PI while carrying

[Mark G26]

IANAL, but since your friend was not driving a motor vehicle, and hence was not required to - and did not! - take a breathalyzer, any evidence of PI would be, well, flimsy, unless the LEO has video of your buddy staggering around or puking his guts out in an alley.

So from your post it sounds like the only evidence is the cop saying "Well, he looked like he could have been drunk" or words to that effect.

Unless there's more to it than what you posted, IMHO any halfway decent lawyer ought to be able to get this tossed for lack of evidence.

I was charged for DWI and pleaded down (not carrying when arrested): So, are you saying lets say arrested class B with CHL(not carring) -CHL revoked after court dispostion 5/99(CHL revoked 5/99) with probation 2 years completed 5/2001, one would have to wait seven years until 5/2008 to be come eligible or seven years from 5/99?

Any clarification anyone?

[txinvestigator]

IANAL, but since your friend was not driving a motor vehicle, and hence was not required to - and did not! - take a breathalyzer, any evidence of PI would be, well, flimsy, unless the LEO has video of your buddy staggering around or puking his guts out in an alley.

So from your post it sounds like the only evidence is the cop saying "Well, he looked like he could have been drunk" or words to that effect.

Unless there's more to it than what you posted, IMHO any halfway decent lawyer ought to be able to get this tossed for lack of evidence.

The officer will describe the FACTS he observed to lead him to the CONCLUSION that the person was intoxicated, and caused him to believe the person was a danger to himself and/or others.

PIs are not difficult to prove at all. Video is not required. Staggering orn puking are not nearly enough.

[txinvestigator]

IANAL, but since your friend was not driving a motor vehicle, and hence was not required to - and did not! - take a breathalyzer, any evidence of PI would be, well, flimsy, unless the LEO has video of your buddy staggering around or puking his guts out in an alley.

So from your post it sounds like the only evidence is the cop saying "Well, he looked like he could have been drunk" or words to that effect.

Unless there's more to it than what you posted, IMHO any halfway decent lawyer ought to be able to get this tossed for lack of evidence.

I was charged for DWI and pleaded down (not carrying when arrested): So, are you saying lets say arrested class B with CHL(not carring) -CHL revoked after court dispostion 5/99(CHL revoked 5/99) with probation 2 years completed 5/2001, one would have to wait seven years until 5/2008 to be come eligible or seven years from 5/99?

Any clarification anyone?

It is a revocation for 5 years from the date of conviction, not the completion of probation. Then once you are eligible again, there is a 2 year revocation penalty, meaning you have to wait a full 7 years from the date of conviction.

[HankB]

. . . PIs are not difficult to prove at all. Video is not required. Staggering orn puking are not nearly enough.

So it would take repeated falls, inability to walk without support, completely inarticulate speech, or lying passed out in the gutter?

[frankie_the_yankee]

The original post in this thread was by "workingman" back in 2006. I may have missed something, but at that time, he merely stated that his friend had been arrested and was hiring a lawyer.

Since it is now a year later, do we know how the case finally turned out? Was the friend convicted, found "not guilty", or did he plead out to some lesser charge?

If convicted of PI, I would be curious to know what evidence was used to establish guilt.

Everything else, after conviction, is pretty straightforward as TXI has pointed out.

[Eddie A.]

IIRC a PI is a Class C not a Class B. Either way, your coworker messed up bad.

[txinvestigator]

. . . PIs are not difficult to prove at all. Video is not required. Staggering orn puking are not nearly enough.

So it would take repeated falls, inability to walk without support, completely inarticulate speech, or lying passed out in the gutter?

No, not at all. Simply showing that he was in danger from traffic due to his intoxication could be enough.