Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
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?
|
I don't know, but I would think where the statute specifically states a procedure must take place, in addition to another poster giving a story where he had a drink, however he blew 0 on the breathalyser.
To me the argument is, I could have blown 0, not that he clearly would have blown 0.01 or higher.
If you're proving you weren't travelling 125kmh by stating you were actually driving 140kmh then (provided the statute of limitations of amending a charge hasn't past) the judge could find for the higher infraction.
However, it's argumentation like this why the OP should talk to a lawyer in this field.