srothstein wrote: Sorry, I thought by defining intoxicated I was answering the question. A person who has a normal reaction to alcohol and has one regular size drink, is not going to be intoxicated. If he does not display at least three of the four indicators I mentioned, he is not usually giving the officer probable cause to believe he is intoxicated.
So, if you would feel safe driving a car without worrying about a DWI charge, you can carry your pistol. Well, don't go by how you feel because alcohol will affect your judgment, but you know what I meant.
Thanks. That's what I thought. That's what my original CHL instructor told our class. And I have conducted myself in accordance with that standard ever since I've been carrying (15 years total).
srothstein wrote:If there is a crooked cop out there who wants to frame you, he is going to do it. Barring the crooked cop though, if you ever get charged with a PI and are not truly intoxicated, I strongly recommend you go with a "not guilty" plea and do not let anyone release you until you have a preliminary date for your trial. SAPD was famous for having the detention staff just submit the PI paperwork to the judge and the people never did see the judge. Don't just accept that. Demand a court date or a visit with the judge to get it set. Then get to a lawyer as quickly as you can.
There's something there that I am not getting. If I plead "not guilty" to a trumped up PI rap, and the court never sets a trial date, how does that make a problem for me? Is it just because the charge is "hanging" over me unresolved (so if I am asked, are you currently accused of a crime... I have to answer "yes")?
And how do I "demand" a court date? Suppose they tell me to get lost?
I fully agree with the part about getting a lawyer.
You might appreciate this one. A long time ago, I got stopped for having no inspection sticker. The fact was that I had just had my windshield replaced the day before, and had not gotten my car re-inspected yet. (The law in RI gave me 5 days or something like that.) I explained this to the state cop who stopped me, and even offered to show him the receipt for the windshield work. He refused to look at it, and said if I thought I was not guilty I should contest the ticket in court.
So I mailed in a "not guilty" plea and waited. And waited. After 6 months of not hearing anything, I called the adjudication division and asked them when my date would come up. (I did this because I didn't want to get whacked with a "failure to appear" if the notice got lost in the mail.) They told me it was coming, and to just wait. A few months later I called again and got the same story. When I would do this, I would write down the date and the (first) name of the person I spoke to.
This went on for THREE YEARS, and finally the date came up. By this time, I had lost the windshield receipt and the paper with the dates and names on it.
So I go to court. And here's all these people getting called up for their cases. And I notice that their offenses all occurred between 6 and 9 or so months prior. I thought, "Why am I the only one who's case is three years old?"
Then it was my turn. The cop and I both approached the bench. He told his story, that he had stopped me and that I had no sticker. I told my story about the windshield and all the phone calls.
The judge asked the cop if he remembered me telling him about the windshield and he said he didn't.
Then the judge says to me something like, "You seem credible. But my problem is that you haven't presented any evidence to justify an aquittal." And I said, "Your Honor, I had evidence at one time, but it's been over three years since the date of the alleged offense. Redecorating, Spring Cleaning, kids, stuff like that. The house gets turned upside down. People lose things in three years."
And he says, "You're just not giving me anything to go on."
At that point, I sensed he was trying to give me a hint of some sort. Then I remembered reading about a BG who had beaten a felony rap where he had been convicted, but the state supreme court overturned on the grounds that he was denied his right to a speedy trial.
So I tried a 'Hail Mary' pass and said, "Your Honor, I move that this case be dismissed on the grounds that I have been denied my right to a speedy trial, and that this denial of my right has resulted in crucial exculpatory evidence being lost."
The judge gave me a kind of funny look, banged his gavel once and said, "I rule this case dismissed on the grounds that the defendant was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. You are free to go."
Sure, I could have just paid the fine (around $25 at the time), gotten a new sticker and been done with it.
But when I believe that I am in the right, I fight.
I felt like a million bucks walking out of there.
