Buddy got charged in a spot check.

[fuji]

A friend of mine got convicted about 12 years ago

This "innocent until proven guilty" is only a distant memory.

Being able to prove your innocence = how much time and money you have.

Nonsense. DUI is one of those things that is pretty easy to prove--you are either over or under the limit. It's pretty clear.

Sounds to me like your friend was proven guilty of the crime, and suffered appropriate consequences for his egregious behavior.

 

[mexican]

Your friend should absolutely check out - POINTTS or Ex-COPPER for this work. These are ex police officers who know everything about the system. They are cheaper and probably far more effective than the police as they know the procedure inside and out. Very few lawyers would want to specialize in traffic court.

 

[Gentle Ben]

Your friend should absolutely check out - POINTTS or Ex-COPPER for this work. ......

Pointts doesn't do criminal , over .080 is criminal offence

 

[The Fruity Hare]

Most of you lads posting...are truly no help in trying to get answers re: O.P.

Please stop being angry, tired, and jerks by hijacking threads. Simple questions require simple answers!!

Still looking for options re: careless driving...for my Buddy

.....................

Words of wisdom from a previous thread:

His behaviour was atrocious.

But Molly...there are changes you could make too.... to avoid these situations.


I see so many people..mostly ladies - who are in line, get everything through and bagged..and only then decide to pull the purse up on the little shelf and decide to pay for stuff as if it is a surprise. You will note guys are always ready with debit cards. Women in a majority of cases are like "Oh..I have to pay for this? "

* Next time have card out and ready to go.

And secondly it is extremely rude to the cashier, among others to answer your phone while engaged with someone. You place them as second fiddle. Look at it like your playing ball with your kid...and as your kid throws the ball you walk away and pick up the phone. In all the articles I have read... it is plain rude. Wait and return the call in private.

Again - the guy was rude.... truly.

But if you follow my simple recommendations - you should avoid this type of behavior in the future!!!.

* So...NO PHONE CALLS - have debit card ready....VOILA....!!!!

Its like the girl who walks down a dark alley and finds herself getting raped. She knew she should not go down the alley..she knew it was dangerous..and it truly is the rapists fault for raping her....but your still raped and no one can change that.[/COLOR]

Too bad he didn't read this thread before drinking and driving, he would have been clear and on his way ... VOILA....!!!!

no..its an example.....

If one alters their own behaviour....it can brings better results and behaviour in others!!

He should have listened to your sage advice.

Lets not hijack the thread boys...

We are talking about the behaviour of Molly and the other guy in the grocery lineup!!

So now people can't talk about the behaviour of the person who was drinking and driving, but we can point fingers at someone for simply answering a phone in a line up at a check out?

 

[Bif_Butkiss]

Nonsense. DUI is one of those things that is pretty easy to prove--you are either over or under the limit. It's pretty clear.

Sounds to me like your friend was proven guilty of the crime, and suffered appropriate consequences for his egregious behavior.

GEEZ... I wish you'd put your mind into gear BEFORE your mouth into motion!!!! Or your typing finger as it were.

If you know ANYTHING about our legal system there is supposed to be a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.
IF you read my post I mentioned that that constitutional legal right seems to be a thing of the past as an accused (in this country) needs substantial amounts of both time and money in order to PROVE his innocence in court. Both of which (in most cases) are NOT recoverable even if the accused is found innocent by the court.

Try reading and understanding a person's entire post first before shooting your mouth off about something you obviously know very little about!

 

[Brotherman]

R.I.D.E. is illegal. If you get a good lawyer, and he's smart, he can have the charges stayed based on constitutional grounds. No one is allowed to be pulled over for drinking and driving without just cause. You can try OTT legal, but they will charge at least $2k per appearance.

 

[nottyboi]

A lawyer will charge upwards of 5 grand to defend someone on a DUI charge AND there are no guarantees. IF your buddy gets convicted tell him he might as well give up driving for a few years. Besides the year licence suspension he'll automatically get, when he does get his licence back most insurance companies won't touch him and those that will will charge him something like 10 grand a year for basics. A friend of mine got convicted about 12 years ago and his insurance company wanted the 8 grand to take him back and before his conviction he had a 6 star rating with them.

Once you're charged with a criminal offence in this country you're f*cked. This "innocent until proven guilty" is only a distant memory.

Being able to prove your innocence = how much time and money you have.

5? More like 20....

 

[The Bandit]

r.i.d.e. Is illegal. if you get a good lawyer, and he's smart, he can have the charges stayed based on constitutional grounds. No one is allowed to be pulled over for drinking and driving without just cause. you can try ott legal, but they will charge at least $2k per appearance.

wtf????

 

[afterhours]

Nonsense. DUI is one of those things that is pretty easy to prove--you are either over or under the limit. It's pretty clear.

It's very very very far from clear. It's one of the most technical areas of law and people who are over 80 routinely get acquitted

 

[HOF]

He was taken in and recieved the forms. He blew 90 and 90.

Can anyone tell me if they have experience in court with these charges.

He was only charged with OVER 80.....NOT impaired.

It was a spot check.

What will his 'best case scenario' be?

Just lookin for advice

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired/

http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/impaired-driving.htm

There's some information for you. There is something in the first link about 90%

Spot check, so that's the probable or reasonable cause.

Hope that your "buddy" receives the maximum fines and penalties for driving with more than 80/100

Last night in Hamilton, 1 dead, 3 injured. Driver charged! Killed his buddy and injured two more! Maybe this will be a sobering thought.
http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/484672--crash-kills-passenger-injures-three

No empathy, no sympathy.

 

[afterhours]

Hope that your "buddy" receives the maximum fines and penalties for driving with more than 80/100
No empathy, no sympathy.

There is no maximums

 

[HOF]

Pot meet kettle

.....................

Words of wisdom from a previous thread:




Too bad he didn't read this thread before drinking and driving, he would have been clear and on his way ... VOILA....!!!!








He should have listened to your sage advice.





So now people can't talk about the behaviour of the person who was drinking and driving, but we can point fingers at someone for simply answering a phone in a line up at a check out?

Nice catch Fruity Hare.

Hey Frank M. maybe Quarter Inch Fail will represent you.

 

[HOF]

There is no maximums

That's even better!

 

[Social Gent]

FMAHOVALICH, pm me all the details and 'll walk you through exactly what your buddy should do.

If he comes out okay; including him pleading, not fighting, he can roll his suspensions all into one another (i.e. the mandatory 90 day he has right now, plus the 12 month Criminal Code/H.T.A. upon conviction), and if it is solely impaired due to ALCOHOL, then the Justice will not endorse AGAINST him being eligible for the interlock program, and ding him with the (minimum) fine of $1000 (though if he is employed, possibly the Victim Fine Surcharge too of $50). Therefore, 6 months from his plea date, he will be able to be back on the road again, assuming he pays the necessary fees for the interlock device, and completes the Back on Track program.

 

[Social Gent]

Brotherman

Sir, I am going out there and saying the following:
You are a bumbling idiot who has no wherewithal or general clue when it comes to truely understanding constitutional law, the C.C.R.F., Hobbes, or basic case law in general.

R.I.D.E. is perfectly legal, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled as such.
Driving is a privelege, not a right; and spot-checks provide the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.

May I suggest in future, Brotherman, you leave the commentary within the 'serious' legal based threads to those of us who are either professionals, or otherwise have some general knowledge of the subject and can provide useful advice; a contrary to the seeming lacking you have given, demonstrative of the prototypical lawyer that is disbarred within two years of being called to the bar for their inability to properly inform clients or represent them (see L.S.U.C. hearings/sanctions re. A. Bruce).

Once again, Frank, shoot me a pm and we'll go through this. Give me the jurisdiction, and if your 'buddy' feels it necessary, I can direct him to reputable counsel in these matters.

 

[Social Gent]

Three grand will cover the prep. If you are going to try and knock it down to a careless, your 'buddy' is going to have a great time dropping money like it's the thing to do in order to pay for several Charter applications.

Take the plea, pay the 1000. He did the crime, now do the (though not actually going to jail) time. Pardon in 4 years, and he'll be on his merry way.

I know HOF will hear about this at some point: (and, HOF, feel free to PM me if you want some of the details that "aren't" listed here ) Hamilton fatal crash, Driver Op/Impaired

 

[Social Gent]

It's very very very far from clear. It's one of the most technical areas of law and people who are over 80 routinely get acquitted

No... They Don't.
Unless the Crown is incompetent (i.e. not knowing what they are doing, or bringing forward the matter to trial without competent breath tech, certificate, and a solid case).

 

[HOF]

Sir, I am going out there and saying the following:
You are a bumbling idiot who has no wherewithal or general clue when it comes to truely understanding constitutional law, the C.C.R.F., Hobbes, or basic case law in general.

R.I.D.E. is perfectly legal, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled as such.
Driving is a privelege, not a right; and spot-checks provide the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.

May I suggest in future, Brotherman, you leave the commentary within the 'serious' legal based threads to those of us who are either professionals, or otherwise have some general knowledge of the subject and can provide useful advice; a contrary to the seeming lacking you have given, demonstrative of the prototypical lawyer that is disbarred within two years of being called to the bar for their inability to properly inform clients or represent them (see L.S.U.C. hearings/sanctions re. A. Bruce).

Once again, Frank, shoot me a pm and we'll go through this. Give me the jurisdiction, and if your 'buddy' feels it necessary, I can direct him to reputable counsel in these matters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BofddwtPBPw

 

[MuffDiver]

Did not read through much of this thread, but anyone driving over the legal limit needs to be removed from our roads, plain and simple. This is another one of those situations where the law and what is right are at odds.

 

[fuji]

IF you read my post I mentioned that that constitutional legal right seems to be a thing of the past as an accused (in this country) needs substantial amounts of both time and money in order to PROVE his innocence in court.

Nope. I don't buy that. I think your friend was proven guilty in court and the consequences are what he deserves for driving drunk.