Charged With DUI When I Wasn’t Driving

bobbylee123 said:
the difference is, if someone gets pulled over while driving, the cop saw with his own eyes that this person was driving with symptoms of being drunk. In this case, the cop does not have that.
Click to expand...
hmm, so every crime needs to be seen by the cop ? I imagine most murders and thefts arent seen by a cop either - they probably should never have been convicted either. ..
 
StraightnLevel said:
Well, this morning I flew a Cherokee. A 200kt "speed limit" may exist, but I'm not sure how it impacts most GA pilots; if the Cherokee ever sees that speed, it's not going to end well. It would be roughly equivalent to a 150mph "speed limit" on a US interstate, where most of the cars would never be able to achieve that speed anyway.

My point, though, is that pilots are expected to operate at speeds that are safe and appropriate for their aircraft, capabilities, and conditions.
Click to expand...
Couple points.

1) GA also covers the thousands of fast twins, turboprops and jets.

2) More importantly, the speed limits are, at least in part, to make it less dangerous for the fast planes and slow planes to operate in the same environment by slowing down the fast planes. Just like highways demand that the Porsche that's capable of running at 150mph only go 65mph. So the "impact" to GA is that we don't have 747's flying their downwind at 400mph as they bleed off speed for landing.
 
172andyou said:
Couple points.

1) GA also covers the thousands of fast twins, turboprops and jets.

2) More importantly, the speed limits are, at least in part, to make it less dangerous for the fast planes and slow planes to operate in the same environment by slowing down the fast planes. Just like highways demand that the Porsche that's capable of running at 150mph only go 65mph. So the "impact" to GA is that we don't have 747's flying their downwind at 400mph as they bleed off speed for landing.
Click to expand...
If the same people who set highway speed limits ran the FAA, the approach pattern limit would be 54 knots, so that it would match the slowest traffic.
 
Anthem said:
hmm, so every crime needs to be seen by the cop ? I imagine most murders and thefts arent seen by a cop either - they probably should never have been convicted either. ..
Click to expand...

Apples to oranges. With a murder or other "physical" crime like that, there's usually other evidence that the crime occurred. A dead body, DNA evidence, a weapon of some sort, PLUS witnesses.

With a traffic offense (which is what a DUI ultimately is), absent an actual accident that occurred, it's much harder to develop the evidence needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in fact driving and was in fact intoxicated. In a typical case, the officer himself observes the driving, etc. (and anymore, has it on dash or body cam). That makes it pretty easy, in part because Judges and jurys tend to give officers a lot of credibility (right or wrong) and most officers aren't going to lie on the witness stand. Here, the officer doesn't have that personal observation or dash/bodycam evidence.

Remember, in our court system, just because the police and prosecutor "know" someone committed an offense does not mean that they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt using admissible, competent, credible evidence. While imperfect, the system is designed to ensure that innocent people don't get inadvertently convicted (hence the high standard and strict rules). Would you rather a relatively small number of guilty people walk free, or increase the risk of wrongful convictions? The rules of evidence and other court rules (and caselaw) are intended to create a system in which it's hard to convict an innocent person.
 
Lindberg said:
Do you practice law in Mayberry?
Click to expand...

I assume you're referring to the "most officers aren't going to lie" portion. There is certainly a meaningful contingent of law enforcement that will 100% lie through their teeth at any opportunity. But I don't believe that most will do that. In any event, in the era of body cams and dash cams, it's harder for even the dirty cops to get away with lying.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
How you figure?
Click to expand...
Look, I am sorry I posted that, I really don’t want anybody to feel bad about themselves, life is hard enough as is. But. To answer your question. I can understand about someone being enraged about the FAA making up evidence (i am). I can respect somebody defending it. What i CANNOT understand ir respect is someone who meekly, passively posts, “thats just what they do”. Just shoot yourself. Avoid the suspense. Your life is is over.
 
bradg33 said:
I assume you're referring to the "most officers aren't going to lie" portion. There is certainly a meaningful contingent of law enforcement that will 100% lie through their teeth at any opportunity. But I don't believe that most will do that. In any event, in the era of body cams and dash cams, it's harder for even the dirty cops to get away with lying.
Click to expand...
I was referring to jurors believing cops. You wouldn't have to do much of anything to get many jurors around here to mistrust a cop on the stand.
 
Iflydogs said:
Look, I am sorry I posted that, I really don’t want anybody to feel bad about themselves, life is hard enough as is. But. To answer your question. I can understand about someone being enraged about the FAA making up evidence (i am). I can respect somebody defending it. What i CANNOT understand ir respect is someone who meekly, passively posts, “thats just what they do”. Just shoot yourself. Avoid the suspense. Your life is is over.
Click to expand...
Lol!!! I think you may be referring to me.
If so, what would you suggest I do?

I don’t like it more than anyone else, but you seem full on criticism, but light on solutions.
 
Iflydogs said:
Look, I am sorry I posted that, I really don’t want anybody to feel bad about themselves, life is hard enough as is. But. To answer your question. I can understand about someone being enraged about the FAA making up evidence (i am). I can respect somebody defending it. What i CANNOT understand ir respect is someone who meekly, passively posts, “thats just what they do”. Just shoot yourself. Avoid the suspense. Your life is is over.
Click to expand...
well. First off no one’s life is over.


Also I don’t think anyone here will “feel bad” because of your post. Feel free to express yourself. Skins are thick around here. Just expect it to be a two way street.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Speeding accidents are going to have a high fatality rate if for no reason other than the amount of impact when you hit something that hits back. But I suspect most speeding accidents are about other things. Distraction, incompetence, etc.
Click to expand...

The ONLY study that linked speed with accident rate found it was DIFFERENCE in speed that caused accidents, not the actual speed. Someone going much slower than the prevaling traffic also causes accidents.

But you are correct, speed will make the accident worse and more likely be fatal.
 
Lindberg said:
I was referring to jurors believing cops. You wouldn't have to do much of anything to get many jurors around here to mistrust a cop on the stand.
Click to expand...
Which is, honestly, somewhat reasonable. Not because most cops are liars, but because all cops are human and whether wearing a badge or not, humans are pretty unreliable even if they are doing their level best to be truthful and accurate.
 
Pinecone said:
IIRC, people driving more the 15 MPH faster OR SLOWER than the prevailing traffic speed cause a significantly greater portion of the accidents.
Click to expand...
Over the holiday weekend, I saw a cop get run onto the shoulder of the freeway because he came zipping up at probably 30mph faster than the prevailing traffic, and somebody changed lanes just as he was approaching.
 
Anthem said:
hmm, so every crime needs to be seen by the cop ? I imagine most murders and thefts arent seen by a cop either - they probably should never have been convicted either. ..
Click to expand...
Yah, you need hard evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to send someone to prison for murder
 
bobbylee123 said:
yes, witnesses who said he was driving erratically. Doesn't mean he was drunk while driving, could just be an awful driver
Click to expand...
Yup…and since he refused BAC tests, the law presumes that the awful driving is due to being drunk.

And how much you wanna bet something to the effect of, “I’m not driving drunk, I’m walking drunk,” was part of the conversation with police?
 
bobbylee123 said:
Yah, you need hard evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to send someone to prison for murder
Click to expand...
ummm - you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt for all convictions in our court system - DUI included. Not sure what other versions of proof in a court of law you are talking about. . .. or is this just a conspiracy theory on something else you believe in not based on reality ?
 
Anthem said:
ummm - you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt for all convictions in our court system - DUI included. Not sure what other versions of proof in a court of law you are talking about. . .. or is this just a conspiracy theory on something else you believe in not based on reality ?
Click to expand...
Yeah and I’m saying, given the info we have, there is not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he was driving under the influence, how are you not following?
 
bobbylee123 said:
Yeah and I’m saying, given the info we have, there is not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he was driving under the influence, how are you not following?
Click to expand...

he was seen driving erratically. he was walking - police probably identified drunk. His car got from one place to somewhere where it wasnt supposed to be or was allowed to park there. Pretty beyond reasonable. They just dont know to what amount because he refused. So since you aren't allowed to refuse - just throw the entire book at him on suspended license, etc etc. Same outcome either way.
 
bobbylee123 said:
Yeah and I’m saying, given the info we have, there is not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he was driving under the influence, how are you not following?
Click to expand...
the info we have is “I decided to go get a few drinks. I planned to only have ~2. Unfortunately, 2 turned into about 4-5 over the course of a few hours. Anyway, I believed I was okay to drive as I drank some water and waited a hour before driving. I drove for approximately 2 miles before realizing I was not okay to drive.”

doesn’t seem to be a reasonable doubt there.
 
Anthem said:
he was seen driving erratically. he was walking - police probably identified drunk. His car got from one place to somewhere where it wasnt supposed to be or was allowed to park there. Pretty beyond reasonable. They just dont know to what amount because he refused. So since you aren't allowed to refuse - just throw the entire book at him on suspended license, etc etc. Same outcome either way.
Click to expand...
Any good lawyer will obviously argue that OP had every right to refuse a breathalyzer. It’s perfectly within his right to do so because HE WAS NOT DRIVING. He was a pedestrian.

Ultimately, it will depend on what op argues. He will need to explain to the judge why he was driving erratically, why he abandoned it, and why he started walking.

My point still stands tho, because the police officer did not directly see him driving drunk, he still has a fighting chance.
 
MauleSkinner said:
the info we have is “I decided to go get a few drinks. I planned to only have ~2. Unfortunately, 2 turned into about 4-5 over the course of a few hours. Anyway, I believed I was okay to drive as I drank some water and waited a hour before driving. I drove for approximately 2 miles before realizing I was not okay to drive.”

doesn’t seem to be a reasonable doubt there.
Click to expand...
lol the information we have is obviously not the same information the judge will have. I assume op is smart enough to not tell the judge everything
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
When I read these weekly posts about alcohol and driving problems I am reminded that the best thing I did for myself was to quit. It's a huge relief to not having that worry at every outside meal or event.
I'm flying for people now who might only give a few hours notice, that was the main reason.
Click to expand...

I am shocked at the number of time this comes up on all the various pilot boards. Very glad that I do not drink and can count the number of times I’ve had alcohol on one hand… all a very long time ago.
 
bobbylee123 said:
Any good lawyer will obviously argue that OP had every right to refuse a breathalyzer. It’s perfectly within his right to do so because HE WAS NOT DRIVING. He was a pedestrian.

Ultimately, it will depend on what op argues. He will need to explain to the judge why he was driving erratically, why he abandoned it, and why he started walking.

My point still stands tho, because the police officer did not directly see him driving drunk, he still has a fighting chance.
Click to expand...
Let’s not forget that the criminal case could be dismissed and it would have no impact on the FAA.
 
Bacho said:
I would not be surprised at all to learn the rest was made up.
Click to expand...
Like most of the OPs story you mean? 4-5 drinks over “a few hours” and then waiting an hour before driving, you’d be fine. I’m guessing it was more like double that and he didn’t wait and got in the car and realized he was bombed and then parked the car on the sidewalk. These stories are always told to favor the teller.
 
I think he proved he was below 0.15 by stopping and choosing to walk. He wasn’t so far gone that he couldn’t fix the problem.

Since we like to speculate here: The “witness” was an angry ex who spiked his/her drink, the atm video pointed a different direction, the gas station video overwrites its recordings every week and are unavailable, the govt plate readers were too far apart to determine who else was driving in the area, the other witness saw a ford not a Chevy, it was dark out so no tag number or view of the driver, etc.
 
Randomskylane said:
I think he proved he was below 0.15 by stopping and choosing to walk. He wasn’t so far gone that he couldn’t fix the problem.

Since we like to speculate here: The “witness” was an angry ex who spiked his/her drink, the atm video pointed a different direction, the gas station video overwrites its recordings every week and are unavailable, the govt plate readers were too far apart to determine who else was driving in the area, the other witness saw a ford not a Chevy, it was dark out so no tag number or view of the driver, etc.
Click to expand...
 
mryan75 said:
Like most of the OPs story you mean? 4-5 drinks over “a few hours” and then waiting an hour before driving, you’d be fine. I’m guessing it was more like double that and he didn’t wait and got in the car and realized he was bombed and then parked the car on the sidewalk. These stories are always told to favor the teller.
Click to expand...
I guess I’ll recognize my own bias. I find an accused drunk driver posting anonymously as more credible than your average police officer.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
It just irritates me that police would harass somebody that was clearly trying to do the right thing and basically destroy their life over it.

It's one reason I don't even drink occasionally anymore when I'll be driving. I didn't usually have more than one drink anyway, but even that's not worth the risk these days. It's easy for me though as I don't really enjoy drinking or being drunk. I can make an ass of myself while perfectly sober, thank you.
Click to expand...
I doubt the cops wanted to harass him. Once a call was made to the PD about possible drunk driver, they have no choice but to pursue it to the end. Arrest etc.
 
A neighbor of mine gave up on driving his car home, and was walking down a street, when a cop drove up. The cop thought that he would get hit by a car if he continued zig zagging down the middle of the street, and drove him to his home.

The cop also relieved him of his car keys, and gave him a note with a phone number.

My neighbor had that day been fired from the police department for drunkenness on duty. His friend, the cop who picked him up, gave him a very graphic description of his walk down that street. Then the car keys were returned, along with a ride to where it had been abandoned with the wheels over the curb.

My neighbor joined Alcoholics Anonymous two day later, and never drank again. He earned my personal respect over and over.

When a cop picks you up while staggering down a street, and takes you in, there is a lot to the story, and if there is in car video of the staggering, the OP may be well advised to plead to a reduced charge.
 
Bacho said:
I guess I’ll recognize my own bias. I find an accused drunk driver posting anonymously as more credible than your average police officer.
Click to expand...
Police officer aside, every drunk driving story as told by the driver is told to favor the driver.
 
Back
Top