LEAGAL ADVICE for DUI

[gmanpilot 0]

Quote

i am just asking for advice to pass along for when he goes to court

OK, here is some advice for him: Put on a suit, be early for the appointment, be respectful and contrite, etc. Hopefully he has a good academic record, employment history, .....maybe he could bring along family members or other "character references". A good judge will take all of this into consideration.

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[GARYC24 3]

If he was driving it's a DUI.
Here's all I know for a fact! (as adult 21& over)There
are two things going on DMV and courthouse
The DMV wants to know
a- was there probable cause
b- was you over the legal limit
c- was there an accident
That is what determines getting drivers license
He has 10 days to fill paper work for DMV stuff.

Now, the courts are different, get a lawyer.
The courts also have upto 1 full year to file the complaint/charges..
Mine actually went a full year!!!
7-4-2001 to 7-4-2002 ! YES 1 whole year! and was considered a missing complaint!
I had a lawyer ~$1000
Every case is different, you cannot listen to anyone except, a lawyer!Basically, if he is under 21 and been drinking and driving, he's guilty, BUT a lawyer can change the whole lot!

[Deuce 1]

The cop lingo for a drunk driver in California is a "Deuce" believe it or not. (23152 CVC).

Anyhow, one of the only places it pays to have a criminal defense attorney is for a drunk driving case. If he has the case mitigated, he should be able to keep his license and maybe continue to be insurable. Usually the attorney's fees are offset by the savings of being able to keep a job and keep auto insurace.

There's no doubt he has to attend some drunk driving awareness training.

[WFFC 1]

Quote

Glad I am not your friend.

A friend is someone who will bail you out of jail. A good friend would be sitting next to you saying 'That was friggin awesome!'

-----
~~~Michael

[AndyMan 7]

He needs to argue that he never should have been pulled over in the first place. The courts have consistently ruled that cops need good reason to pull someone over, and if he's honest when he's saying he was driving "like normal", then they had no reason to pull him over. If it goes to trial, he (or his lawyer) needs to drill into the cop exactly why he was pulled over.

That said, if he really blew a .06, his opinion of his driving is not very accurate.

Small DUI cases CAN be beaten. Specifically a threat of a long and dificult case can persuade the prosecution to settle.

Without a doubt he needs a lawyer. I have no experience with public defenders, I assume there can be good ones and bad ones. If he's got a bad one he needs to figure it out quickly and get a real lawyer.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[lawrocket 3]

I agree with Deuce. He needs an attorney who specializes in Drunk Driving. And, if he wants to limit the long term damage, chances are he's not gonna be skydiving any time soon, because he either suffers in the short-term or long-term.

This means that he (hopefully his attorney) can work out a probation, oodles of counseling and community service, and I mean doing it now, and have some deal where if he completes it, conviction is expunged or reduced. That costs money now. He may spend a few thousand now, or many thousands over the next 7 or ten years.

Courts are like the military - they don't mess around with drunk driving. As an aside, my personal views on most drunk drivers can be found here. But note that there is no place in there where I say that they should not face the consequences.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[bmcd308 0]

Regardless of the preachings of the self righteous, there is no need for your friend to get in any more trouble than he has to - that is the way our legal system works.

Have him get a lawyer who has experience in this area. Have him STFU in the mean time.

Brent

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[Cudlo 0]

Here is a sad reality. My father is a public defender in the traffic courts for Cook County(Chicago). If the defendant is released on an i-bond or something of that nature, 85-90% of the time the defendant will be found not guilty. If they are kept in prison, 85-90% of the time they will be found guilty either by admission of guilt or any other recourse. BTW, im just talking about DUI offenses here. Here is the reason. Traffic DUI courts are where the DA's office sends its new guys to get a few trials under their belts. However, the Public Defenders office has veteran lawyers there. Now if a DUI offender is kept in jail, he will usually plead guilty to DUI cause it will get him OUT of jail. There is no jail time for a DUI offense, and all they ever want to do is get out. Personally, I feel like giving my dad a swift kick in the ass every time he tells me his office got another drunk off the hook. Of course there are odd cases, like this one Chicago officer (who has now been charged) was giving people DUI tickets when they weren't even in a vehicle. So, chances are your friend will be fine. But, even when you're 21+ you shouldnt be driving drunk. The odds are in favor of someone dying because you decided to be a dumb ass.

And for those of you who would justify driving with a booze in your system. Ask yourself this. Would you want someone with booze in their system to be driving your children around in a car? Didn't think so.

Blueskies,
Charlie

_________________________________________
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." - Kierkegaard

[Deuce 1]

Yeah, I guess my experience has kind of cooled me to the extremity of the punishments for drunk driving.

I'm all for accountability, and put a lot of people away for different types of crimes. But I didn't see the justice in putting someone in jail for a year, for creating the possibility of a traffic accident, versus a less stringent penalty for someone who went out and committed a robbery and actually did injure someone and took their property.

I am intimately familiar with alcoholism, alcoholics, and drunk drivers. I understand the danger they create for innocent people.

I just struggle with the disparate amount of resources they get over predatory criminals who use force while completely sober to terrorize, dehumanize and dominate their innocent victims.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I just struggle with the disparate amount of resources they get over predatory criminals who use force while completely sober to terrorize, dehumanize and dominate their innocent victims.

Come on, Deuce. You know why the resources go to that. Assaults and batteries do not result in hefty fines. They result in time spent in the can, and that costs the city, county, etc. money.

Drunk drivers might spend two or three days in jail until they are released (cheap), then they pay a hefty fine (cash to the city, county, state) and pay for their counseling (cash to the city, county, state) and do community service (free labor for the city, county, state).

DUI is cheap to enforce, easy to enforce, and actually makes money, while providing "societal benefit." From an economic policing standpoint, it doesn't get any better than that.

And we wonder why we go after drunk drivers. They are an easy target that makes lots of money.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Deuce 1]

I don't disagree with the point you make, Jerry, it's valid.

But the cops go after drunk drivers because it's what the special interest groups like MADD want.

I got the honor to go "drunk driver hunting" many years, where the local agencies would get lent out to the CHP during the holidays to pump up the number of arrests. I got at least one every year, and always above a 2.0. The easiest way to get a drunk driver is they very often forget to turn on their headlights. People want to hear that "X" number of drunk driving arrests were made this year, "X" percent above/below last year.

It would have been nice if the agencies would have cooperated like that during the holidays to arrest car burglars and robbers, too.

[lawrocket 3]

Deuce:

The initial post mentioned that the guy was driving just like he always does. You mentioned drivers' failure to turn on headlights as an easy way to find them.

What standard for suspicion do they typically train cops to look for? (I haven't studied the whole "reasonable articulable suspicion" standard in three years.)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[slug 1]

Quote

Quote

Chris,

He is screwed. In Illinois you can get a dui even if you are under .08. Now that he is under 21 he will lose his driving privileges for a year. Illinois has zero tolerance for anyone under 21.

Dude! It's not me! Look at the profile. No avatar. Lives in Ohio. Just looks like DiverDriver....but it's not.

The one, the ONLY.....

Hi Chris

Didn't need the picture, what the guy was saying and what you have said in the past didn't jive. I even checked his profile, who knows in cyber space DiverDiver could be a 20 yr old that gets to tell his sob story to the judge.

R.I.P.

[slug 1]

Deuce:

The initial post mentioned that the guy was driving just like he always does.***

Quote

Hey guy's lets get real who is diver diver and how does he know how the guy was drivingbecause either the kid that got busted told him so or he is the kid.

The BAC is an objective quantative test. I did some quickie math: all the american G.I.s that have died in Iraq up to now are equal to one week of fatalities related to DUI's in this country.

R.I.P.

• Quote

[diablopilot 2]

Then again the fact that we restrict drinking in this country untill ase 21 just serves to cause a lack of respect for the effects of alcohol, and alcoholisim.

Just not effective, kinda like our ban on drugs.

In societies where drinking is not restricted near as much (Englend for example) people are a bit more "mature" when it comes to the use of alcohol. In addition REAL penalties resulting from DUI's and an accepted meathod of public transport reduce the overall impact.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

The cop lingo for a drunk driver in California is a "Deuce" believe it or not. (23152 CVC).

Anyhow, one of the only places it pays to have a criminal defense attorney is for a drunk driving case. If he has the case mitigated, he should be able to keep his license and maybe continue to be insurable. Usually the attorney's fees are offset by the savings of being able to keep a job and keep auto insurace.

There's no doubt he has to attend some drunk driving awareness training.

Years ago the CVC for dui was 502, thus the term "Deuce"
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Billy 0]

If you look at most other countries, you will see the US is pretty lax actually... Ya he's basically screwed and really needs a lawyer, not only to represent him, but explain all his options. Wet/Neg to an insurance company is a DUI, they know,, so does the DMV, here its 5 yrs probationary license no matter what the court says...
Yea it's a wake up call,, when he turns 21, it goes up a notch to .08, but he will have this now under his belt, on his record. If he doen's get his shit together, the next one will really suck!
DUI's are like STD's, folks don't think it's gonna be them. When I got my DUI, I thought I was driving pretty good too, didn't know I hit something,, the horse trailer was rubbing a tire and smokin like a mofo!

Natural Born FlyerZ.com

[DiverDiver 0]

Quote

BTW how old are you? Ever been charged with DUI? drink just one or two beers and drive? A lot of us have known people that were killed by folks DUI.It ruins the lives of not only the deceased but their whole family forever.reply]

Almost 22. I have never had a DUI but yes, there have been times where I go out to eat with friends, have a couple beers then drive home. I am not sure exactly what my BAC would be but I did not feel 2 beers would impair my driving. If at all I would feel I would put other peoples lives on the line I woudl not drive. This is how my friend feels too.

• Quote

[quade 4]

Well, if we want to go into why people under age drink and drive, we could find a lot of reasons: forbidden fruit, advertising, peer pressure, youthful rebellion. The list could be quite long.

As for a comparison between restricting alcohol consumption by people under the age of 21 to the illegal drug issues -- I don't care how loaded a kid gets. If some kid wants to drink himself silly, I don't really give a rat's ass. Smoke some pot -- go right ahead. It's his body.

Where I -do- have an issue is when his actions influence the lives of others. Attempting to control a 2,000 pound chunk of steel at 60 mph is simply not a good idea and proves to be deadly a lot of times not just for the person at the controls.

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa31.htm

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DiverDiver 0]

Thanks for the quote and website wingnut. He was on a State Route a few miles off a main highway. 1 mile from home, not really a back road but we do live in the country.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

If you look at most other countries, you will see the US is pretty lax actually...

This is getting off topic, but which countries in particular? Canada definately is more reasonable, so was western Europe when I wandered there a few years ago, and I don't think its changed since.

I don't know of any other country that bans booze until 21. That number seems entirely arbitrary and contrived.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[RevJim 0]

Quote

Almost 22. I have never had a DUI but yes, there have been times where I go out to eat with friends, have a couple beers then drive home. I am not sure exactly what my BAC would be but I did not feel 2 beers would impair my driving. If at all I would feel I would put other peoples lives on the line I woudl not drive. This is how my friend feels too.

There starts the problem. Alcohol will impair your judgement before it impairs anything, hence the "ugly chick syndrome". The driving is later.

I've been guilty of both a few times before, and a few times I consider myself lucky to be alive. My wake up call was losing 2 of my best friends to drunk driving within the same month. (Different accidents. One was driving, and one later was hit by a DUI)

I still drink, but I WILL NOT drive if I am drinking, period.

Designated drivers, taxi's and the bus system (there is no bus system here) are there for a reason. Use them.

It's your life, live it!
Karma
RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Where I -do- have an issue is when his actions influence the lives of others. Attempting to control a 2,000 pound chunk of steel at 60 mph is simply not a good idea and proves to be deadly a lot of times not just for the person at the controls.

I agree. My point is youth have no respect for alchohol and its affects especialy when relating to a 2000 lbs maching at 60+ MPH.

You pointed out some of the reasons already. In this country we have a 3 part failure #1 as stated above, #2 penalties are not truly penalties. Imagine if a DUI offender had their card sezied and sold, and got a YEAR in jail no pleabargins, reduces sentances, ect. Think we'd still have a problem? I've heard of countries that have penalties like these. # education. Rather than repeat an argument go see my current thread in Swooping & canopy control.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Well, if we want to go into why people under age drink and drive, we could find a lot of reasons: forbidden fruit, advertising, peer pressure, youthful rebellion. The list could be quite long.

Sure.

Quote

As for a comparison between restricting alcohol consumption by people under the age of 21 to the illegal drug issues -- I don't care how loaded a kid gets. If some kid wants to drink himself silly, I don't really give a rat's ass. Smoke some pot -- go right ahead. It's his body.

Cool.

Quote

Where I -do- have an issue is when his actions influence the lives of others. Attempting to control a 2,000 pound chunk of steel at 60 mph is simply not a good idea and proves to be deadly a lot of times not just for the person at the controls.

Right, but you objected to a 20 year old having ANY amount of alcohol, even an amount that wouldn't cause him to be intoxicated. Your complaint didn't even consider if the kid was drunk. That part was irrelevant.

What if you're driving in Quebec, where its legal to drink at 18? Would you still be so damning to a 20 year old who drinks a moderate amount, waits a reasonsable time, then drives home perfectly sober? Or, if you ever find yourself in Quebec will you never venture near a roadway out of fear of eminent death from the clearly irresponsible and dangerous population?

There are a vast number of painfully stupid laws in every country. In America the list includes charging a 20 year old who had a small amount of alcohol and drove home while perfectly sober, with DUI. Its our duty to obey all laws, even the ones we disagree with. That said, I do have a lot of sympathy for people who get screwed by painfully stupid laws.

If the situation is as was described by DiverDriver , then that's whats happened here.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[DiverDiver 0]

So you think I am the underage drinker slug? No, I am sorry to ruin the conspiracy you have going here but the person who was pulled over is my best friend, we have been through alot together. Yes, maybe he should have called and have someone pick him up. But when he says he was driving normal, I believe him. As for the part that says use the having no reason for a stop as yoru defense. I will pass that along to him. Alot of City Police and Sheriff's in our area do that......it may be more difficult since it was a Trooper. Thanks to everyone that are givign advice and webistes......my friend will appericiate it.