A friend of mine got a DUI in Illinois and he is 20 years old. He failed the sobriety test, but refused to take the breathalyzer (He had been drinking that night and there is zero tolerance). The cop made a comment that he had made the right choice by not taking the breathalyzer as well. He has had surgery on his leg and has an excuse as to why he cant really stand on one leg for long, he also has a stuttering problem which I think was another reason the cop thought he was really intoxicated. As far as the red eyes, well he uses contacts. Can all of this be used in court as his defense? Will he be able to get out of a DUI, or maybe get less charges if he gets a really good lawyer? Or will it not make a difference… What should he expect as punishment?
Yes he did get arrested but was let go about an hr later with no fine, his truck got towed so he had to pay to get that back. I think we all know that driving under the influence is wrong so Im not looking for those answers. There is a big price difference between a court appointed attorney and one with a good reputation, I would like to know if a lawyer could make a difference in this type of situation.
First of all, if your friend -was- impaired, and is trying to manipulate the system with his injuries / condition, then I hope he rots. People like that are the reason the system takes so long.
His condition may be argued in court, and certain aspects of the Standard Field Sobriety tests may be debated. This requires good lawyering, expert witnesses, and certainly a lot of money.
The Vertical Gaze Nystagmus – one of the Standard Field Sobriety Tests (SFST), is often considered “Above Board.” Meaning that the court will often find the results of the test to be undebateable (in regards to impairment)
No Breathalyzer is -required- to prove impairment, though it helps the prosecution’s case. People often think of the magic number – .08, or .10 BAC. This is only considered a “Presumed level of intoxication.” This gives the Police Officer probable cause (at the very least, reasonable suspicion) to consider the driver impaired. “Impaired” is important, not numbers.
In all states, driving is a privelage, not a right. When you obtain a driver’s license, you fall under “Implied Consent” laws. Failure to provide a Breath, blood, or urine sample for Blood Alcohol Content testing (B.A.C.) is usually (depending on the State) an automatic forfieture of driving privelages for (on average) 6 months.
Most often, prosecution simply concedes to a lesser charge, as opposed to a lengthy proceeding -because- of people using excuses like the above-mentioned. This is dependant on the lawyer. The lawyers fees for such an involved case is no less than $2000. Usually higher, and that doesn’t include court-imposed fines and fees.
Your friend will likely be found guilty of a lesser charge, sentenced to community service, and mandated State-Certified Safety courses, as well as losing his driving privelage for a while. He’ll be able to file for a special license that allows him to go to work and such during his revokation.
Sources:
2 Years Experience as Municipal Police Officer
3 Years Experience as Military Police Investigator (Detective)
Many, many, many court appearances as either an expert witness for prosecution, or as the arresting officer.
-Degree in Criminal justice – but they’re a dime a dozen.
//Edit
-Refusal to do so does NOT give anyone probable cause to (as listed above) search a vehicle. Though it will raise obvious suspicion, and the Officer may find a way to -otherwise- articulate probable cause.
-Refusal is NOT an admission of guilt. It is in contradiction to State laws, as I’ve written above.
-Most states juvenile “No Tolerance” policy DOES have a level of presumed intoxication. This is usually .02 BAC or higher, though the BAC is not -required-. Example. A person can be completely coherent, not slurring, and passes all Sobriety Tests. A Breathalyzer test of .02 or higher is all that person would need to be found guilty of a Zero T DUI.
Technorati Tags: attorneys, best dui lawyer, driving under the influence, drunk driving lawyers, DUI, dui attorneys, dui law firms, dui lawyers, lawyers
Attorney Roy K. Lisko has been practicing law for over 20 years. He handles all types of criminal defense. His office is located very close to the Penn State Campus in downtown State College, Pennsylvania. He has handled many cases where Penn State students have been charged with a crime including underage drinking, DUI, drug possession, delivery, assault, theft, shoplifting, providing alcohol to minors, and more. Before becoming a criminal defense attorney, Roy Lisko worked as a State College Police Officer. He is familiar with how cases are investigated and he knows most of the people involved in the prosecution of the case. Prior to opening his own law firm he worked at the Centre County District Attorney’s office as a prosecutor.
Ex-NBA star Charles Barkley says he is disappointed in himself after his DUI arrest. CNN’s Brooke Baldwin reports