Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 6/2/2003 3:32:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/2/2003 3:33:54 PM EDT by obershutze916]
I am not an LEO, but I thought with the many members here some of you could shed some light on a topic. I was talking with the mother of a [i]friend[/i] who was telling me that her son was arrested recently and charged with a "Super DUI". Due to this he lost his drivers license, got jail time etc. Because of this he lost his job and had to move back home, but the insurance company told them he would have to move out or they would cancel their policy because he was a high risk person. Don't flame me on the details here, this was all I was able to get, but I have never heard of a "Super DUI". Suposedly it was for being so many points over the legal limit here in Ohio. This was in the Cleveland area if that helps any. I say this guy is giving his family a line of crap. Am I right?
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 3:59:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 4:10:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/2/2003 4:14:37 PM EDT by LoginName]
I never heard of it either so I had to Google it... [url]http://www.fctla.org/fctla09.html#III[/url] II. The War Against "DUI" Is in its 18th Year By Brad Koffel, Esq. The Ohio General Assembly continues its assault on DUI creating even more confusing legislation and harsher penalties based upon suspect scientific evidence. Effective May 17, 2000, a mandatory jail sentence will be imposed for any DUI offenders who register a BAC over .170% by breath and blood and .238% by urine. In essence, there are now several BAC limits: "Regular DUI": .100% for breath and blood and .140% for urine; and the [red]"Super DUI"[/red] .170% for breath and blood, and .238% for urine. They also use the term "super drunk". LOL!
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 4:29:02 PM EDT
Super DUI would not be the propper legal term. He may have been busted for something akin to what is known here in AZ as Aggravated DUI. That is DUI, as well as one or more set conditions, such as 3rd DUI in 5 years, suspended driver's license, and a few others. DUI is a misdmeanor: Agg DUI is a felony. Jay
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 11:56:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AZCOP: Super DUI would not be the propper legal term. He may have been busted for something akin to what is known here in AZ as Aggravated DUI. That is DUI, as well as one or more set conditions, such as 3rd DUI in 5 years, suspended driver's license, and a few others. DUI is a misdmeanor: Agg DUI is a felony. Jay
View Quote
Of course, not to be confused with the Extreme DUI. I hate those things.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 4:05:08 AM EDT
Here (Ohio) being impaired is 4511.19 (A) (1). being over the legal limit is 4511.19 (A) (3), and being over .17, is the 4511.(A) (6) section. I've never heard of that being referred to as a super DUI. maybe it's because he "supersized" his glass of beer!!PS these are breath test sections.....
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 4:11:38 AM EDT
My "guess", repeat "guess" is that this is local department/area terminology for a person who has exceeded the legal limit by XXX number of points. One of the more serious offenders.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 5:14:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By kay9:
Originally Posted By AZCOP: Super DUI would not be the propper legal term. He may have been busted for something akin to what is known here in AZ as Aggravated DUI. That is DUI, as well as one or more set conditions, such as 3rd DUI in 5 years, suspended driver's license, and a few others. DUI is a misdmeanor: Agg DUI is a felony. Jay
View Quote
Of course, not to be confused with the Extreme DUI. I hate those things.
View Quote
I forgot all about "extreme" Never done one of those. Jay
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 5:36:40 AM EDT
Another reason to do what my lawyer suggests and refuse ALL TESTS if stopped for DUI. We have the moron senator Dewine for many of these insane laws. Can yo u see the idiocy of making guy unemployable then forbidding his folks for caring for him? Un f***ing believable!!
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 9:59:21 AM EDT
Your lawyer is giving you poor advice. You can refuse a FST, and still be arrested. Refuse the breath test, and you WILL lose your license for a year, no questions asked. Maybe your lawyer should brush up on "Implied Consent." Just my .02...
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 3:54:31 PM EDT
Thanks guys. I guess there is something to this story. I thought it was total BS. mmsis, my brother-in-law's lawyer (who is constantly dealing with his DUI issues) also tells everyone not to ever let them take a test on you. Don't know if it is crap so he can make more money off the case or not. I have been hearing more and more along these lines. I don't drink and drive so I am not going to risk it.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 4:04:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: Another reason to do what my lawyer suggests and refuse ALL TESTS if stopped for DUI. We have the moron senator Dewine for many of these insane laws. Can yo u see the idiocy of making guy unemployable then forbidding his folks for caring for him? Un f***ing believable!!
View Quote
He decided to drink, to excess, then drive. So he should also be willing to accept the consequences of the his choices. If he is an adult he should also be able to take care of himself. Your lawyer should probably give you the better advice DON'T DRINK and DRIVE. Oh wait, that would cut off HIS income.
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 5:51:09 PM EDT
I do not "drink to excess" and drive. Three beers with dinner over a couple hours is sure as hell not "excess". Overzealous cops, inaccurate machines, assinine laws and "field sobriety tests" that the prosecuters routinely FAIL at trials (impossible to pass) are not my idea of a level playingfield. My mouthpiece has an admirable win / loss record and I will take his advice until I see it proven wrong! I have taken field sobriety test when sober as a judge - and fail every time! I WILL NOT willingly give evidence against myself no matter whether I am innocent or quilty. If I want to plead guilty then I will do that, but not at the time of stop!! PS This same guy beat the ATF when they tried to screw some military guys so he is HIGH on my list!
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 7:09:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: Another reason to do what my lawyer suggests and refuse ALL TESTS if stopped for DUI. We have the moron senator Dewine for many of these insane laws. Can yo u see the idiocy of making guy unemployable then forbidding his folks for caring for him? Un f***ing believable!!
View Quote
You may have misunderstood your attorney. While most states carry "Implied Consent" laws that can revoke your DL for up to one year for refusing ALL sobriety tests, in most states you do have the right to refuse to perform any police field sobriety exercises and to refuse to answer any questions, the answers to which might be incriminating. Unlike breath or blood test refusals, there are no penalties for refusing to perform field sobriety tests or refusing to answer questions while being videotaped. Some attorneys also recommend insisting that you have legal counsel present at the time of the testing. And always request a blood test so that a sample can be sent to an independent lab for verification. The Intoxilyzer has provisions for saving breath samples for later verification, but I've never heard of it being done. I don't think urine testing is accepted in all states yet.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 3:36:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: Another reason to do what my lawyer suggests and refuse ALL TESTS if stopped for DUI. We have the moron senator Dewine for many of these insane laws. Can yo u see the idiocy of making guy unemployable then forbidding his folks for caring for him? Un f***ing believable!!
View Quote
10-15! I think your lawyer just lined his pockets with your money. If someone is asking you to perform FST's there should be some other indicators of DUI.(Shitty driving, odor, speech, eyes, etc) Refusing an FST is a very fast way to wind up in cuffs, and refusing a breath test will certainly result in your license being yanked. At least in AZ, it will. Of course he wants you to refuse, so you can call his silly ass to get you out of jail. Impaired to the slightest degree, means just that.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 6:51:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: Another reason to do what my lawyer suggests and refuse ALL TESTS if stopped for DUI. We have the moron senator Dewine for many of these insane laws. Can yo u see the idiocy of making guy unemployable then forbidding his folks for caring for him? Un f***ing believable!!
View Quote
You want to know what's un f***ing believable? Allowing drunk drivers to kill other people because they were too irresponsible to get a designated driver to drive them home. When you have a loved one killed or paralized by a drunk driver then maybe you will change your mind about the dangers of driving under the influence. I've had to talk to the relatives of someone killed after a drunk driving incident. This is after I've had to pick up the dead bodies and listen to the screams of the injured. It's not fun. If you ever have a relative killed and the drunk driver walks away from the accident, I doubt that you will refer to the DUI/DWI laws as "un f***ing believable". The primary reason that lawyers win in DWI/DUI cases is not that they are good lawyers. The reason that they win is because DWI/DUI cases are not prosecuted aggressively in many jurisdictions. DWI/DUI cases have some of the highest amounts of evidnece of many crminal cases. Where I live there is a lawyer who is known for being a good lawyer for DWI/DUI cases. He wins in municipal court but almost always loses in state court. The reason is that city court dismisses very easily. By the way, I've always wondered about anyone who refers to "their lawyer". Try obeying the law and you might not need a lawyer. I know people who I've arrested that call "their lawyer" once at the station. I've never lost in court to anyone who calls "their lawyer".
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 7:16:15 PM EDT
..."field sobriety tests" that the prosecuters routinely FAIL at trials (impossible to pass) are not my idea of a level playingfield.
View Quote
How do you fail Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus? Just curious. As others have said, FST's are requested only after other signs of impairment are observed. To refuse to perform these tests is fine, but if a BAC test (blood/breath/urine) is requested, you must submit OR your driving/operating priveleges will be revoked. It's an administrative function, not a legal one. I can speak for the boating laws in that we yank the vessel registration decals if a chemical test is refused, and the operator is the owner of the vessel. Additionally they are prohibited from operating or registering a vessel for one year in the state. Now if they submit to the test, they could conceivably operate their boat the very next day... Like ColtRifle said, After dealing with DUI accidents/fatalities, it gets hard to deal with the stupidity of driving drunk. The lady who got chopped in half by a drunk boater near Cleveland comes to my mind.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 9:29:47 PM EDT
kay 9 Wrote: "I think your lawyer just lined his pockets with your money. If someone is asking you to perform FST's there should be some other indicators of DUI.(Shitty driving, odor, speech, eyes, etc) Refusing an FST is a very fast way to wind up in cuffs, and refusing a breath test will certainly result in your license being yanked. At least in AZ, it will. Of course he wants you to refuse, so you can call his silly ass to get you out of jail. Impaired to the slightest degree, means just that." I am not supposed to be stopped at all unless I drive in such a manner as to indicate I might be drunk. That is why cops are not supposed to lie in wait close to a bar and stop people at random but we BOTH know they do. It's a money thing. Agreed, there SHOULD be some other reason for a cop to ask for FST but the smell of alcohol on some guy that had one beer is BS. I have no intention of being an ass about refusing your tests. If you want to arrest me, fine, I will cooperate. I will NOT give evidence against myself, even if I KNOW I am innocent. No tests. Period. Eyes? I have eye muscle problems that make my eyes not track normally and to dart and twitch at times. Is it likely some cop is going to know the difference between a medical condition I can document or his opinion of what indicates being intoxicated? Actually his motivation is not money. The guy is a friend and represents me for free. Him I know, you I do not (figuratively - meaning the LEO involved). Guess who I trust? Lest you misunderstand, I do NOT advocate driving drunk. I honestly believe that if stopped I would test well UNDER the limit. If I intend to push that limit, I don't drive. If a drunk CAUSES a wreck, they should throw the book at him. .1 let alone .08 sure as fuck ain't drunk! It may be on New Years for some idiot that drinks once a year. A serious alc at .1 is sober as the judge. The limit is set artificialy (sp) low to enhance revenue and persue a social agenda. The law is flawed. Flawed laws lessen respect for all laws and in turn, LEO. That is not good. FWIW, I HAVE had a friend killed by a drunk driver. The guy was not some .1 wuss, he was really trashed. My dad shot himself. I don't support gun control, either.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 9:50:01 PM EDT
Colt Rifle Wrote: ""By the way, I've always wondered about anyone who refers to "their lawyer". Try obeying the law and you might not need a lawyer. I know people who I've arrested that call "their lawyer" once at the station. I've never lost in court to anyone who calls "their lawyer"."" Your LEO attitude is showing. I have a lawyer because he is a friend unrelated to law. When I need legal services such as a will, estate administration etc. he serves me well and at no charge. He finds it interesting I have served on juries and likes to hear the details. I like to learn tid bits about the law and his opinions. We both learn a little. I realize many defendants claim to be innocent when they are not. I also know innocent people get arrested. While judges and juries are supposed to sort out those LEO mistakes, I prefer not to have it go that far. I do not dislike cops in general. They do a necessary and often unpleasant job. Some do it well, others do not. A number have an attitude of self rightousness that is highly offensive - and does not encourage a helpful and cooperative attitude from citizens. I spend a good bit of time with a retired LEO (now a PI) and he is probably harder on the "bullshit merchants" (his term for lousy cops) than I EVER could be! I will contine to make every attempt to be a law abiding citizen. I will also avail myself of my God given rights, that hopefully are protected by the Constitution, and keep my mouth shut when interogated. You can be sure that will include seeking the advice of someone more knowledgable than myself about the law. Someone I trust to look out for me, not use trickery to put me in jeopardy.
Link Posted: 6/7/2003 2:21:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/7/2003 2:22:55 AM EDT by kay9]
MickeyMouse, you just dont get it.
28-1381. Driving or actual physical control while under the influence; trial by jury; presumptions; admissible evidence; sentencing; classification A. It is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state under any of the following circumstances: 1. While under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances if the person is impaired to the slightest degree.
View Quote
.1 or .08, doesnt matter. Impaired to the slightest degree does. Exactly how is it flawed? And the whole issue about calling a lawyer. As soon as that question is asked, I stop all questioning. And if I have developed p.c. to arrest at that point (99% of the time I have), guess what, you just ensured a ride to the jail. I smirk when I tell them that they might have been able to talk their way outta jail, had I been able to gather all the facts, but instead THEY left me no choice by lawyering up. Lawyers just dont like getting up at 3:00 am and driving the Benz down to the po-po station to sit in on an interview. So what do they do? "Dont talk to the cops. I'll be at your inital appearance in the morning, say nothing, goodnight". Not exactly the best legal advice, in my book anyhow.
Link Posted: 6/7/2003 5:28:18 AM EDT
Kay 9, it seems you are in full support of an assinine law. " if the person is impaired to the slightest degree." PRECISELY why I will never take ANY FST!!!! Makes my point quite well, I believe. One spoon of cough syrup containing alcohol might qualify in your overzealous eye. IIRC prohibition was a monsterous failure. It would appear some lawmaker tried to ressurect it. Assinine laws are why we need fewer of them! You go ahead and try to convince your collars that you are trying to "help" them. I will continue to believe that you are within the law that says cops can LIE to further an investigation.
Link Posted: 6/7/2003 12:48:34 PM EDT
how about über-DUI? is that better than super DUI? not eXtreem DUI... sounds like a sport on ESPN 2.
Link Posted: 6/7/2003 12:57:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 6:01:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 3:20:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter: Here in NC I was told you are better off to refuse and go ahead and take the one year suspension. In the long run they said it was better to go without driving for a year based on an adminstrative suspension than have a DUI conviction on your record. I don't drive after drinking anyway, so I have not paid much attention to the issue.
View Quote
I've made a lot of DWI arrests so I know a little about them. A refusal does not guarantee not getting a conviction. I have many people refuse and they still get convicted. Many people are confused about the effects of alcohol. Alcohol impairs you even in small quantities. Here's an example: if you have a couple of drinks and then drive off you will be under the limit but you are still impaired to a slight degree. You might be able to handle the car under the majority of situations but you might not swerve in time when that child runs out in front of the vehicle or similar situations. A moving vehicle weighing several thousand pounds or more is a huge reponsibility and deserves the utmost care just as owning a firearm does. For those responsible enough to care, it takes about 1 drink to reach a .020% BAC. So 4 drinks will probably put you over the limit if the limit is .08% BAC. Your body eliminates about .015% BAC per hour. These are estimates only and will change slightly depending on your weight, body fat percentage and sex.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 4:08:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/11/2003 4:16:01 AM EDT by watersniper]
Eyes? I have eye muscle problems that make my eyes not track normally and to dart and twitch at times. Is it likely some cop is going to know the difference between a medical condition I can document or his opinion of what indicates being intoxicated?
View Quote
First of all it's not one rogue cop's opinion about HGN. That's science. Yes you are dead right some people have a natural nystagmus. It is but one small indicator we look for. When we do HGN or any of the other tests we ask about medical conditions. Please don't be SO cynical as to think all we do is run around testing a bunch of people at random and hope we get a "keeper." I went to college to do this man, I'm not a total dumbass, (irregardless of what my wife says) and I don't push the issue unless it's abosolutely necessary. I have let guys go who were close. I have told guys with a small baggie of weed to "float test it." All I do is make sure they get home safe and don't drive the rest of the night. I often use the park ranger mentallity that says you use the lowest level of enforcement necessary to gain compliance... Now I do ask, what if the person's drug of choice is not alcohol? What if they like to smoke a little wacky tobacy, or something harsher? How should they be handled? Because if a driver gets pulled over for something and we see signs of impairment we are going to go down that road and see what's up. If they have ANY drugs in ther system then they usually get hooked up, because drugs are illegal. But who am I to tell a guy that pot is so much more damaging than alcohol....
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 4:21:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter: Here in NC I was told you are better off to refuse and go ahead and take the one year suspension. In the long run they said it was better to go without driving for a year based on an adminstrative suspension than have a DUI conviction on your record.
View Quote
Yea that's the word here in Ohio too. Our guys have seen a lot more refusals lately, and the defendants are telling us what you just said. Think about it, if you know you are totally hammered and possibly over that .17, why risk the conviction for the higher DUI. Oh sorry Super DUI:) Or whatever they call it. I did hear a judge tell a defendant that a refusal was an agravating circumstance...
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 5:07:50 AM EDT
In WI, they can use the refusal at trial. Also if you are convicted of an implied consnet refusal, but not the DUI, the implied consent refusal can be counted just like a prior DUI.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 11:10:49 AM EDT
I have dealt with a very few people who have a natural nystagmus. I have never arrested someone who had a natural nystagmus and then found out that they had not had anything to drink. With a little practice, you can guess with a fairly high level of accuracy as to whether the person is over the limit or not just by their eyes. Everyone who I have dealt with who had a natural nystagmus, their eyes bounce but they still appear to be under the legal limit. If you are over the limit though, it is very obvious. By the way, if you refuse to take the FST tests, I still have a way to check your eyes without you knowing about it and it will be in my report for the prosecutor and the judge to see! There is a simple solution if you don't like the DWI/DUI laws. DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE OR USE DRUGS AND DRIVE!!! If you are stupid enough to get behind the wheel when you are impaired, then you deverve to go to jail and to lose your license and have to pay huge fines. A friend of mine told me a story about a DWI case of his. He arrested a guy for DWI. The suspect told my friend that he would beat the DWI. The case went to court and the suspect got off for some reason. He came up to my friend and said "I told you I'd get off.". My friend asked him how much he spent on the lawyer. The guy said about $5000. My friend replied "Yeah you beat it all right." and walked off. Lawyers love DWI cases because they are moneymakers for them. Nothing like making money off people's stupidity. Sometimes the lawyers punish people better than the court system ever will!
Link Posted: 6/12/2003 9:43:14 AM EDT
A lot of our cases in Toledo court get knocked down to wet reckless because the court doesn't know anything about Watercraft OUI (DUI) and has a lot more things to worry about... In their opinion. When I had to tell the prsecutor and the judge what the watercaft laws were, I knew I was the most knowledgable one there on the subject. That isn't good. THEY went to law school??? Anyway The defendant hires an attourney, pays a bunch of $$$ and pleads out to a reckless. That's the game they play here. a defense atty told me he works a deal with the local PD to come back a few times so the local PD guy gets some court OT and the atty gets some more $$$, then they plead out to the lesser charge...
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 6:29:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: In WI, they can use the refusal at trial. Also if you are convicted of an implied consnet refusal, but not the DUI, the implied consent refusal can be counted just like a prior DUI.
View Quote
In NM refusal brings higher penalties if convicted, it is considered AGG DWI, the exact same as blowing over .16. Also, .08 is the "standard"level of impairment. On minors the rule is .02, and with good articulation on the test, by state statute, you can convict with .05. BUT... According to the Torrez case, HGN is now Scientific testimony, requiring an expert witness. We can use it in our decision making in the field, but we are not allowed to testify in court. We are allowed to mention that we conducted the HGN, but not what we observed or any inferences drawn from those observations. Whadda expect in a state where we can no longer apply the Carrol Doctrine? pat
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 9:34:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/21/2003 9:37:11 AM EDT by MHPDblue]
JUST for all the Ohio Folks the legal limit for a standard DUI is now 08. BAC.... It will take effect some time later this year but the Senate and House passed it. In addition to "super DUI" lets not forget "Felony DUI" Felony is over three convictions in six years. Another thing that's fucked up is when you have a prior conviction and someone is arrested for a second time. If you blow over the limit your license is suspended for one year, if you refuse to take the test your license is suspended for a year. A lot of options there.... 8 times out of 10 they refuse. The same thing happens when you get some one who is suspended till the end of time... although I've had a few habitual DUIs blow anyway "for my personal best" as one guy put it (he was the funniest DUI I ever had in the 10 years I've been doing this.. alas it was not is personal best he blew in the low threes his said his "best" was a 395. The only way you could tell this guy was drunk was by the HGN test. Shit he even knew the DUI laws pretty good. Too bad that tree jumped out in front of him.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 9:51:33 AM EDT
I believe the .08 begins July 1, along with going back to "substantial compliance" regarding the FST. No more cases being tossed because of no white edge line being available for the walk and turn, allowing the defendant to stand improperly during instructions, etc. It's about time too....
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 2:58:53 PM EDT
Too drunk to fish.......
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 1:21:01 PM EDT
Yes the new .08 BAC level took effect July 1st. I still think its funny though that some people who test under the legal limit think they can't get convicted of DUI.
Top Top