Quote:
Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor
Thats a good point. And I wonder why his lawyer didn't argue that. His lawyer was basically arguing that the search was unlawful.....The lawyer isn't arguing that actual proof of the evidence such as "how do the police know he was drunk while driving and how do they know he didn't pile down a 26 of whiskey once he got home?"
I guess it all depends on the time between when the call was placed and when the officers arrived. It could be argued that if he did pound down a bottle, it would take a certain amount of time for the alcohol to be digested into the blood stream. But the lawyer isn't arguing this....they only way I can think of the reason why they are not arguing this is because the exwife would testify that subject drank so much at her house and then testified that he drove home.
|
Aha...smarter then a lawyer...who'd a thunk?
I don't know how long it takes for alcohol to reach your bloodstream...but the article mentioned that Fowler had liquor on his breath. Having liquor on his breath is a poor reason to do a breath test.
In the end...since Fowler wasn't actually driving...the cops had no right, nor did they have a reason to do a breath test.
And even if Fowler drank so much at his ex-wifes house...how would she, the police officers or the court know if he was over the limit? No proper evidence, no proper case.