Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeycop
The fact that he was never given a breath/blood test AND was not asked to take a breat/blood test AND did not refuse (as no oppotunity was given), creates an error in law.
|
Isn't the fact that the accused admitted to have been drinking enough? (I ask because thought it would be.)
I'm just thinking back to one day in traffic court; a lady in front of me was pleading not guilty to her 125 in a 100 zone ticket; saying that she wasn't doing 125 but really 140. The officer was cutting her a bit of a break by only marking 25 over. Based on her testimony, the judge then found her guilty of 140 in a 100 zone.
By taking this to court; wouldn't he run the same risk- that he could be found guilty of a higher offense?