Yet another DUI...ish question.

comanchepilot said:
There is one city in Calif in Orange County that RARELY sees traffic enforcement of residents other than warnings because the citizens have learned to plead not guilty to everything - which requires officers in court - over time spending, etc etc etc. So the police commissions simply chatted with their chiefs and instead of issuing tickets and then dismissing them when the defendant shows up in court, they just give residents warnings - unless it results in accident, property damage or dui or happens in a school or senior zone.
Click to expand...

I've considered going to court for a moving violation a couple times but in MN (or at least in Hennepin County where I do much of my driving) they claim you will have "court costs" added to the fine if you choose that route. Seems even more like a racket with that disincentive. Maybe next time I'll do it anyway just to see what happens. They do have a process where you can see a "court clerk" who has a little discretion to reduce charges or give you the option of paying the fine without the violation going on your record if you stay "clean" for a year. The last ticket I got was for "crossing a double white line" (painted barrier for a HOV lane). The reality was there was only a single white line where I crossed because the DMV had inadvertently painted over one of the lines with black paint. The officer who wrote the ticket told me "you know darn well that line is supposed to be white". I took a picture to the clerk and he dropped the charges but to my chagrin pointed out that there were actually two charges (which would have meant double the money), the other being "improper lane change". I tried to convince him the second charge was a bogus as the first but he said he "couldn't do anything about that one because it was "my word against the officer's".
 
gismo said:
I’ve considered going to court for a moving violation a couple times but in MN (or at least in Hennepin County where I do much of my driving) they claim you will have “court costs” added to the fine if you choose that route. Seems even more like a racket with that disincentive. Maybe next time I’ll do it anyway just to see what happens. They do have a process where you can see a “court clerk” who has a little discretion to reduce charges or give you the option of paying the fine without the violation going on your record if you stay “clean” for a year. The last ticket I got was for “crossing a double white line” (painted barrier for a HOV lane). The reality was there was only a single white line where I crossed because the DMV had inadvertently painted over one of the lines with black paint. The officer who wrote the ticket told me “you know darn well that line is supposed to be white”. I took a picture to the clerk and he dropped the charges but to my chagrin pointed out that there were actually two charges (which would have meant double the money), the other being “improper lane change”. I tried to convince him the second charge was a bogus as the first but he said he “couldn’t do anything about that one because it was ”my word against the officer’s".
Click to expand...

Moving way off topic here, so I’ll help move it further along.

If it’s a speeding ticket in Hennepin County you have options. Nearly all speeding tickets under 10mph over the limit can be legally changed to non-moving violations (that don’t affect insurance). Otherwise you can meet with a hearing officer (http://www.mncourts.gov/district/4/?page=622) who can work with you to reduce the fine and/or violation. This worked for me after I got my first ticket in 10 years. I explained the situation and he changed it to a non-moving violation and I was on my way. Insurance didn’t ever find out.
 
So, as this thread had pretty much run its course, I'll ask a related question. Over the years I've heard it stated that it's a federal offense to be drinking and in possession of firearms.

True? OWT?

If true amost all the deer camps across the U.S. commit a federal offense every fall.
 
Wouldn't most homeowners in Missouri fall into the same category as well?

timwinters said:
So, as this thread had pretty much run its course, I'll ask a related question. Over the years I've heard it stated that it's a federal offense to be drinking and in possession of firearms.

True? OWT?

If true amost all the deer camps across the U.S. commit a federal offense every fall.
Click to expand...
 
EdFred said:
There's enough officers out there that don't even know how their speed guns work (found this out when I disemboweled the last one in front of the judge). Do you *really* expect me to trust them to know how the roadside breathalyzer works? Most of the ones I've run into seem so excited to "do something" that they don't give a crap whether what they are doing is right.
Click to expand...

Probably true, but the officer doesn't need to know how it works, they have to know how to use it correctly. A 10-minute wait on a watch is not too complicated. And if they don't follow the use protocol, take it to 'em in court. But keep in mind DUI only requires proof of impairment, not an over-limit BAC. The BAC is just one part of the evidence. A valuable part if done correctly, sure - but not the only one.

And as far as the FAA is concerned, there's a bigger picture. It's not the conviction you report. It's the arrest.

I'm a real believer in innocent until proven guilty, and in making sure the evidence is legit. If it's not, throw it out and look at the rest of the evidence, then decide what's provable.
 
greghughes said:
Probably true, but the officer doesn't need to know how it works, they have to know how to use it correctly. A 10-minute wait on a watch is not too complicated. And if they don't follow the use protocol, take it to 'em in court. But keep in mind DUI only requires proof of impairment, not an over-limit BAC. The BAC is just one part of the evidence. A valuable part if done correctly, sure - but not the only one.

And as far as the FAA is concerned, there's a bigger picture. It's not the conviction you report. It's the arrest.

I'm a real believer in innocent until proven guilty, and in making sure the evidence is legit. If it's not, throw it out and look at the rest of the evidence, then decide what's provable.
Click to expand...

A good point, I know an officer who arrested a guy who was only .03 but was convicted because he couldn't even walk unassisted to the squad car. In fact ohio has no "legal limit" you are impaired or you are not.
 
docmirror said:
Well, as always have your day in court.

Carry this: http://www.walgreens.com/store/c/listerine-cool-mint-antiseptic-mouthwash/ID=prod4267062-product

along with your piece. When you get stopped, and you have to blow, you blow a .03, and are given a civil infraction. Show the 'arresting' officer your bottle, with the cap seal open, and then when you get to court, and the cop is on the stand:

You: "Officer Barney, when you infracted me, did I show you a mouthwash product?"
Barney: "Yes."
You: "Was the cap cracked, and several ounces missing from the bottle?"
Barney: "Yes."
You: "Are you aware of studies(holds up manila folder) showing that recent use of mouthwash products can adversely affect your BAC device?"
Barney: "No."
You: "You should be."
DA: "Objection."
Judge: "Sustained."
You(smirking): "Oh - desperately sorry. No more questions of this witness."
Click to expand...

This doesn't work. Anybody who has been given the BAC machine to use has been trained to in the case of "mouthwash defense" or such to wait a few minutes for the alcohol to evaporate/dissipate from the mouth and retest.
 
Henning said:
This doesn't work. Anybody who has been given the BAC machine to use has been trained to in the case of "mouthwash defense" or such to wait a few minutes for the alcohol to evaporate/dissipate from the mouth and retest.
Click to expand...

I'm going to say no they always don't. Hell, they can't even use the radar guns correctly. You gotta know how something works to use it correctly.
 
EdFred said:
I'm going to say no they always don't. Hell, they can't even use the radar guns correctly. You gotta know how something works to use it correctly.
Click to expand...

Nope, they just have to be told, "If someone says they just had mouthwash, wait 10 minutes and retest." They don't need to know anything, just do what they are told.
 
Henning said:
Nope, they just have to be told, "If someone says they just had mouthwash, wait 10 minutes and retest." They don't need to know anything, just do what they are told.
Click to expand...

I've seen enough examples of them using radar guns incorrectly, that I don't trust them to be able to use that correctly either.
 
EdFred said:
I've seen enough examples of them using radar guns incorrectly, that I don't trust them to be able to use that correctly either.
Click to expand...

Well, don't use mouthwash as you're getting pulled over and it won't happen.
 
gismo said:
I've considered going to court for a moving violation a couple times but in MN (or at least in Hennepin County where I do much of my driving) they claim you will have "court costs" added to the fine if you choose that route. Seems even more like a racket with that disincentive. Maybe next time I'll do it anyway just to see what happens. They do have a process where you can see a "court clerk" who has a little discretion to reduce charges or give you the option of paying the fine without the violation going on your record if you stay "clean" for a year. The last ticket I got was for "crossing a double white line" (painted barrier for a HOV lane). The reality was there was only a single white line where I crossed because the DMV had inadvertently painted over one of the lines with black paint. The officer who wrote the ticket told me "you know darn well that line is supposed to be white". I took a picture to the clerk and he dropped the charges but to my chagrin pointed out that there were actually two charges (which would have meant double the money), the other being "improper lane change". I tried to convince him the second charge was a bogus as the first but he said he "couldn't do anything about that one because it was "my word against the officer's".
Click to expand...

Had you not argued the point with the cop he might have not added on the second charge.
 
5/4's of people don't understand fractions, or statistics for that matter.
 
Skylane81E said:
Michigan must suck, Ohio has standardized training
Click to expand...

They supposedly get training, but when I asked him in court how it works, his explanation was "he points it at something and it gives him a speed." I asked if he knew how it works and what would cause errors in a reading. Blank stare.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top