Need help and advise...

[lookit]

A good friend of mine blew over the legal limit on the breathalizer during a checkpoint downtown.

He was coming from house warming party with his wife and had exactly 2 1/2 glasses of wine and a bottle of beer between 6PM and midnight. When asked by the office if he had drank anything, thinking fully that he wouldn't blow over the limit, he said he had a couple glasses of wine. Well, he blew 120, I think that is 40 above the limit of 80. His license was immediatelysuspended for 90 days pending a court trial sometime in August.

Everyone that I spoke to at the party on his condition claimed that he was sober and were surprised on the turn of events. Obviously, he is very very disappointed and distraught on what happened. He wants to fight this and seek legal advise. We have heard and read of this happening to other people but don't really know someone personally that's gone thru this. We've been helping him read up and ask people for advise on what to do and if there is a chance that he can get out of this without the 1 year suspension. I don't tolerate drinking and driving as well and but I feel sorry that this happened to him. He is an honest and a good family guy and as much as maybe he deserves some sort of punishment, I dont think it merits the one year suspension.

Money being a factor, is he better off going to a DUI Lawyer or XCopper or a similar company for legal representation for his case? Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

[LordLoki]

Dui

get a lawyer...forget about xcopper

Well, other than a few cases of people inhaling specific fumes, and proving they had done so, it is very hard to explain why the 40 over was not really 40 over. Easy to say “I only had a few drinks!” But that meter speaks very loud in a courtroom.

X-coppers etc are lower cost and work well around the system. Lawyers are much more expensive and might get away with extenuating circumstances.

So his wife went into false labour and he drove because everyone at the party was so drunk they could not give the address to the ambulance service?

If he has the money get a lawyer. X-copper is almost as good and a lot less expensive.

 

[hoser1970]

I'm not a lawyer but here is some information I found when I googled this topic:

http://www.lawyers.ca/duilaws/Ontario/duilaws.htm

Canada has two main substantive DUI law criminal offences:

• impaired operation or care or control,
• over 80 operation or care or control

Section 253. Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,

(a) while the person's ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or

(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person's blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.

The DUI offence of excess blood alcohol or over 80 is usually proven by breath tests that determine blood alcohol concentration using and approved instrument such as a Breathalyzer 900 900A or Intoxilyzer 5000C. Blood tests are used in DUI cases where breath tests are not practical to provide evidence of blood alcohol concentration

Best as I can figure out, it really doesn't matter how many drinks your frined had. The fact is he blew over the legal limit. Nor does it matter how good a person he is.

From what you have disclosed, I would guess that the only chance he has is if the breathalyzer sample was improperly collected. For this, he would be best served to speak with a lawyer to review his situation, not an outfit like x-copper.

However, the reality is he is most likely screwed!


This is another good example (assuming the information offered by the OP is accurate) that NO ONE should EVER get behind the wheel of a vehicle if they have even had 1 drink. Sadly, some people just don't seem to get it.

 

[DistantVoyeur]

Thought they had to do a blood test if you blow over and they charge you. People had blown high because they'd recently had a drink and it gave a false high. Has this changed? Maybe an out for your friend....
Might be worth checking into.

 

[shack]

He was coming from house warming party with his wife and had exactly 2 1/2 glasses of wine and a bottle of beer between 6PM and midnight.

A "glass" of wine can be very small or very large, not like a "shot" which is a fairly specific amount. Also, how close to midnight was he consuming.

As hoser said, if you're over, you're over regardless of how much you drank or if you're impaired or not. A person must always err on the side of caution nowadays.

An ounce of prevention.......................will not make you blow over the limit.

 

[Never Compromised]

Get a lawyer.

Never, and I really mean never, admit to anything to a cop. Never say anything remotely as stupid as admitting to a single drink in the last 24 hours.

Realistically, just plead no contest at the first appearance, get it over with.

 

[LordLoki]

Get a lawyer.

Never, and I really mean never, admit to anything to a cop. Never say anything remotely as stupid as admitting to a single drink in the last 24 hours.

Realistically, just plead no contest at the first appearance, get it over with.

"Your Honour, the defendant told me he had not had a drink but I detected a strong odor of...."

So the defendant was so drunk it proves he was impaired as well, or he was lying showing he knew he was over???

Not good advice. Well maybe if you love vodka it is good advice?


For gos sake stop taking advice from us and ask someone with credntials. Maybe a bar-tender?

But if you ever need us to walk you through self-surgery, you can trust us to get you through it.


Loki

 

[hunter001]

If he had as little as you claim he may want to go to the doctor for a check up. He may have a medical condition that he is not aware of.

I am a fairly large guy and if I am driving I would not have that much alcohol if I was driving. It seems like enough to be over.

 

[lookit]

Get a lawyer.

Never, and I really mean never, admit to anything to a cop. Never say anything remotely as stupid as admitting to a single drink in the last 24 hours.

Realistically, just plead no contest at the first appearance, get it over with.

He probably should have been better not admitting to any drink at all but hindsight is always 20/20...

 

[LordLoki]

He probably should have been better not admitting to any drink at all but hindsight is always 20/20...

You lie to the road warrior and he catches you at it, he lays more charges.

Your call, but many of them have good noses. And all they need is probable cause and you have to blow.

Simple rule: Do not drink and drive. You are putting yourself at greater risk if you lie about how many drinks you had. At 120 the signs (even with vodka) would give him probable cause.

And JPs just get all flustered when they hear you lied.

 

[colt]

Realistically, just plead no contest at the first appearance, get it over with.

There is no such things as a "no contest" plea in Canada...it is guilty or not guilty.

There is such a thing as a "Carter" defence in Canada. The essence of the Carter defence is that the accused (or preferably other neutral witnesses)testifies as to how much he had to drink. A toxicologist then testifies that if the accused's testimony re alcohol, food etc. consumed in the time period in question is accurate then he could not possibly have a blood alcohol in excess of the legal limit.

Even if not fully accepted by the court the toxicologist's evidence may create "reasonable doubt" as to the accuracy of the breathalyzer (they are not infallible).

A few parting observations of Carter defences:
- they are universally despised by Crown Attorneys
- they are despised by many, many judges
-they make the good folks at MADD have a grand mal seizure
-they are expensive
-their success is completely dependent on the evidence of how much the person had to drink (much stronger if evidence is verified by credit card receipts, neutral evidence (eg waiters, waitresses, etc.)
- their success is also dependent on having a toxicologist who is credible to the court (see prior point about these defences being expensive)

If your friend is really worried tell him to get a lawyer (an experienced one). No paralegal (even if they were a cop for 20 years) is going to be half as good as an experienced criminal defence lawyer.

 

[LordLoki]

There is no such things as a "no contest" plea in Canada...it is guilty or not guilty.

There is such a thing as a "Carter" defence in Canada. The essence of the Carter defence is that the accused (or preferably other neutral witnesses)testifies as to how much he had to drink. A toxicologist then testifies that if the accused's testimony re alcohol, food etc. consumed in the time period in question is accurate then he could not possibly have a blood alcohol in excess of the legal limit.

Even if not fully accepted by the court the toxicologist's evidence may create "reasonable doubt" as to the accuracy of the breathalyzer (they are not infallible).

A few parting observations of Carter defences:
- they are universally despised by Crown Attorneys
- they are despised by many, many judges
-they make the good folks at MADD have a grand mal seizure
-they are expensive
-their success is completely dependent on the evidence of how much the person had to drink (much stronger if evidence is verified by credit card receipts, neutral evidence (eg waiters, waitresses, etc.)
- their success is also dependent on having a toxicologist who is credible to the court (see prior point about these defences being expensive)

If your friend is really worried tell him to get a lawyer (an experienced one). No paralegal (even if they were a cop for 20 years) is going to be half as good as an experienced criminal defence lawyer.

So... cheper to go that route or just accept it and hire a car and driver fora year?

 

[lookit]

There is no such things as a "no contest" plea in Canada...it is guilty or not guilty.

There is such a thing as a "Carter" defence in Canada. The essence of the Carter defence is that the accused (or preferably other neutral witnesses)testifies as to how much he had to drink. A toxicologist then testifies that if the accused's testimony re alcohol, food etc. consumed in the time period in question is accurate then he could not possibly have a blood alcohol in excess of the legal limit.

Even if not fully accepted by the court the toxicologist's evidence may create "reasonable doubt" as to the accuracy of the breathalyzer (they are not infallible).

A few parting observations of Carter defences:
- they are universally despised by Crown Attorneys
- they are despised by many, many judges
-they make the good folks at MADD have a grand mal seizure
-they are expensive
-their success is completely dependent on the evidence of how much the person had to drink (much stronger if evidence is verified by credit card receipts, neutral evidence (eg waiters, waitresses, etc.)
- their success is also dependent on having a toxicologist who is credible to the court (see prior point about these defences being expensive)

If your friend is really worried tell him to get a lawyer (an experienced one). No paralegal (even if they were a cop for 20 years) is going to be half as good as an experienced criminal defence lawyer.

For sure he is worried. I think any individual in the same predicament should be. I'm dont know how much he has but I've read that to get a good lawyer that can possibly get you off the hook costs around the 5k mark...

I cannot imagine going to court without any form of legal representation. Give his financial situation, he probably goes to XCopper where you only pay when if they can win your case.

 

[lookit]

Thanks for the good advises! Someone getting caught driving under the influence should be punishable by law - but IMO it should on a case to case basis but what the heck do I know. I am all for setting a stiff punishment on criminal offences but I guess since he's a friend of mine, I hope he gets off the hook with just a fine and maybe a 3 month suspension at worse.

 

[Never Compromised]

There is no such things as a "no contest" plea in Canada...it is guilty or not guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere

Nolo Contendere is in Canada. Your post is an example of why people should NEVER get legal advice from an escort review board.

As for lying to the police, you cannot lie. But if you understand the laws in this country, you do not have to give the police SFA except your name and identification.

Simply put, do not answer the question.

I've never lied at a RIDE check.

Officer: have you been drinking tonight sir

Answer: I went to a great little Mexican restaurant tonight, but it has given me gas, want me to roll down the window some more so you can stick your nose in?

 

[fuji]

The criminal record is probably a bigger deal than the suspended license. A suspended license is an inconvenience that goes away after the suspension. A criminal record sticks with you for life and bites you in the ass every time you apply for a job, cross a border, etc.

Whether it's worth mounting an expensive defense depends on how much pain the record will cause. For many people not much. For some people a lot.

 

[KBear]

Don’t the police have you blow at the roadside, then again at the police station? Curious how this works.

Would not expect that 2.5 glasses of wine, and a beer in 6 hours would have someone blowing over. I had to blow once after two pints of light beer in 1.5 hours, 0.049, lucky day.

Thought that paralegals could not deal with criminal matters?

 

[The Bandit]

He should just live up to his mistakes....he's not telling you the whole story. There's no way he would blow over by the amounts you mentioned.

 

[thompo69]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere

Nolo Contendere is in Canada. Your post is an example of why people should NEVER get legal advice from an escort review board.

And this is an example of why Wikipedia should not be trusted. Check what that article says about the use of no contest in Canada, and check the citation. The citation is to Appendix C of a report produced by the Department of Justice about Victim Participation in the Plea Negotiation Process. The problem? Appendix C contains the U.S. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the procedure in Canada.

 

[LordLoki]

And this is an example of why Wikipedia should not be trusted. Check what that article says about the use of no contest in Canada, and check the citation. The citation is to Appendix C of a report produced by the Department of Justice about Victim Participation in the Plea Negotiation Process. The problem? Appendix C contains the U.S. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the procedure in Canada.

Nolo Contendere is in Canada. Your post is an example of why people should NEVER get legal advice from an escort review board.

You try it in front of a JP for a DUI without a few hrs of back room dealing and the Crown will… Well I would never try it. But hey, what do I know?

If $ is an issue ask one of the X-cop companies. If $ flows ask a lawyer. But you can ask us our opinion on anything!