just tell the courts you had cock breath and were afraid they would find out.


but in all honest, i had no idea that refusal was so bad. i would think that it wasn't as bad. but definitely the cop should have explained the meaning of refusing over just blowing into the machine.

quote:

Originally posted by iant56 Note to drinkers: Never drink and drive - it's not worth it. Second note to drinkers: It's always easier to defend a "refusal" charge than it is to defend an "over 80" charge. Edit: Fuck...this was Lisa

lisa knows! so maybe it is not as bad as you all think.

quote:

Originally posted by StereoPrincess just tell the courts you had cock breath and were afraid they would find out. but in all honest, i had no idea that refusal was so bad. i would think that it wasn't as bad. but definitely the cop should have explained the meaning of refusing over just blowing into the machine.

if the penalty for refusing to take the test was lower than blowing over the limit...then no one who had been drinking would ever agree to take the test

it's a driver's responsibility to know the rules of the road. I'm pretty stunned at how many people didn't know this one! (hopefully you all don't drink and drive though...so you'll never find yourselves in this situation in the first place).

quote:

Originally posted by TrAnCeiN4LiFe the dues and punishment will certainly be less if you go with a lawyer as lawyers actually work for city believe it or not.

What do you mean by that? That lawyers work for the city?

quote:

[i][b] plus the cop does not have to show up to court even if you request it all he needs to do is submit his notes.

Yes, the officer does if it goes to trial. You have a right to face your accuser and ask questions, in Canada you have the right to a fair trial.

___________________
www.cammaxwell.com/ Facebook Group/ Fan Page

quote:

Originally posted by iant56 Second note to drinkers: It's always easier to defend a "refusal" charge than it is to defend an "over 80" charge.

I would think it's actually harder to defend a refusal charge. With a DUI you can argue several things like equipment failure, invalid test results, ect...

With a refusal, what can you argue?

___________________
www.cammaxwell.com/ Facebook Group/ Fan Page

___________________
- rabbit.joker [funny¿rabbit] | www.rabbitjoker.com |www.ddtt.org

Dark Dirty Tech Tribal. | Hands in air (trance) and feet on the floor (house).

i hear this guy is good.

http://www.bettercallsaul.com/

___________________
Deviant Art - Smuncky
My Photos on Flickr
If anyone wants to share their clubbing/nightlife pics go to Toronto Nightlife
"The best car-related innovation we have is not to improve the car, but eliminate the need to drive it everywhere we go.” -Alex Steffen

quote:

Originally posted by smuncky i hear this guy is good. http://www.bettercallsaul.com/

LOL....

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon chinamon is INCH MOAN. LOL so fitting.

quote:

Originally posted by smuncky i hear this guy is good. http://www.bettercallsaul.com/

"I once convinced a woman I was Kevin Costner... and it worked! Because I believed it."

quote:

Originally posted by cammaxwell I would think it's actually harder to defend a refusal charge. With a DUI you can argue several things like equipment failure, invalid test results, ect... With a refusal, what can you argue?

I don't know, I've never done it myself. But my boss from Windsor (I work for a criminal defense lawyer) has said it, and his former boss (naturally, also a criminal defense lawyer) has said the same thing.

I have very rarely encountered arguments such as "equipment failure" or "invalid test results" for DUIs. Unless the equipment actually fails - which it usually doesn't - that argument would be useless. Arguments are more like "the driver's conduct was not a marked departure."

If you don't blow, they don't have an over 80 result to have to deal with, and they have a harder time proving you're drunk.

-Lisa

Edit: Although I'm not a lawyer (yet, hehe), the best advice I could give would be that if they ask for a breath sample, say you want to speak with a lawyer first. Although this is not an absolute right (as you may not have been arrested yet, there is recent case law that says that if you're required to take a breathalyzer you should be allowed to speak to a lawyer first). If they don't, that's possible grounds for excluding the breath sample at trial. If they do, by the time you take the sample, your blood alcohol level will have gone down.

However, I still stand by THIS advice: DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!

___________________
Thats the way it goes

Last edited by iant56 on Jun-24-2010 at 02:18

yeah i believe you can take different kinds of tests at the station, if you have asthma or there's some other reason why you can't blow into the thing properly

if you're borderline you'll probably be fine by the time they can administer a different test. if you're smashed, it's nobody's fault but yours...

___________________
I drink to make other people more interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by iant56 ... If you don't blow, they don't have an over 80 result to have to deal with, and they have a harder time proving you're drunk. -Lisa Edit: Although I'm not a lawyer (yet, hehe), the best advice I could give would be that if they ask for a breath sample, say you want to speak with a lawyer first. Although this is not an absolute right (as you may not have been arrested yet, there is recent case law that says that if you're required to take a breathalyzer you should be allowed to speak to a lawyer first). If they don't, that's possible grounds for excluding the breath sample at trial. If they do, by the time you take the sample, your blood alcohol level will have gone down. However, I still stand by THIS advice: DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!

they don't have to prove your were drunk...this is not a DUI charge. this is an entirely separate charge for failing to provide a breathalyzer sample.

I would be very curious to see this case law of which you speak, whereby the right to speak with an attorney prior to giving a sample was successfully used in court. if that were the case, would it not essentially render the law unenforceable?