Anyone know a good laywer?

[wet_suit_one]

So... Tell me this...

If I drink half a bottle of wine (375 ml) over about 4 hours am I fit to drive? This is about 2-3 glasses I suppose.

Weight is about 250.

I'm listening to the folks in here, and they all say one is too many, but jeez, most folks I know (I'm being 100% honest here), have a drink or two in a night, and then drive all the time. Heck poker nights, folks have 3-4 beers and then drive, over say a 4-5 hour period.

Are we criminals? Have we merely gotten lucky because none of us has had an accident afterwards?

What do you folks figure?

Cast your aspersions now. I'm ready for it!!!

 

[thompo69]

My information is going back a few years, but came from the crown prosecutor for the case. The driver had an injury so went to emerg., there they drew blood for a test. It was explained that it was required for a drunk driving charge and that a breathalyzer was flawed in that it measured alcohol saturation of the oral cavity.
We are talking 20 years later so perhaps the law and technology have changed.

BUT how can you measure blood alcohol content without blood. There is only blood in your mouth from a trauma or bad dental hygiene. Think before you call bullshit.

As someone pointed out, it is blowing over 0.080 as a charge.

The concentration of alcohol in the blood is extrapolated from the concentration of alcohol in the breath. And if we're going to get specific about the charge, it is in fact operating or having the care and control of a motor vehicle "having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood." This is assessed by a breath sample, or in some cases by a blood sample (normally if they are unable to provide a breath sample, or if substances other than alcohol are suspected). Either are acceptable.

The fact remains that there is absolutely no requirement for a blood sample in order to prove a charge of impaired. My call of bullshit stands.

 

[Malibook]

As for advice. Yes, you better get a lawyer. A very good and suitably expensive one.

But don't expect that you will be able to walk from this. It isn't going to happen. And it shouldn't.

Why should he blow money on an expensive lawyer if he has no chance of winning?

Might as well just plead guilty and start the 1 year suspension now, instead of later in addition to the initial 90 days.

People getting off of this charge happens often.
You people that think this rarely happens don't have a clue what you are talking about.

In this particular case, since he was so much over, I'd say his chances of getting off or a careless plea deal are very slim.

 

[Malibook]

That doesn't really make a lot of sense. How is the cop suppose to know when the last time you had a drink? So he tested buddy, buddy fails, so they take him the station for further test. I don't see how that could be improper procedure.

I am sure lot of guys would say they just finished a drink and that is why they blew over. I thought that was why they do the follow ups.

Cops are not supposed to target a particular establishment and single out individuals without cause for a fishing expedition.
This is discriminating harassment and they could easily drive any bar out of business for no legitimate reason.
Cops will often lie and make up some lame excuse why they target someone without cause.
This alone would not be grounds for a dismissal but the 15 minutes defence does provide a potential counter to this bullshit.

 

[Aardvark154]

If I drink half a bottle of wine (375 ml) over about 4 hours am I fit to drive? This is about 2-3 glasses I suppose.

Weight is about 250.

I'm listening to the folks in here, and they all say one is too many, but jeez, most folks I know (I'm being 100% honest here), have a drink or two in a night, and then drive all the time. Heck poker nights, folks have 3-4 beers and then drive, over say a 4-5 hour period.

There are a number of interrelated questions: are you fit to drive, if you are over the legal limit and kill someone are you willing to spend several years incarcerated for Vehicular Homicide/Vehicular Manslaughter/Aggravated DUI?

How about taking a look at a calculator and a table. The two I could rapidly locate are U.S. based but biology and physics don't change at the border.

DUI is a Strict Liability crime, hence your excuses are meaningless; was your Blood Alcohol level over the legal limit, were you operating (or attempting to operate) a motor vehicle. - period. (This is not to say that there aren't defences, just that they almost always are technical).

 

[Malibook]

Although I am rambling my point is that you are not legally drunk unless it is confirmed by a BLOOD alcohol test of .080. Nowhere does the poster say a sample was taken. Without a blood test he was not over the limit.

This is only true if the accused can prove a medical condition preventing him from providing the breath samples.

Refusing to blow without such a condition is basically the same as pleading guilty.

 

[Aardvark154]

This is only true if the accused can prove a medical condition preventing him from providing the breath samples.

Refusing to blow without such a condition is basically the same as pleading guilty.

In many jusisdictions refusing to test without such a medical problem increases the penalties to such a point that unless it is your fourth or five DUI you are an idiot to refuse to test.

 

[hunter001]

Cops are not supposed to target a particular establishment and single out individuals without cause for a fishing expedition.
This is discriminating harassment and they could easily drive any bar out of business for no legitimate reason.

Targeting? Dude said he got pulled over at a ride program?

Basically, last night I got pulled over at a ride program and blew over the legal limit (more than .080).

 

[hunter001]

I'm listening to the folks in here, and they all say one is too many, but jeez, most folks I know (I'm being 100% honest here), have a drink or two in a night, and then drive all the time. Heck poker nights, folks have 3-4 beers and then drive, over say a 4-5 hour period.

Are we criminals? Have we merely gotten lucky because none of us has had an accident afterwards?

It depends one how long a "night" is. The poker dudes are luckly at or over.

If you unsure you can always drive by the location station and ask to take a test. I am willing to "bet" they would be happy to test you.

 

[Malibook]

Targeting? Dude said he got pulled over at a ride program?

I agree that in this particular case, Lucky's chances look extremely slim.

I am just pointing out that there are possible defences and the chances of one beating this charge is not as impossible as some people think.
It happens a lot.

 

[Keebler Elf]

Then ask for leniency, citing your clean (if it is) criminal and driving record and outstanding character (community stuff if you have it.) Even offer (in writing) to accept double, triple or more the punishment if you're ever caught again.

That sounds all warm n' fuzzy n' nice but it will get him absolutely nowhere in court. MADD has done such a number on the political system that it's all mandatory minimums and mandatory conviction unless you can prove the cops acted inappropriately or the machine was broken (good luck with that). There is zero latitude for judges to give people a break. If they are found guilty, they get the same sentence as everyone else.

The only thing no prior record gets you is the minimum sentence (the judge could impose a harsher sentence) and a better argument for a technical defence by a good lawyer. A good lawyer costs ~$10K. Don't waste your time with Ex-Coppers or whatever they're called these days. To win this case in court you need an experienced lawyer who knows constitutional law.

 

[Keebler Elf]

Why should he blow money on an expensive lawyer if he has no chance of winning?

Might as well just plead guilty and start the 1 year suspension now, instead of later in addition to the initial 90 days.

Umm, maybe because he'll have a criminal record. That shit never goes away.

With a good lawyer he has a chance of winning. Maybe not a good chance, but with a good lawyer it's worth the odds.

 

[Malibook]

Umm, maybe because he'll have a criminal record. That shit never goes away.

With a good lawyer he has a chance of winning. Maybe not a good chance, but with a good lawyer it's worth the odds.

I totally agree that he should fight it.

My point was why would someone who thinks he has no chance of winning advise him to spend big bucks on a lawyer?

For first offence, he can get the minimum 1 year, with or without a lawyer.

 

[Keebler Elf]

I totally agree that he should fight it.

My point was why would someone who thinks he has no chance of winning advise him to spend big bucks on a lawyer?

For first offence, he can get the minimum 1 year, with or without a lawyer.

Agreed. A lawyer will give a free consultation and he can go from there.

 

[Malibook]

In many jusisdictions refusing to test without such a medical problem increases the penalties to such a point that unless it is your fourth or five DUI you are an idiot to refuse to test.

I assume we are talking about Ontario here?
What jurisdictions are you referring to?

 

[Keebler Elf]

The poster in post #55 knows what he's talking about.

 

[Aardvark154]

I assume we are talking about Ontario here?
What jurisdictions are you referring to?

No, I said several jurisdictions (the one’s I can think of off the top of my head are U.S. states). If I was referring to Ontario I would have specifically said so. (Later comment the above sounds a bit sharp and I don't mean it that way)

My point is that such increased penalties are common, and if you are foolish enough that you are arrested for DUI, it is generally a wise idea to test. It is I suppose possible that Ontario is an exception to the rule, but somehow I rather doubt it.

Anyone who is (and I use the word deliberately) stupid enough that they intend to play with fire, should look up what the specific laws are where they live or will be traveling.

 

[addicted2whiskey]

.

I'm an attorney but criminal law isn't my area of expertise. Though, Mr. Lucky will be given a lawyer if he cannot afford one... IMHO he should hire a DUI defense lawyer who is well-versed with the laws in Ontario. A good DUI lawyer can then examine his case for flaws and weaknesses and advise him of the most suitable course of action to fight his DUI charge. More precisely, Mr. Lucky may wish to even consider looking for a DUI lawyer who is familiar with LE in the area of his arrest. Such an attorney would prove to be very helpful as he/she should be cognizant about the common flaws in the police department’s testing of equipment or testing process. In addition, such a lawyer may choose to question the credibility of the arresting officer.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS - LAWYER UP WITH THE RIGHT LAWYER!!!! In the worst case scenario such a lawyer should be able to bring to light the weaknesses in his case which in the very least will lead to reduced charges or sentencing.

Mr. Lucky:

Best of luck and just remember that the first step in the right direction is to admit your mistake and be genuinely sorry. This is a huge mistake but consider yourself fortunate as you neither caused injury to yourself nor did you injure/ take the life of someone else. Things could have been a lot worse for you. I truly hope that you understand the consequences of drinking and driving go beyond "being caught" and don't do such a dumb thing again!

Sincerely,

A2W

 

[Hightop]

An ex-cop cannot represent him. They do not have standing in the criminal courts, this is NOT a traffic ticket. Either he represents himself, uses duty counsel, or hires a lawyer. Legal aid will not be available.

Legal aid will cover any serious driving offence that can result in suspension if the loss of you license would cause you to lose your job. Only if you qualify tho.

The OP made a mistake he has to own up to it now. You may be able to plea to careless and takes the 7 points and suspension that way no DUI and no Breath lock on the ignition.

Lets just hope he learned something for his lapse in judgement.

 

[Malibook]

Please explain how knowing the cops helps his case, I don't get it.

Having a well known talented local lawyer can be a big plus.
He can push out the trial if he is scheduled to go up against a judge he has had bad experiences with.
If he is really good and the cops and prosecutor are familiar with him, he has a better chance of quickly addressing them plus he may be more likely to get them to cut a deal and he may have more credibility in pointing out flaws in their case.