As a former prosecutor, I was often forced to take cases to trial or negotiation with no blood alcohol test or with test results below the presumed level of intoxication, .08 blood alcohol content (BAC). These cases were winnable more often than not because of other credible evidence that established that the driver was intoxicated at the time he or she was operating their vehicle.

In atypical DUI stop, the arresting officer is under certain time constraints to administer a Breathalyzer or other blood alcohol test. Because of a normal person’s metabolism, his BAC will change at a fixed rate over time. Although it can rise as well as fall, BAC will usually begin dropping within an hour of the driver’s last drink.

In some situations, though, delay is inevitable. Where a stop is made far from the nearest satellite station, an hour can elapse between the time of the stop and the time of arrival at the station. Moreover, the officer must observe the suspect for at least fifteen minutes at the testing facility to assure that no foreign substances or additional drinks are ingested.

If the suspect’s vehicle is disabled or involved in an accident, there will be more time spent in the field than most officers would prefer. It is almost always necessary to secure and tow the vehicle as well, which only adds more time between the stop and the test.

The officer and prosecutor can always present the cliched “usual signs of intoxication:”
Bloodshot eyes,
Unsteady on the feet,
Smell of alcohol on the breath, and
Slurred speech.

Of course, almost every police car today is equipped with a video tape system to record the driver’s behavior and condition at the scene of the stop. Even without video, a good prosecutor and officer can get a conviction. In our county, we frequently left out some evidence that didn’t help us when other factors were present or better. A “No test, No tape” conviction was a badge of honor, and it was easier than you would expect to get positive results.

I once had a case with a Texas State Trooper, an excellent witness, with no test and no tape. The defendant was a minister who appeared at trial in his collar and frock. Our single witness was so good, and the defendant so bad (his attorney foolishly put him on the stand) that it took a Bexar County jury (notoriously pious and liberal) 10 minutes to convict.

The lack of a BAC test, or results below the presumed level of intoxication, does not guarantee an acquittal or dismissal. Sometimes the driver is his own worst witness, depending on his conduct at the scene and at the station. The safest bet is not to drink and drive. If you are unfortunate enough to be in a situation where you are stopped, do not provide additional evidence against yourself. Be on your best behavior, don’t speak without an attorney present, and always insist on the presence of an attorney if any field sobriety or station house tests are offered.

are you bragging or something,,,or trying to show how corrupt the system is???


i hope the latter,,for otherwiser you part of the scum that is the judicial system along with most lawyers


do you feel good that you probably convicted good decent people with families with bogus info???

come on where's your reply,,,, i saw you were here 37 minutes ago

i wanted to know where on the fence you sit

Originally posted by shortywarn
come on where's your reply,,,, i saw you were here 37 minutes ago

i wanted to know where on the fence you sit

I didn't find anybody "guilty." Six or twelve people, selected with the defendant and his attorney, and a judge, elected by people who vote, found these people guilty.

Ever voted?

Ever had to make an important decision of any kind?

This is not a brag; it is a warning: You do not have to be over .08 BAC to get convicted of DWI/DUI.

Someone elsewhere posted that you can avoid getting convicted if you don't take the "tests."

Frankly, I was very lenient. It's called "prosecutorial discretion."

Ever heard of that word or understand what it means? You use your best judgment given the facts at hand.

I knew who the cops were who used the same descriptions over and over. They didn't like me.

But if people were truly "impaired" (the key to not being a threat on the road, remember?) or if they put other people in jeopardy, like their kids, neighbors, other drivers, they usually got what they deserved.

Now, what problem do you really have with any of that?

p.s.: this is in the "short story" forum. what are you doing here, anyway?

Originally posted by shortywarn
are you bragging or something,,,or trying to show how corrupt the system is???


i hope the latter,,for otherwiser you part of the scum that is the judicial system along with most lawyers


do you feel good that you probably convicted good decent people with families with bogus info???

Did you know only about 70% of arrests actually get to court; of those, 95% of all cases that actually get to court get agreed to by the defendant without a trial of any kind.

Would you plead to something you didn't do? Wouldn't you expect the prosecutor to throw out the junk before it even got to Court? (Do you think she wants to get embarassed with a screwed-up or poor case?)

Were you thinking before you accused me of being as prejudiced against or ignorant of the judicial system as you?

Did you know most attorneys are decent, hard-working, thinking people with families and a stake in their communities?

What is your problem with:

The law?

With judges?

Attorneys?

Sober driving?