cotybear
Journeyman
Reged: 01/30/04
Posts: 52
Loc: south east
|
|
I'm afraid to do that as i would then be doctor shopping. My refill will be due first of next week anyway. So i am just going to suffer it out hopefully i won't die. Although i have seen times i thought i would feel better if i did.
|
Dante6677
Member
Reged: 08/14/03
Posts: 136
Loc: Fl. Panhandle
|
|
In my state a refusal is an automatic DUI also and an automatic 6mth suspention, However..in the procedings that follow no evidence is better for you than some evidence for them and can save you the $2000 fine and an actual DUI on your record etc..no matter what they tell you is automatic you still get your day in court.~
|
brenda1231
Journeyman
Reged: 11/22/03
Posts: 52
|
|
Quote:
A little late for this now, but still good advice in the USA.
If stopped for any DUI/DWI offense NEVER blow, give blood or urine. Just sit there. You will loose your driving privileges for a short time - but a competent attorney can straighten the mess out to a reckless operation deal typically with ease. The police can't force you to take any test for a minor traffic stop. You have rights as well - The consequences of denial to take any test to "clear yourself" are ALWAYS much less than taking the test and giving them proof you were impaired.
This is what I thought too.
However, in 2002 I was stopped and refused a breathalyzer. I had 2 drinks, the last one only 10 minutes before being stopped and at that time I was not sure of the implications, with the drink being so close to the pull. I was basically afraid the short period of time since the drink would cause me to blow high.
I had been driving for over 8 hours with a 13 month old, and was searching for a campground that myself, my 13 month old and 16 YO woulb be staying at. Stopped at a rest area, and had a banana shnaps from the cooler (yummy...but low alcohol content) and found the campsite on the map.
Back on the highway I ws pulled about 5 miles from the rest area.
I passed all the roadside tests and was arrested for DUI anyway.
I had what I was told was a wonderful lawyer, and found out that in NC refusng the test was considered an admission of guilt. Basically if I fought and requested a jury hearing, with the kids in the car I was in deep crapola.
It was a big mess. DUI's are much more severe than I think the original psoter is assuming. Even under the influence of narcostics.
Your insurance is going to go sky high as well.
For me, the whole ordeal cost me, a DSS visit, drug and alcohol education ( paid for out of my pocket at about $2500 and 3hours a night, 3 nights a week for 3 months) $2500, in lawyer fees, the court fees and fines, suspended liscense fro a year, and of course outrageous insurance rates and worst of all, custody of my 16 YO.
It CAN be a big deal.
--------------------
Cheers,
B~
|
neonsign2003
Old Hand
Reged: 12/26/02
Posts: 468
Loc: midwest
|
|
YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THE FIELD TEST PERIOD. ALL IT IS USED FOR IS SO THE POLICE CAN SAY YOU FAILED IT, THUS GIVING THEM "PROBABLE CAUSE" TO ASK YOU TO TAKE THE OTHER TEST.................I ALWAYS KEEP A TAPE RECORDER WITH ME. REASON? THE COPS SCREW UP MANY TIMES AND YOU HAVE A RECORD OF EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID. THE FIRST THE POLICE HEAR ABOUT YOU HAVING TAPED THEM SHOULD COME ONLY FROM YOUR LAWYER............IT WORKS
|
Dasani
Enthusiast
Reged: 10/29/03
Posts: 286
Loc: FL
|
|
That's what attorney's are for, to find holes in the police officer's case. Trust me! After being in Law Enforcement for 15 years, I know that no arrest is foolproof. The case can appear solid as a rock on the outside and after a defense attorney is done with it, it looks more like Swiss cheese. First, use the court appointed attorney and if you aren't satisfied with his or her responses to the situation, then shell out a little more for a personal attorney. But there is no way in HE(double-hockey sticks)that you'll burn for this UNLESS; YOU ADMIT YOUR GUILT or YOU DON'T BOTHER TO FIGHT IT or YOU TAKE A BAD PLEA DEAL! Too many people just give up and assume that they are screwed and that's not always the case. I've had so many cases that I absolutely knew I would WIN in court and then all of the sudden lost it on a technicality. It happens all the time. Besides, 90% of all criminal cases end in a plea agreement and of the 10% of cases that actually go to trial, less than 1/2 are actually convicted, so the odds are in your favor, as the criminal justice system favors the defendant. The prosecutor must prove his case "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that is a very difficult thing for the average state prosecutor to do. GET AN ATTORNEY NOW! Good luck, once again!
|
Jaketoo
Journeyman
Reged: 10/13/03
Posts: 80
|
|
Dasani
Your 90% ratio of pleas is dead on in my area.
You have a much better chance of a reduced charge (say Reckless Op) if no tests where taken.
Without the test there is still doubt and doubt is the premise our legal system is based on.
The fines/schools/suspended driving privileges, etc., are a part of the deal whether you are cooperative or not.
If you get stopped for a DUI/DWI and you are impaired you must play the cards dealt you. At least play them with some dignity and knowledge.
|
brenda1231
Journeyman
Reged: 11/22/03
Posts: 52
|
|
Quote:
YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THE FIELD TEST PERIOD. ALL IT IS USED FOR IS SO THE POLICE CAN SAY YOU FAILED IT, THUS GIVING THEM "PROBABLE CAUSE" TO ASK YOU TO TAKE THE OTHER TEST.................I ALWAYS KEEP A TAPE RECORDER WITH ME. REASON? THE COPS SCREW UP MANY TIMES AND YOU HAVE A RECORD OF EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID. THE FIRST THE POLICE HEAR ABOUT YOU HAVING TAPED THEM SHOULD COME ONLY FROM YOUR LAWYER............IT WORKS
I was actually given this advice.
"Do not get out of the car. Tell the officer that unless you are under arrest, you have the right to NOT get out of your car, or submit to ANY questioning or tests or searches. Provide your insurance and DL requested and wait."
There's a legal advise website that gives that advice, and actually has a card to print out, stating your rights, and advises handing it to the officer.
My personal opinion is this is an easy way to tick off a cop and have them arrest you.
However, I was researching my situation 'after the fact' and found a wealth of info that supported OUR rights, including not answering ANY questions and such.
In my instance, I had been driving a long time, was tired, am night blind to begin with, was in the mountains and had just consumed a mini bottle of ice cold yummy schnaps(at a rest area while checking a map...admittedly STUPID!); therefore I am sure the smell of alcohol was strong and I probably had red or glassy eyes. Mine was a losing battle with the officer. I was not drunk,(and luckily had not consumed any or had any narcotics with me) but under the circumstances I really could not fault the officer for suspecting such. I was also out of state. My attorney later stated that he wished I HAD taken the breathalyzer as I more than likely would have passed.
Other things I have found out since the conviction, lead me to believe that had I had better contact/communication with my attorney or asked for a jury trial I likely would not have been convicted. However, the biggie for me was the out of state situation, having to drive to court, have only 'phone meetings' with attorney, etc.
At any rate, whomever said do not plead guilty or admit guilt is correct IMO.
And I go one further and say appeal and ask for a jury trial should you be convicted.
One very important thing to consider is that DSS can and often will get involved if you have chldren. Regardless of whether they were in the car or not! That was the case with me, I had to go through a 3 month Intense treatment/education program that was 3 nights a week for 3 hours a night @ $75 per hour and at my own expense! This was to satisfy Dss.....I still have to go through another alcohol/drug awareness program to get license back!  this is at least another $500.00!
In fact I have been on the phone with everybody from DMV to the couselors at the program I went through for DSS today and keep getting the run around. At this point I am going to go throught he darned thing, rather than waste any more time. Which brings up another issue that is off topic. (pee tests for THIS program)
For the record, my DUI was in NC, which is not my home state, but where we were going camping. NC law it seems that a breathalyzer refusal is pretty much considered an admission of guilt.
In My home state I know several people who had DUI's lessened to reckless by refusing the tests and or plea bargains, however the reckless driving convictions were treaed as DUI's as for requiring a Drug/Alcohol awareness program, Sr-22 and insurance hike.
okay..I am out of breath..why can't I type a two line post????? 
--------------------
Cheers,
B~
|
cotybear
Journeyman
Reged: 01/30/04
Posts: 52
Loc: south east
|
|
Well luckily i don't have any kids that the dss will be concerned with i have my baby (the love of my life) which is a raccoon that further tramatised me being in jail not knowing if i would get out that night or not and i had put him in his cage b4 i left not knowing how long it would take at the ER and my husband can't do anything with him so if i hadn't got out he would have had to stay in his little cage until i did and it was bad enough knowing he had to stay in a cage 12 hours i would have been totally distrat if he had to stay in that cage over night. I already knew my husband was ok and i was totally worried about my baby while i was there. But along with that i think the cop made many mistakes as i have read the ticket again found out he didn't even see me swirve he was watching for me from someone calling in so that should be hear say plus he didn't tell me i was under arrest when he went to search my car without asking for permission and then he searched my purse as i didn't think a male cop should do that anyway being i may have had personal female stuff in there that was none of his business plus he done a partial search of me and still never wrote on my arrest ticket that i failed the field test and no incar cam. So i think a good lawyer can find alot of holes in this case however being unemployed and not wanting my family to find out i may try a public defender but i called one yesterday when i was checking to see if they could get my med's back and i already know she will not do she had the nerve to say to me when i told her i need my presciption meds back prescribed to me by a dr. that she didn't see any reason i would have any medical need to get my hydrocodone back like she had a medical background to make that decision. But i also called a real lawyer he also said he couldn't get my med's back but was compasionate enough to say he could understand has how i would need them back but said they would deny having them now that they would have been sent off to a lab for testing but said he could help me with the dui no problem but that will cause me to have to admit to my family i got a dui because i will have to ask them for the money. Also check this out when i was at the hospital getting my bloodwork done the cop said this is the hospital your husband is at right i said yes he said he would go check on him and when he went to check on him he come back and said yeah he's getting his pain med's now as i had told the cop i was rushing to the ER has my husband had fallen and hurt his self but when he went down there to check on him the hospital should not have realeased that much info as to what he was getting should they? it should have been a simple yes he is doing fine or no he isn't because the cop had no warrant or any reason to be there on him and isn't that some sort of hippa or patient/dr privilage when they realized that much info to the cop? Telling him what he was there for and what he is being treated with.
|
johng
Board Addict
Reged: 02/13/03
Posts: 352
Loc: great lakes
|
|
it is obvious that there was wrong done here. does any one know or can point some help( brother, sister, cousin or even a former roommate) in her direction?????
johng
--------------------
Ask and it will be given to you Matthew 7:7
|
dhc_60
Member
Reged: 01/31/04
Posts: 175
Loc: mo.
|
|
it is not illegal to drink and drive. you have to have a blood-alchohol limit over .070.. i would assume there is a blood level for hydro. that is legal too.
--------------------
everything is going according to plan... its just not my plan.
|
Dasani
Enthusiast
Reged: 10/29/03
Posts: 286
Loc: FL
|
|
Not true, Blood tests will not show levels of narcotics, only trace or presence. Either way, if you have a valid perscription, it is not illegal to operate a motor vehicle (or heavy machinery) while under the influence of that substance. That's why the warning labels say "use caution while" instead of "do not"! The best they can do is reduce it to a careless driving (for the reported lane weaving) and let it go. As for the cop and your husband...The cop has a right to know anything he feels is pertinent to an investigation, and the hospital has a duty to dicsclose most of that info., but if I were you I would just focus on beating these BS charges and just forget about everything else. You don't want to stir the pot at this point! Just get your legal issues handled and forget about it.
|
johng
Board Addict
Reged: 02/13/03
Posts: 352
Loc: great lakes
|
|
it is true you can drive etc while on pain meds BUT in all states the is a violation called:
Operating while imparied...
they LEO use this as an umbrella offence. it is very difficult to beat. because unless the offender has witness it is your word againset the LEO. and from expirence the judge (unless jugde dose not trust the officer)will always beleive the officer over the offender. I know as a paramedic I often testified for "operating while impared" charges. and guess what, every offender was found guilty
so dont under estimate the tricks and loop holes of the law.
the government has an unlimted pocket us regular people dont we have to borrow mogtage and beg for help.
--------------------
Ask and it will be given to you Matthew 7:7
|
brenda1231
Journeyman
Reged: 11/22/03
Posts: 52
|
|
Quote:
Not true, Blood tests will not show levels of narcotics, only trace or presence. Either way, if you have a valid perscription, it is not illegal to operate a motor vehicle (or heavy machinery) while under the influence of that substance. That's why the warning labels say "use caution while" instead of "do not"! The best they can do is reduce it to a careless driving (for the reported lane weaving) and let it go. As for the cop and your husband...The cop has a right to know anything he feels is pertinent to an investigation, and the hospital has a duty to dicsclose most of that info., but if I were you I would just focus on beating these BS charges and just forget about everything else. You don't want to stir the pot at this point! Just get your legal issues handled and forget about it.
I don't know about most states, but in my state it is VERY illegal to drive under the influence of even a prescribed narcotic.
I did not know this until last year when we had a very public case of a man who had an accident while using a legal prescription. In his case, he went to jail. His prescription was for...drum roll please....DARVOCETTE! Unbelievable!
This law may vary from state to state.
Also to the original poster. I was also arrested w/o the officer acutally seeing me swerve, and it was part of the police record and admitted into court. Somebody had called in that I was swerving.From what I read about the law regarding that matter...and it is foggy... and this is my interpretation of what I read, it stated something to the effect that: An anonymous tip is admissable if the officer finds evidence of DUI after stopping you. OF COURSE this may vary state to state. At any rate, I too questioned that, but my lawer said it was admissable and I distinctly remember the DA telling the judge about the 'tip'.
Personally, I think that is BS and they should not even be ble to stop you on anonomous tips...i could call in anybody and say they ar ' all over the road'. If they happen to have some tylenol PM or such in the car they could be arrested.
--------------------
Cheers,
B~
|
Dasani
Enthusiast
Reged: 10/29/03
Posts: 286
Loc: FL
|
|
Johng,
Once again, this is a fallacy! The LEO must show by way of blood, breath , or urine chemical testing that you are impaired and that is not possible to do unless there is an illegal substace (such as street drugs) or alcohol detected in your system. Like I said before, they can reduce it to a careless driving charge (traffic violation/ticket) and she will pay a 45-75 dollar fine, depending on the state she lives in and that should be the end of it. In that case, it is her word versus the LEO's and you are right, most of the time a judge wil side with an LEO in cases of minor traffic violations, but a DWU or DUI a chemical test MUST show traces of ILLEGAL DRUGS in a persons system in order for her to be CONVICTED of DUI/DWI. Having a prescription does not constitute illegal drug use. I swear I'm not trying to be argumentative wiht you or mislead the origiginal poster, but after 15 years of LE experience (8 of which were in Narcotics and K-9 and 2 degrees in Criminal Justice, I know for a fact that these charges will not fly. HOWEVER, if she had ANY ALCOHOL or ILLEGAL DRUGS in her system at the time and it is revealed on the chemical test she submitted to, then they CAN charge her with DWI instead of DUI which requires a BAC of .08, whereas a DWI only needs to only show a trace of ILLEGAL DRUGS or ALCOHOL to substantiate the charge of DWI.
|
johng
Board Addict
Reged: 02/13/03
Posts: 352
Loc: great lakes
|
|
these are the two issues where she will have trouble:
Quote:
yeah i took the blood test
Quote:
So because i swirved and my eye's were blood shot
Quote:
i was probably speeding slightly had no sleep and swirved while looking off the road
you are right but by what the poster stated above and when the blood test comes back positive for narcotics that will be able to conclude she was imparied ( rember alcahol is legal but in excess os illegal they will be able to conclude from the above quotes she was imparied). the defence will then have to offer experts to state then when you are tolerant to narctics you dont suffer the side effects. but can she get that kind of defence????
no matter what is said or done it will be a lose or lose situation
johng
--------------------
Ask and it will be given to you Matthew 7:7
|
Firefairy
Member
Reged: 11/26/03
Posts: 147
Loc: Mississippi
|
|
Did a little research on the DUI/DWI testing situation. Like a lot of laws they can vary by state, county, city. In my county it is an automatic DUI if you refuse the test. They do have the right to ask you to step out of the car. If you pass a breath test on the spot they can still take you down to the station if they still feel you are impaired and/or the test was incorrect. (chewing gum when pulled over, etc). I do live in a dry county (except for our very large casino resort) so that may have something to do with the laws here.
Before you get pulled over would be a good time to look up state and local laws as far as Rx'd meds, refusal rights, and what constitutes probable cause in your area. While ignorance of a law will never hold up in court, don't count on your local LE to ALWAYS be a good source of information. Most LE are well meaning, but may not always be aware of gray areas themselves. We all need to prepare ourselves in advance for this situation, many people believe that ANY meds obtained over the internet are illegal, even if we are not driving.
|
night_shade
Threadhead
Reged: 08/26/03
Posts: 907
Loc: The State of Hockey
|
|
Quote:
Blood tests will not show levels of narcotics, only trace or presence
Dasani, you are incorrect in this statement. Serum levels can be done for ANY narcotic. That's not saying that the police actually performed a serum level test at the time of the arrest. In fact, they would first have to identify the intoxicant, then run a serum level test for that substance from a sample taken at the time of the arrest (or shortly thereafter.)
I believe serum levels could be argued by the defense as some people are highly tolerant to opioids and a specific serum level for one person may not be as intoxicating as the same serum concentration in another person.
But then again, all states have BAC thresholds at which a person is considered intoxicated--whether they can pass the roadside sobriety test or not.
--------------------
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
|
Dasani
Enthusiast
Reged: 10/29/03
Posts: 286
Loc: FL
|
|
Night Shade,
Police are not authorized to request a serum level test to determine if an individual is impaired and that is what we are talking about here, if you are arrested and tested for DUI. You are correct though, of course serum levels can be tested, this is how we determine if someone has overdosed or not. Nevertheless, in LE, we only ask the health care provider at the Hospital for a blood or urine sample and by law they can't tell us what the test results were, only if they were POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE and that's what goes into the report, whereas, after a breathalyzer, the BAC LEVEL is established and entered into the report. There is no legal way for LE to determine serum levels! As Americans, we still have a few rights, don't we? Take care.
|
lemongrass
Board Addict
Reged: 09/23/03
Posts: 361
Loc: IL
|
|
Ah, but supposing someone was arrested for vehicular manslaughter and they were under the influence of a prescription narcotic or a street narcotic, could LE then request a serum level and/or what the drug was that they were using? I would think then that your (our) rights would then be limited. Yes? No?
lemongrass
|
Dasani
Enthusiast
Reged: 10/29/03
Posts: 286
Loc: FL
|
|
Tests for LE do not determine levels only presence, regardless of the substance the suspect is under the influence of(with the exception of alcohol)! And once again, with a VALID PRESCRIPTION, it is LEGAL to drive while taking pain meds. Of course, many times a great deal of people could be arrested for violating the STUPID LAW because they get hopped-up on prescription meds and then drive(possibly hurting someone because their judgement is impaired), but there is no such STUPID LAW, so people must use their common sense. LE only needs to show a trace or presence of an illegal substances in a persons system, because the substances are in fact, ILLEGAL! So, it really doesn't matter how much is in your system. You could ingest 5 pounds or 5 milligrams and the bottom line is still the same, it is an illegal substance in your system, regardless of the amount and you will be prosecuted if it is detected.
|
lemongrass
Board Addict
Reged: 09/23/03
Posts: 361
Loc: IL
|
|
Thanks, Dasani! Your knowledge is invaluable and should be heeded by all. Thank you!
lemongrass
|
IMSUSCOT1
Threadhead
Reged: 10/23/02
Posts: 868
Loc: usa
|
|
PLEASE, if I didn't drive while taking narcotics, I'd never drive....DUI means you are IMPAIRED...if she's been on the lorcets for ANY length of time *(ie more than a month or so) tolerance catches up with you and renders side effects almost NIL...so it's not the blood level that has anything to do with anything...they have to prove your are IMPAIRED...I work a pretty demanding job and drive daily and I'm on ALOT more than lorcet 10's....if you're narcotic niave, USE CAUTION when driving or operating machinery...if your opiod tolerant....big difference!
Cotybear...get a good attorney, then let the attorney deal with EVERYTHING>>>including getting your PRESCRIBED meds back
Edited by IMSUSCOT1 (05/04/04 04:57 PM)
|
LumbarSpasm
Silent Chaos
Reged: 05/07/02
Posts: 1538
Loc: USA
|
|
You make a very good point from a medical professionals point of view based on fact.
However imo the law is naive. A prosecutor will latch on to the little sticker that warns caution is needed and not to drive or operate machinery etc...
My point is when dealing with the courts, you may need to hire a competent layer. Even a jury will not know the facts and when speaking of narcotics there is imo a prejudice against the patient.
--------------------
LumbarSpasm
Or just a pain in the butt?!
|
Trampy
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/02/02
Posts: 1222
Loc: Southwest U.S.
|
|
Quote:
Night Shade,
Police are not authorized to request a serum level test to determine if an individual is impaired and that is what we are talking about here, if you are arrested and tested for DUI. You are correct though, of course serum levels can be tested, this is how we determine if someone has overdosed or not. Nevertheless, in LE, we only ask the health care provider at the Hospital for a blood or urine sample and by law they can't tell us what the test results were, only if they were POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE and that's what goes into the report, whereas, after a breathalyzer, the BAC LEVEL is established and entered into the report. There is no legal way for LE to determine serum levels! As Americans, we still have a few rights, don't we? Take care.
Oh, really? What state's laws say that? It's conceivable that the above is true for simple DUI with no injuries ... but flat-out wrong in case of car accident injuries or death suspected to be caused by DUI.
Any judge can order a tox-level test, if there's probable cause and they have a sample to test. They do it all the time in vehicular homicide cases.
Galileo committed the heresy of saying that the earth goes around the sun ... that we're not the center of the universe. Well, plenty of people here often wrongly assume that just because they think something is the law in their state that every state has the same law. Like the post saying that cops can't order people out of a car? That's ridiculous advice. "Failure to Obey a Lawful Order" can get you arrested anywhere; it's a misdemeanor but they get to take you away in cuffs and legally search your person, all personal property, as well as your vehicle.
Trampy
--------------------
Your mileage may vary ...
|
Trampy
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/02/02
Posts: 1222
Loc: Southwest U.S.
|
|
Quote:
it is not illegal to drink and drive. you have to have a blood-alchohol limit over .070.. i would assume there is a blood level for hydro. that is legal too.
0.070%? That's odd and unusual because they usually use even numbers. What state has 0.07% in their law? It's different in every state, but many states have changed it from 0.10% to 0.08% in recent years. Some states have limits of 0.02% for drivers under 21. There's even a city in my state that enacted a law putting the BAC limit at 0.04% for truckers driving rigs in their city. Nobody's challenged that yet in court as unconstitutional.
This post is wrong on hydro too. There's no blood level of hydro that any state has defined as constituting impairment. The idea is absurd because of tolerance.
All i can say about this thread is that it's amazing how much false and misleading information people have posted. Anyone who wants legal advice about their state's DUI laws should either research it themself or pay a lawyer.
Trampy
--------------------
Your mileage may vary ...
|
BFThornberry
Journeyman
Reged: 01/23/04
Posts: 86
|
|
Quote:
Jaketoo~
In the wonderful state of NJ where I live, refusing to blow, give blood, etc. is an AUTOMATIC DWI!! (DUI, same thing).
Peace,
Julz
I am also originally from NJ and although you are right you can be charged for refusing to take a chemical test in NJ - you are not charged with a DWI (for the refusal). You are charged with "refusal". It's a different charge altogether. In other words you can be charged with both.
Brit
Edited by BFThornberry (05/05/04 10:45 AM)
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
Quote 
