Legal Help DUI

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by bcb

No alcohol evaporates at a lower temperature than water, so it's gone pretty easily, but the flavor does remain. When you make veal Marsala (as an example), you can add copious amounts of Marsala wine; however, you won't get drunk. You are only tasting the flavor of the wine, provided you cook it long enough.

Alcohol in finished food

A study by a team of researchers at the University of Idaho, Washington State University, and the US Department of Agriculture's Nutrient Data Laboratory calculated the percentage of alcohol remaining in a dish based on various cooking methods. The results are as follows:

• alcohol added to boiling liquid & removed from heat - 85% alcohol retained
• alcohol flamed - 75% alcohol retained
• no heat, stored overnight - 70% alcohol retained
• baked, 25 minutes, alcohol not stirred into mixture - 45% alcohol retained
• baked/simmered, alcohol stirred into mixture:
  • 15 minutes 40% alcohol retained
  • 30 minutes 35% alcohol retained
  • 1 hour 25% alcohol retained
  • 1.5 hours 20% alcohol retained
  • 2 hours 10% alcohol retained
  • 2.5 hours 5% alcohol retained. [1]

Anyhoo, type "cooking with alcohol" into Google.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by thesmugger

The last thing you said there. So by law, they are required to have a screening if they wont to confirm or deny my suspension?

No, they are not. That is only written into the law so that if they want you to provide a sample they have the legal authority to demand it from you. Not sure if you missed the highlighted MAY which means the officer has a choice unlike MUST which would mean the officer would have to demand a breath sample.

The bottom line is the officer did not require you to provide a breath sample in order to give you a 30 day suspension. You telling him that you consumed alcohol was enough. Had you lied to him and he had reasonable grounds to suspect that you had consumed alcohol, then he most likely would have demanded a breath sample.

Depending on your level of intoxication if any, you telling the truth may have saved you from an actual DUI. Who knows what your BAC would have been if the officer had demanded a breath sample from you.

Like many people have already said, I think you just need to consider yourself lucky regardless if anyone thinks that the GDL is to strict. Who knows, had you provided a breath sample you could have been sitting in a jail cell.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by thesmugger

so i'm assuming you're in the insurance industry? Your client got the. Novice Driver Zero Alchol sheet?

I didn't get any other tickets or fines. Just this sheet with a temporary licence. Why would I be able to drive for another week after such a serious thing. My friend got a DUI and lost his licence on the spot

The one week is suppose to allow you to get all your affairs in order with a vehicle so you can set up alternate means of transportation.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by thesmugger

I'm coPnfused as heck here. There where no tickets given. The police never gave me a breathalyzer. I just got the 30 day suspension/car impounded.

Neither of these choices got checked

A) a breath sample indicates that alcohol is present in your-blood

Like I said before, a breath sample is not required; the act gives the authority to the officer if he wants you to provide one. If that section wasn't in the act I doubt he would be able to demand a sample from you.

- Strong smell of alcohol on breath
- Admission to consumption of vodka. Prior to driving (however there is No note of this being 10 hours before or 1 hour before)

From what I can see there is no mention in the Act about time frames and actual BAC amounts. It is so broad that all the officer needs to believe is that someone on a GDL consumed alcohol. Now, had you consumed alcohol 10 days ago and that was the last time you had consumed alcohol then you may have a case. However, according to the information you provided and like others have mentioned already, it appears there was ample evidence to suggest that you consumed alcohol recently. The information from the medical crew, your admission of consumption and likely an odor of alcohol. That alone would be reasonable grounds to believe if not higher than a balance of probabilities.

If I take this before the transportation board, will they throw this out because there is no breath sample? They never took the test, therefore how do they know my level was above 0?

The only way you will answer this question is to take it before the board. I don't even know if there is an appeal process for this. But if you are trying to get around this because they did not obtain a breath sample than don't bother. See explanation above.

IMO you just need to take this as a life lesson and if you plan on drinking and driving again while you still have a GDL, plan in advance to have someone pick you up or take a taxi.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by puckluck

The guy is a ###### because of a law that was put into place not to long ago? Would he still be a ###### now if the GDL program never came into affect?

We are blaming the new GDL program for this mess now?

The EMS STILL would have followed him and called the CPS irregardless of him having a GDL or not. However, if the GDL and the zero tolerance didn't exist, I'm sure the CPS officer would have instead administered a breath sample after he admitted to drinking. That opens up the doors to other possible and more serious charges than an administrative 30 day suspension.

So in this case, the OP is actually lucky.

[narbeZ]

No one is going to condone lying to a police officer.

All I have to say is it's probably worth the risk if you only have had a couple beers.

If you have had more then a couple beers and know that you shouldn't be driving, your basically screwed anyways so you might as well tell the truth and lose your license.

I think at the point where YOU know you shouldn't be driving, or if YOU know your taking a risk, that is the point where you should be phoning a cab.

Every police officer is different. Some of them i'm sure have a knack for raping anyone they find suspicious of drinking. Some like in my case want to teach someone a valuable lesson, and some just don't wanna do either and are just putting in time.

The fact of the matter is, if you drink then drive, its gonna catch up to you one day. They say a drunk drives 1000's of times before they get caught.


One thing that does bug me about this thread though is the amount of hypocrites. I seriously cannot believe all the high and mighty people here that have "never" had a beer at a pub then drove home.

Go into your average neighborhood pub and there is 15 or more people that do it on a weekly basis.

I applaud those who have never did it.

[algernon]

OK. So you got caught, got off easy without a criminal record, and are trying to scheme a way out?

Be a man, man. Accept your fate, learn from it, and maybe even drop a few pounds over the month while walking. Who knows? maybe with your new-found physique you will meet a pretty girl who also enjoys walking and get started on a health kick that will last your entire life.
The externalities can be positive, yo.

[moon]

Originally Posted by algernon

OK. So you got caught, got off easy without a criminal record, and are trying to scheme a way out?

What has he said that indicated that he deserved a criminal record?

[CMPunk]

So did we find out why EMS called the cops on you?

[normtwofinger]

Originally Posted by moon

What has he said that indicated that he deserved a criminal record?

What he said is that he was impaired enough for an EMS driver to call the cops on him, didn't receive a breathalizer, and only received a 30 day suspension.

He should feel lucky that he doesn't have a full impaired charge right now.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by moon

What has he said that indicated that he deserved a criminal record?

The whole getting pulled over by an ambulance, while hilarious and a great thing to picture, makes me think he was drunk enough to possibly deserve a criminal record. We obviously don't know for sure, but c'mon. He was pulled over by an ambulance!!!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by thesmugger

I'm coPnfused as heck here. There where no tickets given. The police never gave me a breathalyzer. I just got the 30 day suspension/car impounded.

Neither of these choices got checked

A) a breath sample indicates that alcohol is present in your-blood

or

B) you, without a reasonable excuse, failed or refused to provide a breath sample as requested

in writing under B the officer put

- Strong smell of alcohol on breath
- Admission to consumption of vodka. Prior to driving (however there is No note of this being 10 hours before or 1 hour before)


If I take this before the transportation board, will they throw this out because there is no breath sample? They never took the test, therefore how do they know my level was above 0?

IANAL, but the fact that you admitted to drinking pretty much eliminated the need for a breathalyzer. You can play stupid on CP all you want, but there is no judge on earth that would accept that you were unaware that the question was referring to the night you were pulled over.

At the risk of being another "######" in this thread, stop behaving like a dick. You got busted driving under the influence, and the cop gave you a f'ing break. You were given a chance to learn your lesson without serious long-term ramifications.

If he really wanted to, he could have nailed your ass, and you'd be looking at a lot longer than 30 days without a license. Not to mention an insurance cost likely too prohibative for you to afford once you got it back.

Count your blessings and move on.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by flip

All of the alcohol? Every last drop?

Plus, that is my whole point. It is one thing to claim that any amount of alcohol (even just a sip) impairs a persons judgment. Theoretically I'm sure that on some level that is true. Even just a single drop of alcohol might cause a microscopic level of impairment. It might only last for 2 minutes though.

Let's be realistic here though. We are talking about enough alcohol to impair a persons driving. 99.9% of the population will be 100% sober if they consume a drop of alcohol.

For all intents and purposes there is absolutely no driving impairment for most people if they have one or two drinks.

I am not sure why you keep posting this stuff, it is simply not true. I have had to take SERIOUS courses (for work) on 'impairment', and from what the experts have told me (I have taken the course twice) that each drink someone takes causes increased impairment, starting with the first. Each drink of alcohol impacts the brain in ways that cause decreased reaction time, decreased 'common sense' and decreased attention (and other problems). This has been tested numerous times and they all result in the same way: Drinking, even one drink, impacts driving negatively. Please, if you want to continue posting in this thread, stop posting your opinion on alcohol as facts unless you have at least studied the subject.

[moon]

Originally Posted by normtwofinger

What he said is that he was impaired enough for an EMS driver to call the cops on him, didn't receive a breathalizer, and only received a 30 day suspension.

He should feel lucky that he doesn't have a full impaired charge right now.

He never said he was impaired enough for the EMS to pull him over he said they did pull him over.

Again he hasn't said enough to determine whether or not he should feel lucky at all.

Originally Posted by valo403

The whole getting pulled over by an ambulance, while hilarious and a great thing to picture, makes me think he was drunk enough to possibly deserve a criminal record. We obviously don't know for sure, but c'mon. He was pulled over by an ambulance!!!

If he was that impaired than why wouldn't the cops have done more than give him a 30 day suspension?

Just as easy to make an assumption based on the police actions than it is based on the EMS actions.

I am also not sure why he would have pulled over or even waited because some ambulance told me to.

[normtwofinger]

moon you're an idiot...stop arguing for the sake of arguing. You well know the OP is lucky not to have a full impaired charge.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by moon

If he was that impaired than why wouldn't the cops have done more than give him a 30 day suspension?

Maybe the officer felt that his job to protect public safety was best served by giving this kid a good scare; without subjecting him to a criminal record.

As for the fact that he didn't admit on CP that he was that loaded; the whole EMS pulling him over leads me to think it is most likely that he was driving badly enough that they pulled him over. Is it possible that he wasn't driving badly? Sure. But it is also possible that Martians had a tractor beam on his car. Most of us here are going with what is most likely.

[moon]

Originally Posted by normtwofinger

moon you're an idiot...stop arguing for the sake of arguing. You well know the OP is lucky not to have a full impaired charge.

Good job making your argument without the personal insults even though a mod already asked people not to make them in this thread.

Not arguing for the sake of arguing at all, just tired of people jumpiing all over people for no reason.

There is no information in this thread that indicates that the guy was lucky to not get an full impaired charge. He talked to the cops and they let him off without one. It would seem they were in a much better position to determine what was deserved or not than you sitting at home at your computer with about 20% of the information of what happened that night.

[BlackArcher101]

Were forgetting the other possibility here. Maybe the OP is a minority driving a right hand drive mad tyte JDM machine at 2:30am, and the EMS simply followed as he was suspicious or possibly a gang member, only to find out he was later loaded to the gills

[moon]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Maybe the officer felt that his job to protect public safety was best served by giving this kid a good scare; without subjecting him to a criminal record.

If that was the case then obviously he wasn't the major threat that people made him out to be or some terrible person.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by moon

Not arguing for the sake of arguing at all, just tired of people jumpiing all over people for no reason.

1. Yes you are.
2. Driving under the influence and trying to whine your way out of it is most definitely a reason to get jumped all over.