Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle
that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very
long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him
for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol,
and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior
but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must
have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle
that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very
long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him
for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol,
and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior
but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must
have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
On 2025-08-17 3:00 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle
that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very
long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him
for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol,
and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she
emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior
but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must
have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
I heard about a similar case here in Ontario some years ago. A guy who realized he was probably borderline impaired pulled over to the side of
the road and decided to sleep for a while. The police came along after
he'd been sleeping awhile and charged him with drunk driving. He pointed
out that the car was parked, the engine was off and the keys were in his pocket but the police said he could have started the car and driven off
at any time.
Until then, I always thought you had to have actually been DRIVING drunk
to catch a drunk driving charge. I never would have imagined that
sleeping on the side of the road with alcohol in your system was enough
to sustain a drunk driving charge.
Then again, maybe they reasoned that
if he was sleeping drunk at the side of the road, he must have driven
drunk to get to the spot where he was sleeping.
On Aug 17, 2025 at 12:53:29 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >wrote:
On 2025-08-17 3:00 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle
that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very
long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him
for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol,
and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she
emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior >>> but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>> have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
I heard about a similar case here in Ontario some years ago. A guy who
realized he was probably borderline impaired pulled over to the side of
the road and decided to sleep for a while. The police came along after
he'd been sleeping awhile and charged him with drunk driving. He pointed
out that the car was parked, the engine was off and the keys were in his
pocket but the police said he could have started the car and driven off
at any time.
I've never understood this line of logic. If merely having access to car keys >is enough to charge someone with drunk driving, then they could theoretically >charge you with drunk driving if you're in your home sitting on the sofa >watching the ballgame and drinking beers. After all, the car keys are right >there on the kitchen counter and you could take them to the garage, start the >car, and drive drunk if you want to.
Until then, I always thought you had to have actually been DRIVING drunk
to catch a drunk driving charge. I never would have imagined that
sleeping on the side of the road with alcohol in your system was enough
to sustain a drunk driving charge.
There have been people in California that have been charged with DUI because >they were intoxicated within a certain distance from their car. If you're >standing within 50 feet of your vehicle intoxicated and you're in possession >of the keys, they presume you to have access to the vehicle in an intoxicated >condition. Again, it would seem the cops could just walk into any bar and >start giving all the patrons who have keys in their pockets breathalyzers and >then charge them with DUI since they all "have access to their vehicle in an >intoxicated condition".
Among other drunk-driving laws that seem to have unintended consequences is >the law that basically says, "If it has wheels, it's illegal to be drunk while >operating it". This is how people riding bicycles, riding lawnmowers, even >children's toys, like Big Wheels, have been charged with DUI. However, it >would also seem to make it illegal for people in wheelchairs to ever be >intoxicated.
Sometimes it doesn't even have to be wheels. I heard of one case of a guy >being charged with DUI for riding a horse while drunk. I seem to remember him >beating the charge because the horse has a mind of its own and will avoid >collisions on its own regardless of the idiotic naked ape on its back.
Then again, maybe they reasoned that
if he was sleeping drunk at the side of the road, he must have driven
drunk to get to the spot where he was sleeping.
They could reason that but they couldn't prove that.
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started >drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew >over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was >before she crashed or after she crashed.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 20:23:29 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 12:53:29 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >> wrote:
On 2025-08-17 3:00 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle >>>> that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very >>>> long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him >>>> for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol, >>>> and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she
emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior >>>> but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>>> have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
I heard about a similar case here in Ontario some years ago. A guy who
realized he was probably borderline impaired pulled over to the side of >>> the road and decided to sleep for a while. The police came along after
he'd been sleeping awhile and charged him with drunk driving. He pointed >>> out that the car was parked, the engine was off and the keys were in his >>> pocket but the police said he could have started the car and driven off >>> at any time.
I've never understood this line of logic. If merely having access to car keys
is enough to charge someone with drunk driving, then they could theoretically
charge you with drunk driving if you're in your home sitting on the sofa
watching the ballgame and drinking beers. After all, the car keys are right >> there on the kitchen counter and you could take them to the garage, start the
car, and drive drunk if you want to.
Until then, I always thought you had to have actually been DRIVING drunk >>> to catch a drunk driving charge. I never would have imagined that
sleeping on the side of the road with alcohol in your system was enough >>> to sustain a drunk driving charge.
There have been people in California that have been charged with DUI because >> they were intoxicated within a certain distance from their car. If you're
standing within 50 feet of your vehicle intoxicated and you're in possession >> of the keys, they presume you to have access to the vehicle in an intoxicated
condition. Again, it would seem the cops could just walk into any bar and
start giving all the patrons who have keys in their pockets breathalyzers and
then charge them with DUI since they all "have access to their vehicle in an >> intoxicated condition".
So how does California handle people who drink but are out 'camping'
in an RV. If they were driving then I get them being charged with DUI,
but what about when they are at a camp site. Maybe cooking up some
food while drinking some beers around a camp fire? Technically it
sounds like they can be charged with a DUI since the keys and vehicle
are there and they may even be in the vehicle, but it's hard to that
sticking if they fought the charge.
Among other drunk-driving laws that seem to have unintended consequences is >> the law that basically says, "If it has wheels, it's illegal to be drunk
while
operating it". This is how people riding bicycles, riding lawnmowers, even >> children's toys, like Big Wheels, have been charged with DUI. However, it
would also seem to make it illegal for people in wheelchairs to ever be
intoxicated.
Sometimes it doesn't even have to be wheels. I heard of one case of a guy
being charged with DUI for riding a horse while drunk. I seem to remember him
beating the charge because the horse has a mind of its own and will avoid
collisions on its own regardless of the idiotic naked ape on its back.
Then again, maybe they reasoned that
if he was sleeping drunk at the side of the road, he must have driven
drunk to get to the spot where he was sleeping.
They could reason that but they couldn't prove that.
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started >> drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew >> over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was
before she crashed or after she crashed.
On Aug 17, 2025 at 1:30:37 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 20:23:29 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 12:53:29 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
On 2025-08-17 3:00 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle >>>>> that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very >>>>> long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him >>>>> for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol, >>>>> and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she
emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior >>>>> but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>>>> have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
I heard about a similar case here in Ontario some years ago. A guy who >>>> realized he was probably borderline impaired pulled over to the side of >>>> the road and decided to sleep for a while. The police came along after >>>> he'd been sleeping awhile and charged him with drunk driving. He pointed >>>> out that the car was parked, the engine was off and the keys were in his >>>> pocket but the police said he could have started the car and driven off >>>> at any time.
I've never understood this line of logic. If merely having access to car keys
is enough to charge someone with drunk driving, then they could theoretically
charge you with drunk driving if you're in your home sitting on the sofa >>> watching the ballgame and drinking beers. After all, the car keys are right >>> there on the kitchen counter and you could take them to the garage, start the
car, and drive drunk if you want to.
Until then, I always thought you had to have actually been DRIVING drunk >>>> to catch a drunk driving charge. I never would have imagined that
sleeping on the side of the road with alcohol in your system was enough >>>> to sustain a drunk driving charge.
There have been people in California that have been charged with DUI because
they were intoxicated within a certain distance from their car. If you're >>> standing within 50 feet of your vehicle intoxicated and you're in possession
of the keys, they presume you to have access to the vehicle in an intoxicated
condition. Again, it would seem the cops could just walk into any bar and >>> start giving all the patrons who have keys in their pockets breathalyzers and
then charge them with DUI since they all "have access to their vehicle in an
intoxicated condition".
So how does California handle people who drink but are out 'camping'
in an RV. If they were driving then I get them being charged with DUI,
but what about when they are at a camp site. Maybe cooking up some
food while drinking some beers around a camp fire? Technically it
sounds like they can be charged with a DUI since the keys and vehicle
are there and they may even be in the vehicle, but it's hard to that
sticking if they fought the charge.
It's all selective enforcement. Yes, the law would make the campers criminals,
too, but the cops never charge people in situations like that, so the question
has never come before a court.
Among other drunk-driving laws that seem to have unintended consequences is >>> the law that basically says, "If it has wheels, it's illegal to be drunk >>> while
operating it". This is how people riding bicycles, riding lawnmowers, even >>> children's toys, like Big Wheels, have been charged with DUI. However, it >>> would also seem to make it illegal for people in wheelchairs to ever be
intoxicated.
Sometimes it doesn't even have to be wheels. I heard of one case of a guy >>> being charged with DUI for riding a horse while drunk. I seem to remember him
beating the charge because the horse has a mind of its own and will avoid >>> collisions on its own regardless of the idiotic naked ape on its back.
Then again, maybe they reasoned that
if he was sleeping drunk at the side of the road, he must have driven
drunk to get to the spot where he was sleeping.
They could reason that but they couldn't prove that.
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started >>> drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew
over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was >>> before she crashed or after she crashed.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 1:30:37 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >> wrote:
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started
drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew
over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was >>>> before she crashed or after she crashed.
Supposedly, she’s pulled that like half a dozen times. The most famous case >it came out she done it four times in a different state before that one.
At some point you think they would be able to call her on it. After
you have pulled the same trick multiple times it shouldn't be a
defense.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 14:06:11 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 1:30:37 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started
drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew
over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was >>>>> before she crashed or after she crashed.
Supposedly, she’s pulled that like half a dozen times. The most famous case
it came out she done it four times in a different state before that one.
At some point you think they would be able to call her on it. After
you have pulled the same trick multiple times it shouldn't be a
defense.
On Aug 17, 2025 at 12:53:29 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-08-17 3:00 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle >>> that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very
long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him >>> for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol, >>> and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she
emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior >>> but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>> have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
I heard about a similar case here in Ontario some years ago. A guy who
realized he was probably borderline impaired pulled over to the side of
the road and decided to sleep for a while. The police came along after
he'd been sleeping awhile and charged him with drunk driving. He pointed
out that the car was parked, the engine was off and the keys were in his
pocket but the police said he could have started the car and driven off
at any time.
I've never understood this line of logic. If merely having access to car keys is enough to charge someone with drunk driving, then they could theoretically charge you with drunk driving if you're in your home sitting on the sofa watching the ballgame and drinking beers. After all, the car keys are right there on the kitchen counter and you could take them to the garage, start the car, and drive drunk if you want to.
Until then, I always thought you had to have actually been DRIVING drunk
to catch a drunk driving charge. I never would have imagined that
sleeping on the side of the road with alcohol in your system was enough
to sustain a drunk driving charge.
There have been people in California that have been charged with DUI because they were intoxicated within a certain distance from their car. If you're standing within 50 feet of your vehicle intoxicated and you're in possession of the keys, they presume you to have access to the vehicle in an intoxicated condition. Again, it would seem the cops could just walk into any bar and start giving all the patrons who have keys in their pockets breathalyzers and then charge them with DUI since they all "have access to their vehicle in an intoxicated condition".
Among other drunk-driving laws that seem to have unintended consequences is the law that basically says, "If it has wheels, it's illegal to be drunk while
operating it". This is how people riding bicycles, riding lawnmowers, even children's toys, like Big Wheels, have been charged with DUI. However, it would also seem to make it illegal for people in wheelchairs to ever be intoxicated.
Sometimes it doesn't even have to be wheels. I heard of one case of a guy being charged with DUI for riding a horse while drunk. I seem to remember him beating the charge because the horse has a mind of its own and will avoid collisions on its own regardless of the idiotic naked ape on its back.
Then again, maybe they reasoned that
if he was sleeping drunk at the side of the road, he must have driven
drunk to get to the spot where he was sleeping.
They could reason that but they couldn't prove that.
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was before she crashed or after she crashed.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 1:30:37 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 20:23:29 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 12:53:29 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
On 2025-08-17 3:00 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle >>>>>> that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very >>>>>> long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him >>>>>> for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol, >>>>>> and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she >>>>>> emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior >>>>>> but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>>>>> have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
I heard about a similar case here in Ontario some years ago. A guy who >>>>> realized he was probably borderline impaired pulled over to the side of >>>>> the road and decided to sleep for a while. The police came along after >>>>> he'd been sleeping awhile and charged him with drunk driving. He pointed >>>>> out that the car was parked, the engine was off and the keys were in his >>>>> pocket but the police said he could have started the car and driven off >>>>> at any time.
I've never understood this line of logic. If merely having access to car keys
is enough to charge someone with drunk driving, then they could theoretically
charge you with drunk driving if you're in your home sitting on the sofa >>>> watching the ballgame and drinking beers. After all, the car keys are right
there on the kitchen counter and you could take them to the garage, start the
car, and drive drunk if you want to.
Until then, I always thought you had to have actually been DRIVING drunk >>>>> to catch a drunk driving charge. I never would have imagined that
sleeping on the side of the road with alcohol in your system was enough >>>>> to sustain a drunk driving charge.
There have been people in California that have been charged with DUI because
they were intoxicated within a certain distance from their car. If you're >>>> standing within 50 feet of your vehicle intoxicated and you're in possession
of the keys, they presume you to have access to the vehicle in an intoxicated
condition. Again, it would seem the cops could just walk into any bar and >>>> start giving all the patrons who have keys in their pockets breathalyzers and
then charge them with DUI since they all "have access to their vehicle in an
intoxicated condition".
So how does California handle people who drink but are out 'camping'
in an RV. If they were driving then I get them being charged with DUI,
but what about when they are at a camp site. Maybe cooking up some
food while drinking some beers around a camp fire? Technically it
sounds like they can be charged with a DUI since the keys and vehicle
are there and they may even be in the vehicle, but it's hard to that
sticking if they fought the charge.
It's all selective enforcement. Yes, the law would make the campers criminals,
too, but the cops never charge people in situations like that, so the question
has never come before a court.
Among other drunk-driving laws that seem to have unintended consequences is
the law that basically says, "If it has wheels, it's illegal to be drunk >>>> while
operating it". This is how people riding bicycles, riding lawnmowers, even >>>> children's toys, like Big Wheels, have been charged with DUI. However, it >>>> would also seem to make it illegal for people in wheelchairs to ever be >>>> intoxicated.
Sometimes it doesn't even have to be wheels. I heard of one case of a guy >>>> being charged with DUI for riding a horse while drunk. I seem to remember him
beating the charge because the horse has a mind of its own and will avoid >>>> collisions on its own regardless of the idiotic naked ape on its back. >>>>
Then again, maybe they reasoned that
if he was sleeping drunk at the side of the road, he must have driven >>>>> drunk to get to the spot where he was sleeping.
They could reason that but they couldn't prove that.
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started
drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew
over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was >>>> before she crashed or after she crashed.
Supposedly, she’s pulled that like half a dozen times. The most famous case it came out she done it four times in a different state before that one.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 14:06:11 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 1:30:37 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >>> wrote:
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started
drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew
over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was >>>>> before she crashed or after she crashed.
Supposedly, she’s pulled that like half a dozen times. The most famous case
it came out she done it four times in a different state before that one.
At some point you think they would be able to call her on it. After
you have pulled the same trick multiple times it shouldn't be a
defense.
Verily, in article <107tjmn$2kfbk$1@dont-email.me>, did
nobody@nowhere.com deliver unto us this message:
On 8/17/2025 5:11 PM, shawn wrote:
At some point you think they would be able to call her on it. After
you have pulled the same trick multiple times it shouldn't be a
defense.
She's a quaff-law...
LOL.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 14:06:11 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 1:30:37 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >>> wrote:
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started
drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew
over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was >>>>> before she crashed or after she crashed.
Supposedly, she’s pulled that like half a dozen times. The most famous case
it came out she done it four times in a different state before that one.
At some point you think they would be able to call her on it. After
you have pulled the same trick multiple times it shouldn't be a
defense.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 14:06:11 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 1:30:37 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >>> wrote:
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started
drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew
over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was >>>>> before she crashed or after she crashed.
Supposedly, she’s pulled that like half a dozen times. The most famous case
it came out she done it four times in a different state before that one.
At some point you think they would be able to call her on it. After
you have pulled the same trick multiple times it shouldn't be a
defense.
Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle
that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very
long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him
for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol,
and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior
but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must
have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she >emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior
but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must
have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
Until then, I always thought you had to have actually been DRIVING drunk
to catch a drunk driving charge. I never would have imagined that
sleeping on the side of the road with alcohol in your system was enough
to sustain a drunk driving charge. Then again, maybe they reasoned that
if he was sleeping drunk at the side of the road, he must have driven
drunk to get to the spot where he was sleeping.
Sometimes it doesn't even have to be wheels. I heard of one case of a guy >being charged with DUI for riding a horse while drunk. I seem to remember him >beating the charge because the horse has a mind of its own and will avoid >collisions on its own regardless of the idiotic naked ape on its back.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 15:53:29 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Until then, I always thought you had to have actually been DRIVING drunk
to catch a drunk driving charge. I never would have imagined that
sleeping on the side of the road with alcohol in your system was enough
to sustain a drunk driving charge. Then again, maybe they reasoned that
if he was sleeping drunk at the side of the road, he must have driven
drunk to get to the spot where he was sleeping.
I once heard of an impaired charge when the PASSENGER was over the
limit and a witness had seen the driver door open but couldn't say
whether anybody had actually gotten out of the car. I think charges
were stayed but am not sure.
Sun, 17 Aug 2025 19:00:54 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she >>emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior
but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
In Canada a plea that he hadn't touched a drop until AFTER his car had
broken down would be considered "reasonable doubt" - unless of course
his blood alcohol was in the stratosphere when tested. I'm talking .07
- .12 as opposed to > .30
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Sun, 17 Aug 2025 19:00:54 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she
emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior
but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must
have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
In Canada a plea that he hadn't touched a drop until AFTER his car had
broken down would be considered "reasonable doubt" - unless of course
his blood alcohol was in the stratosphere when tested. I'm talking .07
- .12 as opposed to > .30
Sigh
Yes, an expert witness could testify how quickly alchohol is
metabolized. That means fuck all if the prosecutor has no evidence of
drunk driving.
We have a drunk in a broken-down vehicle. That's all. Drunk while
sitting in a disabled vehicle is not a crime.
You are completely missing the point.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Sun, 17 Aug 2025 19:00:54 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she
emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior >>>> but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>>> have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
In Canada a plea that he hadn't touched a drop until AFTER his car had
broken down would be considered "reasonable doubt" - unless of course
his blood alcohol was in the stratosphere when tested. I'm talking .07
- .12 as opposed to > .30
Sigh
Yes, an expert witness could testify how quickly alchohol is
metabolized. That means fuck all if the prosecutor has no evidence of
drunk driving.
We have a drunk in a broken-down vehicle. That's all. Drunk while
sitting in a disabled vehicle is not a crime.
I watched something last week where the cop said that the girlfriend being
in a car in the driveway to cool off after a fight was considered drunk driving even though she didn’t drive anywhere and they dragged her off to jail.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Sep 1, 2025 at 11:07:55 PM PDT, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Sun, 17 Aug 2025 19:00:54 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she >>>>>> emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior >>>>>> but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>>>>> have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
In Canada a plea that he hadn't touched a drop until AFTER his car had >>>>> broken down would be considered "reasonable doubt" - unless of course >>>>> his blood alcohol was in the stratosphere when tested. I'm talking .07 >>>>> - .12 as opposed to > .30
Sigh
Yes, an expert witness could testify how quickly alchohol is
metabolized. That means fuck all if the prosecutor has no evidence of
drunk driving.
We have a drunk in a broken-down vehicle. That's all. Drunk while
sitting in a disabled vehicle is not a crime.
I watched something last week where the cop said that the girlfriend being >>> in a car in the driveway to cool off after a fight was considered drunk
driving even though she didn’t drive anywhere and they dragged her off to >>> jail.
I just watched a body-cam video on the YouTubes where a guy ran out of gas >> and
pushed his car into a nearby gas station lot but the store was closed and he >> couldn't fill up till it opened, so he sat there and had a few beers and
listened to music while he waited.
Cops came along and you guessed it, hooked him up for drunk driving because >> he
was in the driver's seat and the keys were in the ignition. But surprise! He >> ended up beating the charge at his bench trial. The judge found that since >> the
car was out of gas, he had no ability to drive it, so the normal rules didn't
apply. The prosecution tried to argue that it was only a matter of time
before
the store opened and he put gas in the car, at which point he would have
driven away, but the judge said that chain of events was too tenuous and
remote to sustain the charge, and there was no way to determine if he'd still
be intoxicated hours into the future.
So happy ending.
I'm tired of these stories. Does someone have a story in which a police officer encountered someone possibly in trouble, checked to make sure he
was okay, they had a polite encounter, the cop wasn't attempting to
perform a warrantless search, and everybody went on his way?
On Sep 1, 2025 at 11:07:55 PM PDT, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Sun, 17 Aug 2025 19:00:54 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she >>>>>emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior >>>>>but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>>>>have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
In Canada a plea that he hadn't touched a drop until AFTER his car had >>>>broken down would be considered "reasonable doubt" - unless of course >>>>his blood alcohol was in the stratosphere when tested. I'm talking .07 >>>>- .12 as opposed to > .30
Sigh
Yes, an expert witness could testify how quickly alchohol is
metabolized. That means fuck all if the prosecutor has no evidence of >>>drunk driving.
We have a drunk in a broken-down vehicle. That's all. Drunk while
sitting in a disabled vehicle is not a crime.
I watched something last week where the cop said that the girlfriend being >>in a car in the driveway to cool off after a fight was considered drunk >>driving even though she didn’t drive anywhere and they dragged her off to >>jail.
I just watched a body-cam video on the YouTubes where a guy ran out of gas and >pushed his car into a nearby gas station lot but the store was closed and he >couldn't fill up till it opened, so he sat there and had a few beers and >listened to music while he waited.
Cops came along and you guessed it, hooked him up for drunk driving because he >was in the driver's seat and the keys were in the ignition. But surprise! He >ended up beating the charge at his bench trial. The judge found that since the >car was out of gas, he had no ability to drive it, so the normal rules didn't >apply. The prosecution tried to argue that it was only a matter of time before >the store opened and he put gas in the car, at which point he would have >driven away, but the judge said that chain of events was too tenuous and >remote to sustain the charge, and there was no way to determine if he'd still >be intoxicated hours into the future.
So happy ending.
On Sep 1, 2025 at 11:07:55 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Sun, 17 Aug 2025 19:00:54 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she
emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior >>>>> but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>>>> have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
In Canada a plea that he hadn't touched a drop until AFTER his car had >>>> broken down would be considered "reasonable doubt" - unless of course
his blood alcohol was in the stratosphere when tested. I'm talking .07 >>>> - .12 as opposed to > .30
Sigh
Yes, an expert witness could testify how quickly alchohol is
metabolized. That means fuck all if the prosecutor has no evidence of
drunk driving.
We have a drunk in a broken-down vehicle. That's all. Drunk while
sitting in a disabled vehicle is not a crime.
I watched something last week where the cop said that the girlfriend being >> in a car in the driveway to cool off after a fight was considered drunk
driving even though she didn’t drive anywhere and they dragged her off to >> jail.
I just watched a body-cam video on the YouTubes where a guy ran out of gas and
pushed his car into a nearby gas station lot but the store was closed and he couldn't fill up till it opened, so he sat there and had a few beers and listened to music while he waited.
Cops came along and you guessed it, hooked him up for drunk driving because he
was in the driver's seat and the keys were in the ignition. But surprise! He ended up beating the charge at his bench trial. The judge found that since the
car was out of gas, he had no ability to drive it, so the normal rules didn't apply. The prosecution tried to argue that it was only a matter of time before
the store opened and he put gas in the car, at which point he would have driven away, but the judge said that chain of events was too tenuous and remote to sustain the charge, and there was no way to determine if he'd still be intoxicated hours into the future.
So happy ending.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 11:58:41 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,703 |