5 killed on Macleod trail crash - Update: GUILTY! - Page 15 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

FlamesKickAss · 03-12-2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

I think the defence is suggesting that since they have no concrete proof you can't say he was drunk. The prosecution seems to be trying to prove he was drink by presenting witnesses at the scene who said they smelled alcohol on his breath and the testimony of the offcer that retrieved the vodka bottle from the hopper.

which is weird because if he wasnt drunk why did he refuse the test?

Dion · 03-12-2009, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Uhhh, unless I'm mistaken, everything at the scene of the crime can be used as evidence. Including the vodka bottle.

The police didn't need a search warrant.

That's what i thought too untill the offcier said he didn't have time to get a search warrant because he felt the cement would have dried.

Dion · 03-12-2009, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesKickAss

which is weird because if he wasnt drunk why did he refuse the test?

I'm willing to bet he got legal advice that told him not to blow. Makes it harder to prove he was over the limit.

JD · 03-12-2009, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

I'd take it a step further and say that someone who refuses to blow is automaticly guilty of driving impaired.

My understanding is that it is essentially treated the same in the eyes of the law. Same criminal record, same punishments. Obviously the intent being that it encourages people to blow when asked. If you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, you may as well try blowing.

But I could be wrong.

In a case like this, I could see why his lawyer would advise not to blow, despite the equivalence in criminal charges. At least in this scenario, the guy is still obviously guilty as hell, but there's always some doubt in the public eyes as to whether he was really drunk. If he blows and tests over .08, he's the most evil villain ever seen in our fair city. If he refuses to blow, he only might be.

But I agree with the notion above that it is even more insane to think that he might have done this completely sober. If he was drunk, at least there's an explanation.

BlackArcher101 · 03-12-2009, 03:20 PM

Back in the day I witnessed a teenager rear end a parked car and immediately threw a vodka bottle out the window onto the lawn. Meanwhile the passenger was bleeding profusely from the heat after hitting the windshield but all this teen cared about was trying to save himself.

I was the only one that witnessed the bottle being thrown and for some reason the cops didn't get a BAC done. In the end, I was summoned to court as a witness to prove this was DUI. The teen was found guilty of DUI and the cop mentioned to me that had I didn't see the bottle being thrown from the car AND didn't see liquid coming from the bottle midflight, the teen wouldn't have been charged with the more serious offense.

Just thought I would add that. Seems it might apply to this case as well. In the end, I had to prove the bottle came from within the reach of the driver and that the cap was or once was off and fluid was still coming from it for it to be a DUI charge without a BAC being done.

FlamesAddiction · 03-12-2009, 03:36 PM

I was told by a lawyer one time that if I was ever caught drinking and driving that I should refuse to take a breath test. Taking one will pretty much prove your guilt, and while not taking one looks bad, it is to your benefit apparently.

CGYTransplant · 03-12-2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

Thanks for that link Dion. The spin the defense was putting on yesterday seemed to indicate that he just happened to have been given a bottle of booze, wasn't drinking it, and disposed of it in a moment of panic. Looks more like he had 20 ounces of Vodka in his system.

I'd like to see in a case like this- failing to provide a breath sample now means the burden of proof is now on his shoulders; he has to prove that his blood alcohol was below .08 because there is now proof of excessive alcohol consumption. Sure- he could have drank that days or weeks before. Too bad he blew his chance to prove his BAC. (pun intended.)

This may have already been said, I didn't read to the bottom....

I get bottles of wine, scotch, etc as Christmas presents all the time. Sometimes I even have to transport them home with me in my vehicle.

If I were to get pulled over, it would be immediately obvious that the bottles were unopened. I tend to put booze in the trunk (I hate the sound of full bottles knocking together) anyway, but even if I didn't, I'd have nothing to hide.

That goes double for if I get asked to take a breathalyzer. I don't drive if I've had any alcohol that night, so I have nothing to hide.

If the bottle truly was full, and sealed, as the defence was trying to portray, then why the panic, why hide it, and why refuse a breathalyzer- Tschetter would have nothing to hide.

Is any of this truly damning evidence? No. But it sure makes you go Hmmmmm..., especially when combined with the testimony from witnesses (that he seemed dazed, was confused, smelled of alcohol).

T@T · 03-12-2009, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

I think the defence is suggesting that since they have no concrete proof you can't say he was drunk. The prosecution seems to be trying to prove he was drink by presenting witnesses at the scene who said they smelled alcohol on his breath and the testimony of the offcer that retrieved the vodka bottle from the hopper.

I thought you couldn't smell vodka on a persons breath?

CaptainCrunch · 03-12-2009, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T@T

I thought you couldn't smell vodka on a persons breath?

I also heard that you can't get a girl pregnant if you do her standing up in the shower.

Its not a good idea to experiment with the police at a check stop in terms of vodka breath. Its smellable.

Burninator · 03-12-2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Uhhh, unless I'm mistaken, everything at the scene of the crime can be used as evidence. Including the vodka bottle.

The police didn't need a search warrant.

That's what I would have thought too. Although on the surface of it, it's just a traffic accident, so maybe the police do need a warrant? Are the police allowed to search your vehicle if you get in a fender bender? I wouldn't think so, but what do I know? So when does a traffic accident become a criminal matter?

burn_baby_burn · 03-12-2009, 04:41 PM

How come the cops can search your vehicle if they pull you over for speeding? What is the differance between a routine traffic stop and an accident?

4X4 · 03-12-2009, 04:46 PM

Just a guess here, but I think that under normal circumstances, a major accident results in the vehicles being towed to the police impound lot. If the investigating officers think there's a reason to take the car into their examination bay, they first get a warrrant from a judge.

In this case, it would have been too lat as the crete would have been rock hard by then.

Burninator · 03-12-2009, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

How come the cops can search your vehicle if they pull you over for speeding? What is the differance between a routine traffic stop and an accident?

I don't believe the cops can search your vehicle if they pull you over for speeding unless they have probable cause to search your vehicle. If they ask you if they can search your car, they are asking you, not telling you. You have the right to not consenting a search. This is my no legal experience opinion though. Don't tell the cops "but Burninator said..."

burn_baby_burn · 03-12-2009, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burninator

I don't believe the cops can search your vehicle if they pull you over for speeding unless they have probable cause to search your vehicle. If they ask you if they can search your car, they are asking you, not telling you. You have the right to not consenting a search. This is my no legal experience opinion though. Don't tell the cops "but Burninator said..."

Ha ha, I'm not to worried about it now. When I was in high school in a small town I would get pulled over and searched all the time. Same with most of the other kids my age. I just thought that was the way things were.

fredr123 · 03-12-2009, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I was told by a lawyer one time that if I was ever caught drinking and driving that I should refuse to take a breath test. Taking one will pretty much prove your guilt, and while not taking one looks bad, it is to your benefit apparently.

That's a very odd thing for a lawyer to say.

Azure · 03-12-2009, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burninator

That's what I would have thought too. Although on the surface of it, it's just a traffic accident, so maybe the police do need a warrant? Are the police allowed to search your vehicle if you get in a fender bender? I wouldn't think so, but what do I know? So when does a traffic accident become a criminal matter?

I doubt there is a difference. Scene of the accident, scene of the crime....same thing.

Azure · 03-12-2009, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

How come the cops can search your vehicle if they pull you over for speeding? What is the differance between a routine traffic stop and an accident?

They can't. Technically they need your permission. Unless I'm completely off-base here, but IIRC, your car is like your home. The police need a search warrant for both.

But if there is an accident/crime.....I would assume that everything is turned in as evidence.

I mean, it could be deemed an accident until the police figure everything out.

Azure · 03-12-2009, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredr123

That's a very odd thing for a lawyer to say.

But it is true.

Just wondering here.....are the police allowed to force you to take the breath test?

fredr123 · 03-12-2009, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

But it is true.

Just wondering here.....are the police allowed to force you to take the breath test?

I guess if your goal is to avoid an impaired driving conviction, then yeah, refusing to blow will help you in that department. However, if you refuse, you get charged with a refusal. Same punishment as an impaired or over 80 conviction.

If you blow over, there are all sorts of technical arguments your counsel could use to get the results tossed out. If you refuse... well, it's pretty hard to argue that you didn't blow when you didn't blow.

Azure · 03-12-2009, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredr123

I guess if your goal is to avoid an impaired driving conviction, then yeah, refusing to blow will help you in that department. However, if you refuse, you get charged with a refusal. Same punishment as an impaired or over 80 conviction.

If you blow over, there are all sorts of technical arguments your counsel could use to get the results tossed out. If you refuse... well, it's pretty hard to argue that you didn't blow when you didn't blow.

Ah, okay.

And whats the deal with the police being able to search your car at a crime/accident scene, but not when they just pull you over?