DUI Advice.

I personally know of 2. In both the BAC wasn't that high and the cop made errors on the police report leading the magistrate to not suspend the license. The only way your license will be suspended without exception is if you refused a breathalyzer test. Otherwise its depends on a number of things. So no it will NOT always be suspended.

.

your talking about some errors within cops... that has nothing to do with the DUI itself... if your pulled over, over the limit, and everything is in order... your license is gone...

sure, if the cop does something wrong, beats the person for no reason, forgets to do something like submit certian items.. .they may get off on a technicality.... but that's goes for any crime...
 
you have been arrested for driving under the influence you must submit to a chemical test, blood or breath (urine, which was generally discontinued in 2000, is only an option if blood or breath is unavailable or if drugs are suspected) to determine the alcohol content of your blood. Failure to complete or refusal to take a test will result in suspension of your driver's license for one year (WITH NO RIGHT TO A WORK RELATED DRIVING LICENSE) if you are a first time offender, a two year suspension if you have a prior conviction within 10 years.
If any one of the chemical test(s) you choose determines your blood alcohol level is .08 percent or more, your driver's license will immediately be taken by the officer at the time of your arrest. Since the DMV is considered a civil arena, your due process rights have been determined by the courts not to apply. The officer will issue paperwork from the Department of Motor vehicles (Form DS-367) which is a 30-day temporary license which will allow you to drive while awaiting assignment of a hearing date. If the DMV assigns a hearing date after 30 days, which they commonly have to do because they are overbooked, you should receive an written extension so you can continue to drive until the hearing decision comes to you (it is ALWAYS mailed weeks, sometimes months after the hearing date) even after your 30 day temporary license has expired. In this manner your license may be extended many months after you were arrested for the offense.
If you do not request a hearing with the Department of Motor Vehicles within 10 days of your arrest (it used to be 30 days and some officers still mistakenly issuing the old forms can inadvertently give you an extra large window to request a hearing), your license will be automatically suspended. Typically, if you lose the hearing or fail to request a hearing in time, the Department of Motor Vehicles will suspend your privilege to drive for four months (one year if you have a prior conviction). However, you may be eligible for a five month restricted license after 30 days of your suspension, only if you are a first time offender. If you have a prior conviction within 10 years you are not eligible for a restricted (work driving only license) until a one year suspension is completed (and you must be attending the 18 month multiple offender alcohol program).
Failure to complete or refusal to take a blood alcohol test will result in suspension of the driver's license for one year (with no work related license available) .
Even if 10 days have passed, it may be possible to get a Department of Motor Vehicles hearing, depending upon the facts of your case. The DMV has been known to grant late hearing requests, on a case by case basis, if sufficient good cause can be shown in a written request setting forth the reasons. If you are beyond 10 days, contact the Department of Motor Vehicles to request a hearing immediately and, more importantly, contact a lawyer immediately to try to preserve and protect your rights.
At the APS hearing, either in person or by telephonic conference call, the DMV hearing officer preceding acts as both prosecutor and judge which definitely stacks the odds of winning in the DMV's favor. The hearing officer rules on all of his or her objections and after seeking to prove the DMV's case against you that same hearing officer (with no formal legal training) then decides if you win or lose. Although the above procedure has been upheld by the courts since the DMV proceeding is not criminal and your right to drive is a privilege and not a right, at least the whole matter MUST be tape recorded by the DMV. The tape recording provides a record should you want to appeal the DMV's ruling against you either to the DMV itself (an administrative appeal with predictable results) or through the courts (where the chance of success is increased somewhat but the cost of the matter to you is increased substantially).
Issues at the DMV Hearing depend upon whether the accused took a chemical test (breath, blood, or urine) or not.
If a chemical test was taken, the issues are:
  1. Did the officer have reasonable cause to believe that the accused was driving a motor vehicle in violation of the drunk-driving laws (Vehicle Code Sections 23152 or 23153)?
  2. Was the accused lawfully arrested?
  3. Was the accused driving a motor vehicle when she or he had .08 or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood?
If a chemical test was not taken, the issues are ( in addition to the above first two issues):
  1. Was the accused told that their driving privilege would be suspended for one year, or revoked for two or three years, if they refused to submit to, or failed to complete, a chemical test?
  2. Did the accused refuse to submit to, or fail to complete, a chemical test after being requested to do so by a peace officer?
Lastly, the DMV most often sets aside the suspension (meaning you win) based on technical violations of law which the layperson (you) often does not realize exists. So the DMV case against you that may seem airtight, because the alcohol level is over the legal limit, can many times be won because of the officer's inability to strictly follow the legal guidelines. Statistic show persons contesting the DMV suspension, with an attorney, win approximately 30% to 50% of the time they fight
 
so basically, if your convicted of a DUI, you will lose your licnese... the only way not to, is if the cop screws up, or made some type of mistake....
 
Gee I don't know, arresting robbers, drug-dealers, rapists, killers, arsonists, etc. etc. etc. who are all 100x more dangerous to society than some scared kid sipping a beer outside his apartment.

I love it when people use this ridiculous argument. That's when you know they have no clue what they're talking about when it comes to police work.

First, there ARE officers out there doing those things. They're just not all doing that at once, because if they were, the little laws wouldn't be enforced. There are some directing traffic, handing out tickets, handling misdemeanors, dumb kids, loud parties, etc.

Second, cops don't generally just hang around waiting to stop crimes like a superhero. They certainly patrol certain areas closely in the event that this happens, but most of the time, they investigate and put a stop to whatever happens to come along during that patrol, be it misdemeanor or felony, and if a crime occurs that they weren't aware of previously, they respond to it and react to it.

You're dangerously close to acting like this officer actually decided to let a crime be committed or go unpunished in order to give a kid a hard time for no reason at all. Which is just silly.

It's entirely possible the officer was a prick. A lot of them are. It's also entirely possible chaseter was being a prick. What is pretty clear is that the officer was following the law. Which is what he's supposed to do. You want to make statements about whether that law is fair, etc, etc, go ahead, I may agree with you, but don't condemn the officer for doing what he's supposed to be doing in the first place.

Yeah, ok, thats why 80% of people on the highway are 15 over the speed limit and never get stopped, because cops are supposed to uphold the law down to the letter, no matter the circumstance with no exception whatsoever.

I say use personal discretion. I this case, most NORMAL cops would decide that this guy was not worth throwing the slammer and hitting him with thousands of $ in court costs just because he lied about some underage drinking.

If he wanted to uphold the law so bad he could have given him a ticket. This was pretty excessive considering the 'severity' of the offense.

I said it is an officer's job to uphold the law. I didn't say they all did it, or that they all did it to the same degree. The one chaseter encountered did. And I'm supposed to what, pity him because he got caught outright lying to someone who did choose to uphold the law? For whatever reason, he did something incredibly stupid. He paid the price for it. Hopefully he learned from it, but it seems that what he's "learned" is along the lines of "This is everyone else's fault but mine".

You're right, what the cop did would seem pretty extreme given the severity of the offense. You're also right that most officers probably wouldn't have hauled him into jail for underage drinking. I doubt we've heard the whole story. We never seem to around here.
 
Last edited:
your talking about some errors within cops... that has nothing to do with the DUI itself... if your pulled over, over the limit, and everything is in order... your license is gone...

sure, if the cop does something wrong, beats the person for no reason, forgets to do something like submit certian items.. .they may get off on a technicality.... but that's goes for any crime...

Errors, vagueness about what happened, etc.. It only takes one. And it happens more than you think.

It would help OP if he remembered more about the night, but the mere fact he got a DUI is not going to guarantee his license will get nuked. Period.
 
Errors, vagueness about what happened, etc.. It only takes one. And it happens more than you think.

It would help OP if he remembered more about the night, but the mere fact he got a DUI is not going to guarantee his license will get nuked. Period.

it ussualy comes down to how they treated you, and the results of the breathalizer and bloodtest....

my buddy got a DUI, lost his license... and the cop arrested him in his house... he didn't get caught driving... a neighbor reported him driving by fast, so the cop came to his, noticed his breath and breathalized him... turns out my buddies friend was driving, and he left in his car before the cop got there since they drove together that night... cop, nor court beleived either of them... 6 months his license was gone
 
I love it when people use this ridiculous argument. That's when you know they have no clue what they're talking about when it comes to police work.

Cops don't just hang around waiting to stop crimes like a superhero. They patrol in the event that this happens, but most of the time, they investigate and put a stop to whatever happens to come along during that patrol, be it misdemeanor or felony, and if a crime occurs that they weren't aware of previously, they respond to it and react to it.

You're dangerously close to acting like this officer actually decided to let a crime be committed or go unpunished in order to give a kid a hard time for no reason at all.

It's entirely possible the officer was a prick. A lot of them are. It's also entirely possible chaseter was being a prick. What is pretty clear is that the officer was following the law. Which is what he's supposed to do. You want to make statements about whether that law is fair, etc, etc, go ahead, but don't condemn the officer for doing what he's supposed to be doing.



I said it is an officer's job to uphold the law. I didn't say they all did it, or that they all did it to the same degree. The one chaseter encountered did. And I'm supposed to what, pity him because he got caught outright lying to someone who did choose to uphold the law?

You're right, what the cop did would seem pretty extreme given the severity of the offense. You're also right that most officers probably wouldn't have hauled him into jail for underage drinking. I doubt we've heard the whole story. We never seem to around here.

the cop probably went to the house, the kids were rude, and acted like "thugs"... then lied to the cops...

don't lie to the police, it's not like they won't find out....
 
You have to be able to prove an error and then some. The department has to lose the evidence, essentially, and even then it's difficult. As I said, I had a friend where the department lost the actual evidence of the DUI, including the video recording and paperwork, and he still received punishment.
 
Okay. I found my papers.

SPEEDING 43 IN A 25 MPH ZONE. DRIFITING TOWARDS CURB.

That's not good.

UNSTEADY ON FEET, SLOW THICK SPEECH, DISORIENTED.

And the BAC results = 0.19
 
Errors, vagueness about what happened, etc.. It only takes one. And it happens more than you think.

It would help OP if he remembered more about the night, but the mere fact he got a DUI is not going to guarantee his license will get nuked. Period.


I think we are talkiing about different stuff.... your talking about punishments before hand...

I';m talking about him, being convicted of driving under the influence...

if he is convicted, the DMV will suspend his license
 
Okay. I found my papers.

SPEEDING 43 IN A 25 MPH ZONE. DRIFITING TOWARDS CURB.

That's not good.

UNSTEADY ON FEET, SLOW THICK SPEECH, DISORIENTED.

And the BAC results = 0.19

your ****ed
 
Errors, vagueness about what happened, etc.. It only takes one. And it happens more than you think.

It would help OP if he remembered more about the night, but the mere fact he got a DUI is not going to guarantee his license will get nuked. Period.

OP would remember more if he wasn't ****-faced.
 
43 in a 25 sounds like a lot, but that's pretty typical, actually.

But you were twice the legal limit.
 
Okay. I found my papers.

SPEEDING 43 IN A 25 MPH ZONE. DRIFITING TOWARDS CURB.

That's not good.

UNSTEADY ON FEET, SLOW THICK SPEECH, DISORIENTED.

And the BAC results = 0.19

The cop stopped you for an offense, administered three roadside sobriety tests and you failed all miserably. :csad: Let us know how it goes for you.

Also... don't pick up the soap.
 
I love it when people use this ridiculous argument. That's when you know they have no clue what they're talking about when it comes to police work.

You love when they do that because you take what they say literally. As if anyone actually believes there are rapes and murders going on within earshot of the arresting officer as he is being a *****ebag.

As any idiot could infer, the point is not that a cop is ignoring more serious crimes to focus on the lesser one, its that people with as much power in their hands as policeman should have perspective when dealing with insignificant crimes like this. Is drinking underage and lying about it illegal? Yes. So is jaywalking. And speeding. But these are passive laws and passive crimes that are normally harmless.

Unless someone is abusing these laws recklessly and actually putting people in danger, arresting them is not going to make society a safer place. Its just going to waste the judge's time and the defendants money. And he's still not going to stop drinking, anymore than he would stop speeding if arrested for 5mph over. In the end, all it does is piss people off and waste their time.

I said it is an officer's job to uphold the law. I didn't say they all did it, or that they all did it to the same degree. The one chaseter encountered did. And I'm supposed to what, pity him because he got caught outright lying to someone who did choose to uphold the law?

haha what? I dont pity this guy, I dont even know him. I just think the cop he described was an a-hole. And he was. Thats pretty much the extent of my interest in this.
 
Okay. I found my papers.

SPEEDING 43 IN A 25 MPH ZONE. DRIFITING TOWARDS CURB.

That's not good.

UNSTEADY ON FEET, SLOW THICK SPEECH, DISORIENTED.

And the BAC results = 0.19

You're screwed. Speeding almost 20 miles over the limit and over double the legal limit.
 
I think we are talkiing about different stuff.... your talking about punishments before hand...

I';m talking about him, being convicted of driving under the influence...

if he is convicted, the DMV will suspend his license

He could get probation before judgement. Thats a "conviction" but doesnt automatically result in suspension.

edit: nm, 0.19 + reckless driving. He's ****ed.
 
You love when they do that because you take what they say literally. As if anyone actually believes there are rapes and murders going on within earshot of the arresting officer as he is being a *****ebag.

As any idiot could infer, the point is not that a cop is ignoring more serious crimes to focus on the lesser one, its that people with as much power in their hands as policeman should have perspective when dealing with insignificant crimes like this. Is drinking underage and lying about it illegal? Yes. So is jaywalking. And speeding. But these are passive laws and passive crimes that are normally harmless.

Unless someone is abusing these laws recklessly and actually putting people in danger, arresting them is not going to make society a safer place. Its just going to waste the judge's time and the defendants money. And he's still not going to stop drinking, anymore than he would stop speeding if arrested for 5mph over. In the end, all it does is piss people off and waste their time.

haha what? I dont pity this guy, I dont even know him. I just think the cop he described was an a-hole. And he was. Thats pretty much the extent of my interest in this.

Ok they were drunk on the front lawn, passive offense, shouldn't be bothered with. Then one of them gets in a car, drives somewhere drunk and kills your family and you find out an officer just passed by because their offense wasn't big enough. What would you feel then?
 
You love when they do that because you take what they say literally. As if anyone actually believes there are rapes and murders going on within earshot of the arresting officer as he is being a *****ebag.

As any idiot could infer, the point is not that a cop is ignoring more serious crimes to focus on the lesser one, its that people with as much power in their hands as policeman should have perspective when dealing with insignificant crimes like this. Is drinking underage and lying about it illegal? Yes. So is jaywalking. And speeding. But these are passive laws and passive crimes that are normally harmless. .
underage kids, drinking outside.... they knowingly know that what they were doing was illegal, and they were doing it in public??? Why wouldn't the cop do something? If they were brash enough to do that publicy, what else might they do..[/quote]

Unless someone is abusing these laws recklessly and actually putting people in danger, arresting them is not going to make society a safer place. Its just going to waste the judge's time and the defendants money. And he's still not going to stop drinking, anymore than he would stop speeding if arrested for 5mph over. In the end, all it does is piss people off and waste their time.


haha what? I dont pity this guy, I dont even know him. I just think the cop he described was an a-hole. And he was. Thats pretty much the extent of my interest in this.

um yes it will, it does something called "deferment"... if a kid, who is underage drinking, and lieing to the cops, is punished pretty good... he's going to think twice before doing that again, and most likely not do anything worse in fear of a harsher punishment... if the cop didn't do anything, as with most punk ass kids, they will take it to the next level...

lets say I was speeding on a road at 3am... no one was out, bet I felt like going 100 in a 55mph zone... I'm not hurting anyone but myself, I was going to slow down if I saw someone... it doesn't matter... you break the law, you are punished, simple as that, everyone knows that from an early age, and to sit there later and act like getting punished was shocking and uncalled for, your just showing that you are a indeed, as you put it, an idiot.
 
Do you think I'm looking at more time in jail actually?

I think since it's you're first offense you might be okay on jail time, unless you have a history of speeding tickets. Also, if you go out of your way before the trial to show you've made changes in your life that'll help too.
 
He could get probation before judgement. Thats a "conviction" but doesnt automatically result in suspension.

edit: nm, 0.19 + reckless driving. He's ****ed.

yes it does.... if your convicted of a DUI, it's gone.... you had examples that happened before the conviction, and made it so the judge had to throw the case out or reduce the charge.... DUI conviction, your regular license is gone... they even take it away right after your arrested.... you have to get a special one until after the aranement...
 
Ok they were drunk on the front lawn, passive offense, shouldn't be bothered with. Then one of them gets in a car, drives somewhere drunk and kills your family and you find out an officer just passed by because their offense wasn't big enough. What would you feel then?

You're losing it. Thats why they dont arrest drunk in house parties or bars, or restaurants. Because its not a crime to be drinking or drunk. Only creating unsafe situations or hurting people doing it.

The only reason his situation was a crime was b/c he was underage, and lied about it. Not that he was drinking alchohol and might have decided to drive. What he could possibly do afterward in a car is irrelevant until he actually enters the drivers seat, its an entirely different offense.

FAIL.
 
Ok they were drunk on the front lawn, passive offense, shouldn't be bothered with. Then one of them gets in a car, drives somewhere drunk and kills your family and you find out an officer just passed by because their offense wasn't big enough. What would you feel then?

what would happen to that cop... he caught kids underage drinking and did nothing, then they got in a car, and killed a family.... police officer, job gone.... city, sued..... they don't screw around anymore...

we all know the laws, not hard to abide by them
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"