI which means they must establish that you were over what the law says is the limit. If the law says .08 is the limit and the evidence against you says you were .06..GUESS WHAT they haven't established the element of the crime. Now if you want to roll over and cop a plea (which you seem prone to doing) that's on you. But in that case they haven't established the key element of the crime..being you were .08 while driving.

A police officer does not have to prove that your BAC was over the legal limit in order to get you convicted of a DUI. You should probably learn the law first before you tell people to know their rights, because you seem to be very confused on how our legal system works here in the United States.

Recently, a visitor to the site asked how it was possible to be charged with a DUI with a blood alcohol content reading far below the “legal limit”.
Specific DUI laws vary from state to state, but there are at least two possible reasons that someone could be charged with a DUI despite a blood alcohol content of less than .08%.

One is that the driver might be under the age of 21. In many states, the “legal limit” for a driver under the age of 21 is significantly lower than .08%. In fact, in some states any trace of alcohol is sufficient to convict an underage drinker of driving under the influence.

Another possibility is that the driver had a blood alcohol content (BAC) reading somewhat lower than .08%, but also showed signs of impairment. The “legal limit” is simply the number above which a driver is automatically guilty of driving under the influence (or some related statute) without any other evidence. However, many states also allow for DUI charges and conviction when a driver has a slightly lower BAC reading but also fails field sobriety tests, drives erratically, or otherwise shows signs of being impaired.

http://www.totaldui.com/blog/dui-charges-below-the-legal-limit/

Okay, now the case is becoming clearer based on what you're saying. If he lost his license for a year that suggests to me he has a prior conviction for DUI. I'm not aware of a jurisdiction that suspends the license of a first time offender for a year unless they are grossly intoxicated (which you say he wasn't)...even then that's not a year suspension. With a prior conviction usually there is a 3 year summary probation..one of the conditions of that probation is that you not drive with ANY measurable amount of alcohol in your bloodstream. So when the cop pulled him over...he knew based on his license and vehicle registration data that he'd been convicted before and he was still under probation so establishing .08 was not necessary as any measurable amount violated him.

He had no previous DUI. He has never been arrested before.

You are assuming that there is more to my friend's story than what I'm telling you - there's not. He has never been in trouble before in his entire life until he was arrested for his DUI. He was arrested for the exact reason that I stated. There is nothing that I'm leaving out and there is no deeper, hidden meaning behind his arrest.

Also, I have a DUI. I lost my license for 1 year, even though it was my first conviction. I also had to attend MADD meetings, AA meetings and was put on a few years of probation. I also had to drive around with bright yellow license plates while I had work priveleges and was allowed to drive to work and work only. The jurisdiction? Cuyahoga County in the state of Ohio.

It may be cheaper for you. But for others who's jobs and livelihoods depend on their ability to drive it may be worth it to fight it.

You can get work priveleges when you are convicted of a DUI. Those priveleges aren't guaranteed, but if you act with respect, maturity and composure in front of the judge (and police officers during your arrest), you will probably get them.

You missed everything here. First of all, whether you're convicted or not is not about his judgement. It's about the facts. One fact must be that you're .08. And your BMI doesn't have anything to do with the cop nor his/her judgement it has to do with you ability to metabolize alcohol which has to do with what your BAC is over a given time after having consumed alcohol. And again, a judge is not likely to decide your case....unless you choose that over a jury. You seem to not understand one of your constitutional rights is to a jury trial.

I was arrested for a DUI and went through the whole entire court process. I talked to lawyers and was well informed on how the system works and what my rights were.

Just because you have the right to have your case heard in front of a jury doesn't mean that you will be found innocent. In fact, I'd reeeeeally like to know that statistics of how many people get found innocent, as opposed to guilty, in a DUI case that is heard in front of a jury.

Let me say it slower and simpler. An open container conviction is not as bad as a DUI conviction. You may be convicted of an open container violation but not convicted of a DUI depending on the situation. While having an open container in you car makes you pretty much guilty of an open container violation, it can help you beat a DUI case. One of the ways it can help you is if you just drank from it...a breathalyer test will not be accurate...therefore not reliable evidence. Now a cop will not tell you that but your lawyer will.

Yes, an open container conviction isn't as bad as a DUI - I understand that. But, an open container in your car, especially during a DUI hearing, is NOT an asset in any way, shape or form.

And, like I already stated...it doesn't matter if you drank from the open container 5 minutes prior to your test or 5 hours prior to your test; if you have a BAC which is above the legal limit, you are going to get charged with a DUI.

The legal system doesn't care if you got drunk right before you hopped behind the wheel of a car or hours before you got behind the wheel of a car - if you are driving drunk, you are driving drunk. And, that's all that matters.

 

[Hot Mega]

Yes, I read what you wrote, but I'm positive that you didn't read what I wrote. I agree that you don't HAVE TO submit to a breathalyzer. I thought I made that perfectly clear when I said...

And, you can't decline the breathalyzer and opt for a blood test because you'd still lose your license for a year. Once again, you don't HAVE TO take the breathalyzer, but you'd be a complete moron if you didn't.

I think Freeones is going to break out the single malt when you finally get this.
Slower and simpler; You WILL NOT automatically get your license suspended if you opt to submit to a chemical test other than a breathalyzer. As the requirement is that you submit to a chemical test not particularly a breathalyzer.

FROM YOUR (Ohio) BMV;

Alcohol Laws: Anyone operating a motor vehicle will be assumed to have given implied consent to a chemical test or test of the person's blood, breath, or urine.

http://www.bmv.ohio.gov/misc/traffic_rules.htm

Further breaking that down it means blood test OR breath test (breathalyzer) OR urine test.

As you will see below I tried to explain this to you several times in the simplest way possible. You continued to argue that you will get your license automatically suspended if you don't submit specifically to a breathalyzer. That's a lie.

Of course you don't HAVE TO submit to a breathalyzer, but you'll automatically lose your license if you don't. Just like you don't HAVE TO follow the speed limit, you don't HAVE TO pay taxes, you don't HAVE TO wear clothes to school...just be ready to suffer the consequences if you don't.

Most if not all jurisdictions require that you submit to a chemical test when suspected of DUI as a condition of being licensed..not necessarily a breathalyzer. Many cops carry a small, portable breathalyzer with them that is used to detect the presence of alcohol but not legal for determining your actual BAC. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SUBMIT TO THAT TEST. Most jurisdictions allow the right to decide which type of test (blood, urine or breath). If you chose to blow, the ONLY one you must blow in is the one at the station.

Did you even read what I wrote??? YOU DON'T HAVE TO SUBMIT TO A BREATHALYZER. YOU MUST SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL TEST (IF YOU'RE SUSPECTED OF DUI AS A CONDITION OF MAINTAINING YOUR LICENSE)...WHICH COULD COME IN THE FORM OF A BREATHALYZER, BLOOD TEST OR URINE TEST. YOU HAVE A CHOICE OF WHICH ONE. I suggest you decline the breathalyzer and take a blood test for the reasons I stated in my last post. Is that clear enough?? (Actually it was clear the last time....you just didn't read).

Case closed now???

A police officer does not have to prove that your BAC was over the legal limit in order to get you convicted of a DUI. You should probably learn the law first before you tell people to know their rights, because you seem to be very confused on how our legal system works here in the United States.

Of course someone below the legal limit to possess or consume alcohol may not drive with alcohol in their system. With respect to others who may be convicted of DUI with lower BACs than the limit....that typically applies to over the counter drugs, painkillers, etc. that can impair a person's ability to drive without rendering them over some limit. The other cases pointed out in your link indicate other mitigating circumstances and clearly the BAC wasn't the only consideration in considering the those drivers to be road hazards. But you claimed your buddy was merely .06...was he drive erratically and stumbling all over himself after 2 glasses of wine???

He had no previous DUI. He has never been arrested before.

You are assuming that there is more to my friend's story than what I'm telling you - there's not. He has never been in trouble before in his entire life until he was arrested for his DUI. He was arrested for the exact reason that I stated. There is nothing that I'm leaving out and there is no deeper, hidden meaning behind his arrest.

Also, I have a DUI. I lost my license for 1 year, even though it was my first conviction. I also had to attend MADD meetings, AA meetings and was put on a few years of probation. I also had to drive around with bright yellow license plates while I had work priveleges and was allowed to drive to work and work only. The jurisdiction? Cuyahoga County in the state of Ohio.

You may have your license suspended anywhere from 3 months to 5 years for a 1st offense. It is typically 3-6 months....and extremely rare that it's a year or more. Because, speaking of MORONS what moron would submit to a chemical test (thereby providing the EVIDENCE to convict them in court) if the typical suspension for refusing and conviction is the same????????

Why wouldn't you just take the fucking suspension and not the DUI conviction (and all of it's "fixings") you'd likely get for providing them the BAC evidence??? Think about that for a sec....

In fact, I'd reeeeeally like to know that statistics of how many people get found innocent, as opposed to guilty, in a DUI case that is heard in front of a jury.

DUI's get dismissed all of the time....just look it up. And people are acquitted in jury trials as well. Obviously many people cop pleas with DUIs as people cop pleas in the overwhelming majority of criminal cases.

Yes, an open container conviction isn't as bad as a DUI - I understand that. But, an open container in your car, especially during a DUI hearing, is NOT an asset in any way, shape or form.

And, like I already stated...it doesn't matter if you drank from the open container 5 minutes prior to your test or 5 hours prior to your test; if you have a BAC which is above the legal limit, you are going to get charged with a DUI.

What still fail to get is that it's possible to test over the legal limit, have an open container in the car, get convicted for the open container but have the DUI dismissed because of the open container. It's the fact that it could be legally argued the breathalyzer results were not reliable considering you just drank from an alcoholic beverage.

Finally for the last time, I don't care what you may be charged with...cops charge people with cases that are later dismissed or they are acquitted of all the time.

 

[ChefChiTown]

I think Freeones is going to break out the single malt when you finally get this.
Slower and simpler; You WILL NOT automatically get your license suspended if you opt to submit to a chemical test other than a breathalyzer. As the requirement is that you submit to a chemical test not particularly a breathalyzer.

Hmm, than every lawyer I've ever talked to must be terrible at what they do for a living, because they all disagree with you. Especially this guy, who is one of the lawyers I was in contact with during my DUI days...

FYI - He is a DUI lawyer in Dayton, OH and he is 100% familiar with DUI laws and how they work, especially in Ohio. I'll make it easy for you to see and highlight the area you should be looking at in big, bright red letters.

Blood Alcohol Content / Breathalyzer Test

Once the police decide to arrest you, they will take you to the police station and ask that you perform a blood alcohol content (BAC) test. This test is commonly referred to as a breathalyzer and is the only DUI test that you are required to take under Ohio law. If you choose not to take the breathalyzer, your driver’s license will automatically be suspended. The breath testing instrument is an extremely complex piece of equipment and is used to determine your blood/alcohol content. Essentially, the machine is designed to measure the amount of alcohol in your system.Ohio’s legal limit for driving while intoxicated is .08. What that means is if your blood/alcohol is .08 grams per 210 liters of deep lung breath, you are considered intoxicated. If you test at this limit or above, you will be charged with a DUI/OVI and possibly incarcerated in jail. If your test is .17 or above, you will be charged with what is commonly called a “Super DUI/OVI.” The Super DUI/OVI citation exposes you to significantly stiffer penalties than a regular DUI/OVI.

Administrative License Suspension Appeal and Driving Privileges

It’s a no win situation. If you refuse the breathalyzer you will automatically be penalized with an administrative license suspension. Unfortunately, if you take the breathalyzer and test over the legal limit, you will also be penalized with the administrative license suspension. It is important that your DUI attorney immediately challenges the suspension issued by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. If your DUI lawyer fails to file an administrative license suspension appeal, your license will stay suspended, you will not have occupational privileges and you will be required to pay a substantial reinstatement fee at the end of the suspension. It is important that your DUI lawyer files the appropriate motions in a timely manner or you will lose your right to appeal. In addition, once suspended, your DUI/OVI attorney can work with the court to get you driving privileges to and from work.

http://www.denslowlaw.com/Ohio-DUI.jsp

Since you have obviously been proven wrong, yet still continue to act as if YOU know what the laws are in this country and what rights we have (even though it's clear that you don't), I am ending this conversation at this point. You said earlier that I was...

...just arguing to keep from being quiet IMO.

...but it's clear now that you are the one who is guilty of such an accusation.

 

[Hot Mega]

Hmm, than every lawyer I've ever talked to must be terrible at what they do for a living, because they all disagree with you. Especially this guy, who is one of the lawyers I was in contact with during my DUI days...

FYI - He is a DUI lawyer in Dayton, OH and he is 100% familiar with DUI laws and how they work, especially in Ohio. I'll make it easy for you to see and highlight the area you should be looking at in big, bright red letters.

http://www.denslowlaw.com/Ohio-DUI.jsp

Since you have obviously been proven wrong, yet still continue to act as if YOU know what the laws are in this country and what rights we have (even though it's clear that you don't), I am ending this conversation at this point. You said earlier that I was...

...but it's clear now that you are the one who is guilty of such an accusation.

I just linked you to the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles site where it explains what the requirement is;

Alcohol Laws: Anyone operating a motor vehicle will be assumed to have given implied consent to a chemical test or test of the person's blood, breath, or urine.

http://www.bmv.ohio.gov/misc/traffic_rules.htm

This is the site of the people in your state's government who make the fucking rules. Not one dopey lawyer who apparently doesn't even know the field of law he's practicing in. And if you used this guy...you get what you pay is all I can say....and that's probably why you ended up on your back...that along with you possibly incriminating yourself before you even got to the police station.

This lawyer in Dayton apparently knows..since he asks on his site which chemical you took; blood, breath or urine.

http://www.lawinfo.com/expert/ohiodrunkdrivingattorney/

..and this site.

Your diver’s license will be subject to immediate seizure and immediate suspension of privileges if you are arrested for DUI and asked to submit to a chemical test and refuse or test over one of the per se limits (listed above).

http://www.ncdd.com/blog/index.cfm/2007/2/14/Ohio-DUI-Laws

and another site...

Breathalyzer Refusal

State DUI laws have implied consent laws requiring consent to chemical testing, such as blood alcohol content, breath test and urine tests, as a condition of operating a motor vehicle in public areas. Implied consent laws in 49 states authorize or require the suspension of a driver's license for refusing a breathalyzer or blood test.

Many drivers who know that they're beyond the legal limit make the decision to refuse the test and accept the license suspension. The thought process behind a breathalyzer refusal is that without the breathalyzer or blood alcohol content test, the state will be unable to prove the more serious charge of driving under the influence.