If you think that is bad...... Here in D.C. a woman was pulled because the valet turned here lights off. She got in the car started driving down the street. The car has auto's and she has always left it in that position, being in the city she wasn't aware here lights were off. She gets pulled, and the officer asks here if she had been drinking, she says yes and that she had a glass of wine with dinner. She passes all of his test, and even the BAC was at .03 or something, nothing beyond the law. She was jailed, and has been in court for a DUI. Because of the safety issue of driving with no lights, the officer used this as cause for her arrest and conviction for DUI.

 

wrong, the BAC level is not admissiable in court even if you fail it miserably. it can only be used if the defendent wants it to be.

but after knowing that they can fudge the information in the other tests to make it seem like the person was infact "Drunk".

also the thing they do when they make you follow the pen is a good indication, and also used my many doctors. once your eyes go to about 45 degrees from the center they start to noticabbly twitch even if you dn't know it if you have a BAC of .1 or higher but if you have a .1 you shouldn't be driving anyways.

 

This is why they say Reading is Fundamental...

If the BAC was not admissable in court, this judge's stance wouldn't be considered controversial, his position wouldn't have made the papers, and as a result wouldn't be being debated in this thread.

The point is, there exists a law in Virginia that declares a person "intoxicated" with a BAC of .08. This judge is saying that he will not convict based on this law alone because it is not 100% accurate for every citizen, and therefore is considered by him to be "unconstitutional" because it presumes "intoxication/guilt" and places the burden of proof on the citizen as opposed to the state, thereby violating one's Fifth Amendment rights.

 

I thought they were saying that he wont convict because the burden of proof lies on the state, not on the defense, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, the defendant doesn't have to prove that he is innocent, the state has to prove that he WAS/IS guilty at the time of the offense, NOT after 2 hours of sitting around or whatever.

 

That is exactly what's being said. Legally presuming someone to be intoxicated at any level unconstitutionally places the burden of proof on the defendant.

 

An Irish judge throwing out alcohol-related cases? What's this world coming to?




Yes, I'm Irish as well...

 

Whatever that said which I am not going to read, I will simply respond that no one should be drinking and driving ever. If you are more then slightly tipsy you should not drive. If you are caught, you should lose your license. First offense. After that there should be jail time.