Driving with blood alcohol over 80 vs careless driving charge

[basketcase]

Wait, he blew a 100 at the station which was likely an hour after he was stopped later in the morning after sleeping at the party?

I guess passing out is a version of 'deciding' to sleep it off.

 

[HEYHEY]

Tell him not to take the plea
Fight it to the end, spend over 10 grand on a lawyer and hopefully lose in the end. Maybe the he will learn something from this

 

[malata]

i have a wingwoman drive me home when i'm feeling oozy doozy so i can snoozie on her boobies

 

[black booty lover]

It's not even close to being "almost the same as a a criminal conviction". A criminal record can have huge implications on someone's life. Like being permanently barred from travelling to the United States.

A DUI conviction doesn't effect your ability to enter the U.S at all due to the nature of the crime. The irony is, an American with a DUI conviction can't enter Canada.

 

[rhuarc29]

I wonder how many people in this thread raking your nephew over the coals regularly text while driving. Probably several of them.
Let's assume your nephew was naive and didn't realize his BOC would still be high the morning after. He's been roughly disabused of that notion. But he's being given a chance. While Careless Driving is indeed a serious ticket, it's no where near a DWI conviction. Take the deal, and I hope your nephew learns from it.

 

[GameBoy27]

So he was charged with over 80 but not impaired? That sounds strange to me.

 

[oldjones]

I gave my nephew credit for "trying to sleep it off" at the party, so I would not disown him for that. He told me from now on, he'll take ubber or call someone to pick him up if he has even one drink at any party. He values his driver's licence and his freedom.

Now he's thinking straight. The only 100% safe kevel of alcohol for driving is 0.0%. And, it's way easier to keep track, than by counting drinks. Good for your nephew.

 

[Fathammer]

best solution here is hire a lawyer.

Cheaper to pay the lawyer once then have your insurance go up for many years.

 

[oldjones]

A DUI conviction doesn't effect your ability to enter the U.S at all due to the nature of the crime. The irony is, an American with a DUI conviction can't enter Canada.

Speaking from my position as a Canadian convicted criminal: Any criminal conviction is enough to make you inadmissible under US law, and it has been determined that the offence we commonly call 'impaired' or 'blew over' in our federal Criminal Code (and which Americans call a whole variety of things, including DUI, under their fifty different state codes) is no exception.

What has been handed down to agents is authorization to interpret our Criminal Code offence in the light of the laws of the state we're entering. So if it's only a misdemeanour there, the agent has discretion to view your Canadian conviction similarly. However, it is the agent at the border who gets to decide, and if you're refused the only recourse is to appeal to Washington. From outside the US of A. You can also 'appeal' before a refusal, which may get you a permit to present with your passport. But again, you do that from outside, through lawyers and the mail. And it costs.

The Catch-22 is that when you present yourself for admission, American law says it's up to you to inform the agent of any reason why you might be deemed inadmissible to the USA. Failure to do so is enough to make you permanently inadmissible.

 

[Fathammer]

oldjones is right. ^^^^^^^

If someone is found guilty of DUI, they cant cross the border. Its a criminal offence which makes you inadmissible.

 

[oldjones]

oldjones is right. ^^^^^^^

If someone is found guilty of DUI, they cant cross the border. Its a criminal offence which makes you inadmissible.

Thanks. That said however, what the law says people should do — "I believe I may be inadmissible because of my conviction for an alcohol and driving offence under the Criminal Code of Canada a decade ago" — and what they actually do in practice — "No sir, nothing to declare." — remain a good ways apart.

But I know I could be refused anytime, and no one is in danger of being killed or maimed. Unlike with the drinking

 

[Keebler Elf]

So he was charged with over 80 but not impaired? That sounds strange to me.

Two different charges. You can be over 80 and not impaired, or impaired and not over 80. It accounts for different body types and ability for the body to absorb alcohol. Some 90 pound waif of a girl could blow under 80 with a beer or two but still be impaired. My guess is it would be far more common to blow over 80 but not be discernibly impaired to warrant the Impaired charge, than vice versa.

Impaired is more subjective, Over 80 objective.

 

[blixa]

My 23 year old newphew was charged with driving over 80. He was at a party, drinking a bit too much. He decided to sleep over at the party since he knew he could not drive. Later in the morning, on his drive home he was pulled over for some minor traffic violation. Cop could smell alcohol and road side breathalyzer failed. Arrested and taken to police station and blew 100. Charged with criminal offence of driving over 80.

Lawyer was able to get charges reduced to careless driving. Lawyer thinks it's a huge win to eliminate the criminal charge personally I think a careless driving charge with one year licence suspension is almost the same thing.

Your nephew should be in prison getting his cheeks busted.

 

[GameBoy27]

Two different charges. You can be over 80 and not impaired, or impaired and not over 80. It accounts for different body types and ability for the body to absorb alcohol. Some 90 pound waif of a girl could blow under 80 with a beer or two but still be impaired. My guess is it would be far more common to blow over 80 but not be discernibly impaired to warrant the Impaired charge, than vice versa.

Impaired is more subjective, Over 80 objective.

I understand all that, but most of the time they charge you with both, hoping at least one will stick in court. The OP failed to tell us what his nephew was pulled over for in the first place.

 

[peeler_feeler]

Rolling a stop sign.

 

[black booty lover]

I understand all that, but most of the time they charge you with both, hoping at least one will stick in court. The OP failed to tell us what his nephew was pulled over for in the first place.

They almost never charge with both. It's usually one or the other.

 

[black booty lover]

oldjones is right. ^^^^^^^

If someone is found guilty of DUI, they cant cross the border. Its a criminal offence which makes you inadmissible.

No he is not right.

http://www.usentrywaiverlaw.ca/dui.php

I know people that have been convicted with impaired that get into the U.S all the time.

 

[oldjones]

No he is not right.

http://www.usentrywaiverlaw.ca/dui.php

I know people that have been convicted with impaired that get into the U.S all the time.

As do I, in spite of my conviction. But that doesn't make any of what I posted incorrect. I have family there, and want to cross frequently, so I researched the issue.

Even if you say you know people who told US Customs and Immigration they'd been convicted, and had still been allowed in, I believe I covered that too: US law says any criminal conviction makes a person inadmissible, and that decision is entirely at the agent's discretion. That individual discretion includes allowing convicted Canadians the privilege of crossing into states where their offence is not criminal. But it's case by case, occasion by occasion. Furthermore, it is your responsibility to declare your possible inadmissibility at the border for the agent to decide on, and failing to do so is grounds for keeping you out, and that can be a ban for life.

I wish your friends (and myself) all the luck in the world, but any one of us could lose out on our very next try.

 

[black booty lover]

As do I, in spite of my conviction. But that doesn't make any of what I posted incorrect. I have family there, and want to cross frequently, so I researched the issue.

Even if you say you know people who told US Customs and Immigration they'd been convicted, and had still been allowed in, I believe I covered that too: US law says any criminal conviction makes a person inadmissible, and that decision is entirely at the agent's discretion. That individual discretion includes allowing convicted Canadians the privilege of crossing into states where their offence is not criminal. But it's case by case, occasion by occasion. Furthermore, it is your responsibility to declare your possible inadmissibility at the border for the agent to decide on, and failing to do so is grounds for keeping you out, and that can be a ban for life.

I wish your friends (and myself) all the luck in the world, but any one of us could lose out on our very next try.

Here you go, straight from the U.S Customs and Boarder Protection site:

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/402/~/entering-the-u.s.-and-canada-with-dui-offenses



Those guys pretty much always have the discretion to let you in weather your inadmissible or not. They almost always let you in despite a DUI conviction so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Fathammer]

Here you go, straight from the U.S Customs and Boarder Protection site:

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/402/~/entering-the-u.s.-and-canada-with-dui-offenses



Those guys pretty much always have the discretion to let you in weather your inadmissible or not. They almost always let you in despite a DUI conviction so I'm not sure what your point is.

This is taken from the wedsite you provided:
"A single DUI conviction is not grounds to deny entry into the U.S. However, multiple DUI convictions or a DUI conviction in combination with other misdemeanor offenses can make a person inadmissible and require a waiver prior to entering the United States."

Sure, a simple 24hrs ticket or as Americans call it "Misdemeanor" is a different story.

If you are charged with a "Criminal Offence" or "Felony" like blowing way over the limit on strike 2 or causing an accident, etc. then you can become inadmissible.