.08 not illegal

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
This is going to be fun to watch.

DUI law ruled unconstitutional
Va. presumes guilt if blood-alcohol level is 0.08, a judge says

BY MATTHEW BARAKAT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Aug 12, 2005

McLEAN -- A Fairfax County judge has ruled that key components of Virginia's drunken-driving laws are unconstitutional, citing an obscure, decades-old U.S. Supreme Court decision that could prompt similar challenges nationwide.

Virginia's law is unconstitutional because it presumes that an individual with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 or higher is intoxicated, denying a defendant's right to a presumption of innocence, Judge Ian O'Flaherty ruled in dismissing charges against at least two alleged drunken drivers last month.

Corinne Magee, a McLean defense lawyer who successfully argued the issue to O'Flaherty, said the judge's ruling is based on a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court case called Francis v. Franklin, which deals with prosecutors' obligation to prove all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

She said Virginia's law is problematic not just because of the presumption of intoxication at 0.08, but also a presumption in the law that the blood-alcohol level at the time the test is taken is equal to the level at the time of the offense, even if the test occurs hours after police make a stop. Magee said a person's blood-alcohol level can fluctuate up or down depending on when a person had their last drink and how their body metabolizes alcohol.
Click to expand...

Richmond Times-Dispatch
thanks jjr
 
Noone ever bring up the basic legal argument that a drivers license is a legal contract with the state and federal government that can have a line item that states that agreement to having said license surrenders ones legal right to be legally intoxicated above .08?

Perhaps an accomodation can be made. A basic license surrenders ones rights to .08 by default unless one goes through a 2 day hospital stay where the subject can go through $2500 worth of testing to find their true intoxication baseline and have it printed in bold across the face like the old way the used to say 'LEARNERS PERMIT'. 99% of people wont do it as it is such a hassle. The rest is easy tax money... and just like an FAA license, can be required to be reinstated every yesr.
 
Perhaps I missed it, but the law doesn't say anything about being intoxicated,does it? It's simply, driving with an elevated blood alcohol level.

And how the fuck are they planning on having the level go up while the suspect is in custody and not drinking? The only way I can figure that is that he choked back a few last rounds and was running for home before it hit his bloodstream.

Fucking idiots. I like the middle east reasoning for this. Charge: Attempted vehicular homicide. Sentence : death.

Works for me.
 
Professur said:
Perhaps I missed it, but the law doesn't say anything about being intoxicated,does it? It's simply, driving with an elevated blood alcohol level.
Click to expand...
It's DWI - the I being Intoxicated in some states and DUI (Under the Influence) in others. The question being, how much alcohol do you have to have in your system before your driving skills are 'influenced'?

Is a glass of wine with supper 2 hours before you leave still leave enough alcohol in your system to influence you? Depends on the person's weight and metabolism. :shrug:
 
BTW... just in case being an ambulance chaser wasn't enough for some lawyers, you can specialize in DWI/DUI Defence Lawyer. 505 hits on Google.


I personally was a witness in a DWI arrest. (Called 911 on the idiot). Waited for a hour before I got called up to the stand, got roasted for 45 minutes by the 'defence lawyer' etc. Found out that the guy had hired the best lawyer in Quebec, several nurses and put a Doctor on retainer so that he wouldn't have to face jail-time and a fine.

Months later, the prosecutor called me to say that it was still in appeals. I hadv't heard anything since... :shrug:

Guess he appealed it to death.
 
Theres a mighty big gulf between influence and imparment. I think it should be kept at influence levels... aka... .02. God knows they are banning cellphone usage because of its 'influence' upon the driver. Alcohol is arguably worse becasue of it being a nervous system depressant slowing reaction times by a tiny amount. Sometimes a tiny amount is all that is needed for a mondo disaster.
 
They'd better get a test going for Cannabis and Exstasy (among the plethora of drugs out there) while they're at it.

Dopers can blow into those little alc-test bongs to their hearts content and still not read as 'impaired'.
 
Most states have multi-level laws.

DWI/DUI

and

Driving with a BAL above 0.xx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top