At this point we're speculating for the most part, but if indeed he did drive, did they see him drive? If not, it's a non-issue. However, if they realized the first charge was not good (arrested for that which is not illegal) I believe the amended charge is an easy one for them because they don't need anything more than the Officers opinion that he was impaired to a point he felt he would be a danger to himself or others.E.Marquez wrote:If that was the case ??JKTex wrote:Hopefully that amended charge can't stand on it's own. If it can, he's toast as they don't need a test beyond the officers opinion that he had too much to drink to be carrying.
Unfortunately, it kind of smells like the Officer may have given him a break at the house, and that was his only freebee.
What of his not being charged for DUI? (he drove to the Hosp, this was seen and known by several officers)
If he was observed at the house as intoxicated, given a break...yet the officer allowed him to drive, then failed to charge him with DUI after he drove.. what of that?
Conversely..
If the officer did not feel he was impaired to drive, did not charge him with DUI for driving.. is that not in conflict with a later charge of Intoxication in regards to unlawful carry at the Hosp?
IANAL.. so it’s likely I do not understand all the twists and turns such a charge or lack thereof can have.. But I see anomalies in this case I cannot justify in my one mind.
If that's the case, then I hope in legal speak, the charge can't stick if the original was bogus because at that point they have the stink on them that smells like they were going to come up with anything they could to make the arrest seem valid.
Again though, we don't know near enough of the facts.