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?
|
Agreed, I find it hard to believe that this legislation doesn't allow for a confession to be used in lieu of a breath test. I know that the text quoted here by hockeycop only gives two grounds, but that's not a full analysis of how the statute works. You need to read the particular language in conjunction with the entire document. That said, poorly drafted legislation isn't all that rare.