My boyfriend's mother gave him a vehicle. The day after he got his license, he decided that while I was at work, he would go pick the vehicle up & park it at our house. He did not take in to consideration that police do monitor the roads & that the was no tag, registration, or insurance on this vehicle. Reasonably, he thought that if he had a friend follow him, then there would be no reason for him to get pulled over & he would make it home safely. Well.. he was wrong. He did get pulled over & searched. He did not have anything on him, or in the vehicle. They decided to give him a field test & he failed. Even though he wasn't under the influence at the time, he felt intimated by them because of a comment such as 'this dog is pretty snappy, hes put me in the hospital before', so he told them that he had smoked at 1:30 that afternoon, even though, this was at 7pm, they got him for DUI. Should he plead guilty and take what they give him, or plead not guilty & fight it since they made mistakes such as the comment mentioned above, everyone knows that a dog that put an officer in the hospital, would not still be on the force & they did not tell him he had the right to refuse the piss test they pulled when the arrived at the court house, nor did he sign any paperwork giving them permission to test him until after they tested him. I say plead not guilty, he thinks he should plead quilty, what do you think??:beatdeadhorse5:
Plead guilty. He didn't know his rights and made a mistake and he needs to pay for it now instead of making it worse. When the police find you driving a vehicle stoned and the drug test you and you're positive there's NO way to say "It wasn't me." without looking like a FUCKING RETARD.
I'd plead not guilty. Get an expert to come testify and say that THC would have lost all effects that hinder driving in that timespan.
thats exactly how i feel about it. hes afraid that if he pleads not quilty that hes going to go to jail without a doubt because theyre going to be mad at him for trying to fight it. i fell he has a good case & needs to fight it.
Its not like they video-taped his eyes bugging out when they field-tested them. They dont really have much proof, and field-tests are just that... They are not conclusive, and most likely, would not be grounds for a lawsuit. I wouldn't make an argument that the police were "intimidating" him, because, he did waive his rights, and did incriminate himself. Also, that would put the cops on the defensive, wanting to "protect their own" Because, ultimately, they are the keepers of the law, and they know it best. And we are just rambling hippy pot heads that they feel they can manipulate. The odds, as always, are in favor of the house. Remember that. P.S. I like your thread a lot better than his.
If he is going to fight the case he absoloutly needs a lawyer. Because he waived his rights and incrimanated himself the arguments will have to technical and nuanced. A lawyer will also be able to give better advice about what to do. They will know what kind of penalty to realistacly expect(often varies dramatically from statutes) and can lay out the options even if you decide to plead guilty. On the face of it your bfs case does sound like a lost cause though. Remember our legal system is not about right and wrong, or even the truth, it is about who makes the best argument within the law.
If he pleads not guilty and demands his right to trial by jury then there'd be enough former pot smokers to know that the DUI is bullshit Buuuuutttt Demanding trial by jury for just a DUI in an overbloated court system would probably really piss off the judge. I'd say go for not guilty, and have him say in court is a frequent marijuana user and that he smoked 1 bowl at that time and there's no way he could still be high 6 hours later. Not to mention the fact a kid with no license in an unregistered car with no insurance with a dog remember for him to say that the cop said "sent him to the hospital" is a pretty nerve racking thing. Just compare it to a false positive on anything.
THC only can POSSIBLY impair your system for 4 to 6 hours and most people agree that its way less than that so he might be able to get out of the DUI... usuually they cant prove your still impaired after 5 and a half hours
He did have his liscence, he got them the day before the happened. Ironic, huh?? Thank you for your advice though.
Not really. IT shows that you aren't naive when it comes to marijuana, and that you know its effects. Its not like the judge is gonna be like... "OMG! u smoked pot! ur going to jail rite now!"
