Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle
that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very
long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him
for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol,
and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior
but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must
have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle
that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very
long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him
for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol,
and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior
but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must
have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
On 2025-08-17 3:00 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle
that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very
long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him
for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol,
and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she
emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior
but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must
have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
I heard about a similar case here in Ontario some years ago. A guy who realized he was probably borderline impaired pulled over to the side of
the road and decided to sleep for a while. The police came along after
he'd been sleeping awhile and charged him with drunk driving. He pointed
out that the car was parked, the engine was off and the keys were in his pocket but the police said he could have started the car and driven off
at any time.
Until then, I always thought you had to have actually been DRIVING drunk
to catch a drunk driving charge. I never would have imagined that
sleeping on the side of the road with alcohol in your system was enough
to sustain a drunk driving charge.
Then again, maybe they reasoned that
if he was sleeping drunk at the side of the road, he must have driven
drunk to get to the spot where he was sleeping.
On Aug 17, 2025 at 12:53:29 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >wrote:
On 2025-08-17 3:00 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle
that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very
long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him
for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol,
and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she
emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior >>> but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>> have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
I heard about a similar case here in Ontario some years ago. A guy who
realized he was probably borderline impaired pulled over to the side of
the road and decided to sleep for a while. The police came along after
he'd been sleeping awhile and charged him with drunk driving. He pointed
out that the car was parked, the engine was off and the keys were in his
pocket but the police said he could have started the car and driven off
at any time.
I've never understood this line of logic. If merely having access to car keys >is enough to charge someone with drunk driving, then they could theoretically >charge you with drunk driving if you're in your home sitting on the sofa >watching the ballgame and drinking beers. After all, the car keys are right >there on the kitchen counter and you could take them to the garage, start the >car, and drive drunk if you want to.
Until then, I always thought you had to have actually been DRIVING drunk
to catch a drunk driving charge. I never would have imagined that
sleeping on the side of the road with alcohol in your system was enough
to sustain a drunk driving charge.
There have been people in California that have been charged with DUI because >they were intoxicated within a certain distance from their car. If you're >standing within 50 feet of your vehicle intoxicated and you're in possession >of the keys, they presume you to have access to the vehicle in an intoxicated >condition. Again, it would seem the cops could just walk into any bar and >start giving all the patrons who have keys in their pockets breathalyzers and >then charge them with DUI since they all "have access to their vehicle in an >intoxicated condition".
Among other drunk-driving laws that seem to have unintended consequences is >the law that basically says, "If it has wheels, it's illegal to be drunk while >operating it". This is how people riding bicycles, riding lawnmowers, even >children's toys, like Big Wheels, have been charged with DUI. However, it >would also seem to make it illegal for people in wheelchairs to ever be >intoxicated.
Sometimes it doesn't even have to be wheels. I heard of one case of a guy >being charged with DUI for riding a horse while drunk. I seem to remember him >beating the charge because the horse has a mind of its own and will avoid >collisions on its own regardless of the idiotic naked ape on its back.
Then again, maybe they reasoned that
if he was sleeping drunk at the side of the road, he must have driven
drunk to get to the spot where he was sleeping.
They could reason that but they couldn't prove that.
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started >drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew >over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was >before she crashed or after she crashed.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 20:23:29 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 12:53:29 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >> wrote:
On 2025-08-17 3:00 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle >>>> that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very >>>> long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him >>>> for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol, >>>> and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she
emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior >>>> but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>>> have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
I heard about a similar case here in Ontario some years ago. A guy who >>> realized he was probably borderline impaired pulled over to the side of >>> the road and decided to sleep for a while. The police came along after >>> he'd been sleeping awhile and charged him with drunk driving. He pointed >>> out that the car was parked, the engine was off and the keys were in his >>> pocket but the police said he could have started the car and driven off >>> at any time.
I've never understood this line of logic. If merely having access to car keys
is enough to charge someone with drunk driving, then they could theoretically
charge you with drunk driving if you're in your home sitting on the sofa
watching the ballgame and drinking beers. After all, the car keys are right >> there on the kitchen counter and you could take them to the garage, start the
car, and drive drunk if you want to.
Until then, I always thought you had to have actually been DRIVING drunk >>> to catch a drunk driving charge. I never would have imagined that
sleeping on the side of the road with alcohol in your system was enough >>> to sustain a drunk driving charge.
There have been people in California that have been charged with DUI because >> they were intoxicated within a certain distance from their car. If you're
standing within 50 feet of your vehicle intoxicated and you're in possession >> of the keys, they presume you to have access to the vehicle in an intoxicated
condition. Again, it would seem the cops could just walk into any bar and
start giving all the patrons who have keys in their pockets breathalyzers and
then charge them with DUI since they all "have access to their vehicle in an >> intoxicated condition".
So how does California handle people who drink but are out 'camping'
in an RV. If they were driving then I get them being charged with DUI,
but what about when they are at a camp site. Maybe cooking up some
food while drinking some beers around a camp fire? Technically it
sounds like they can be charged with a DUI since the keys and vehicle
are there and they may even be in the vehicle, but it's hard to that
sticking if they fought the charge.
Among other drunk-driving laws that seem to have unintended consequences is >> the law that basically says, "If it has wheels, it's illegal to be drunk
while
operating it". This is how people riding bicycles, riding lawnmowers, even >> children's toys, like Big Wheels, have been charged with DUI. However, it
would also seem to make it illegal for people in wheelchairs to ever be
intoxicated.
Sometimes it doesn't even have to be wheels. I heard of one case of a guy
being charged with DUI for riding a horse while drunk. I seem to remember him
beating the charge because the horse has a mind of its own and will avoid
collisions on its own regardless of the idiotic naked ape on its back.
Then again, maybe they reasoned that
if he was sleeping drunk at the side of the road, he must have driven
drunk to get to the spot where he was sleeping.
They could reason that but they couldn't prove that.
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started >> drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew >> over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was
before she crashed or after she crashed.
On Aug 17, 2025 at 1:30:37 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 20:23:29 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 12:53:29 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
On 2025-08-17 3:00 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle >>>>> that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very >>>>> long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him >>>>> for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol, >>>>> and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she
emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior >>>>> but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>>>> have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
I heard about a similar case here in Ontario some years ago. A guy who >>>> realized he was probably borderline impaired pulled over to the side of >>>> the road and decided to sleep for a while. The police came along after >>>> he'd been sleeping awhile and charged him with drunk driving. He pointed >>>> out that the car was parked, the engine was off and the keys were in his >>>> pocket but the police said he could have started the car and driven off >>>> at any time.
I've never understood this line of logic. If merely having access to car keys
is enough to charge someone with drunk driving, then they could theoretically
charge you with drunk driving if you're in your home sitting on the sofa >>> watching the ballgame and drinking beers. After all, the car keys are right >>> there on the kitchen counter and you could take them to the garage, start the
car, and drive drunk if you want to.
Until then, I always thought you had to have actually been DRIVING drunk >>>> to catch a drunk driving charge. I never would have imagined that
sleeping on the side of the road with alcohol in your system was enough >>>> to sustain a drunk driving charge.
There have been people in California that have been charged with DUI because
they were intoxicated within a certain distance from their car. If you're >>> standing within 50 feet of your vehicle intoxicated and you're in possession
of the keys, they presume you to have access to the vehicle in an intoxicated
condition. Again, it would seem the cops could just walk into any bar and >>> start giving all the patrons who have keys in their pockets breathalyzers and
then charge them with DUI since they all "have access to their vehicle in an
intoxicated condition".
So how does California handle people who drink but are out 'camping'
in an RV. If they were driving then I get them being charged with DUI,
but what about when they are at a camp site. Maybe cooking up some
food while drinking some beers around a camp fire? Technically it
sounds like they can be charged with a DUI since the keys and vehicle
are there and they may even be in the vehicle, but it's hard to that
sticking if they fought the charge.
It's all selective enforcement. Yes, the law would make the campers criminals,
too, but the cops never charge people in situations like that, so the question
has never come before a court.
Among other drunk-driving laws that seem to have unintended consequences is >>> the law that basically says, "If it has wheels, it's illegal to be drunk >>> while
operating it". This is how people riding bicycles, riding lawnmowers, even >>> children's toys, like Big Wheels, have been charged with DUI. However, it >>> would also seem to make it illegal for people in wheelchairs to ever be
intoxicated.
Sometimes it doesn't even have to be wheels. I heard of one case of a guy >>> being charged with DUI for riding a horse while drunk. I seem to remember him
beating the charge because the horse has a mind of its own and will avoid >>> collisions on its own regardless of the idiotic naked ape on its back.
Then again, maybe they reasoned that
if he was sleeping drunk at the side of the road, he must have driven >>>> drunk to get to the spot where he was sleeping.
They could reason that but they couldn't prove that.
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started >>> drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew
over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was >>> before she crashed or after she crashed.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 1:30:37 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >> wrote:
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started
drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew
over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was >>>> before she crashed or after she crashed.
Supposedly, she’s pulled that like half a dozen times. The most famous case >it came out she done it four times in a different state before that one.
At some point you think they would be able to call her on it. After
you have pulled the same trick multiple times it shouldn't be a
defense.
On Aug 17, 2025 at 12:53:29 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-08-17 3:00 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle >>> that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very
long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him >>> for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol, >>> and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she
emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior >>> but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>> have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
I heard about a similar case here in Ontario some years ago. A guy who
realized he was probably borderline impaired pulled over to the side of
the road and decided to sleep for a while. The police came along after
he'd been sleeping awhile and charged him with drunk driving. He pointed
out that the car was parked, the engine was off and the keys were in his
pocket but the police said he could have started the car and driven off
at any time.
I've never understood this line of logic. If merely having access to car keys is enough to charge someone with drunk driving, then they could theoretically charge you with drunk driving if you're in your home sitting on the sofa watching the ballgame and drinking beers. After all, the car keys are right there on the kitchen counter and you could take them to the garage, start the car, and drive drunk if you want to.
Until then, I always thought you had to have actually been DRIVING drunk
to catch a drunk driving charge. I never would have imagined that
sleeping on the side of the road with alcohol in your system was enough
to sustain a drunk driving charge.
There have been people in California that have been charged with DUI because they were intoxicated within a certain distance from their car. If you're standing within 50 feet of your vehicle intoxicated and you're in possession of the keys, they presume you to have access to the vehicle in an intoxicated condition. Again, it would seem the cops could just walk into any bar and start giving all the patrons who have keys in their pockets breathalyzers and then charge them with DUI since they all "have access to their vehicle in an intoxicated condition".
Among other drunk-driving laws that seem to have unintended consequences is the law that basically says, "If it has wheels, it's illegal to be drunk while
operating it". This is how people riding bicycles, riding lawnmowers, even children's toys, like Big Wheels, have been charged with DUI. However, it would also seem to make it illegal for people in wheelchairs to ever be intoxicated.
Sometimes it doesn't even have to be wheels. I heard of one case of a guy being charged with DUI for riding a horse while drunk. I seem to remember him beating the charge because the horse has a mind of its own and will avoid collisions on its own regardless of the idiotic naked ape on its back.
Then again, maybe they reasoned that
if he was sleeping drunk at the side of the road, he must have driven
drunk to get to the spot where he was sleeping.
They could reason that but they couldn't prove that.
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was before she crashed or after she crashed.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 1:30:37 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 20:23:29 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 12:53:29 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
On 2025-08-17 3:00 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle >>>>>> that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very >>>>>> long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him >>>>>> for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol, >>>>>> and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she >>>>>> emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior >>>>>> but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must >>>>>> have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
I heard about a similar case here in Ontario some years ago. A guy who >>>>> realized he was probably borderline impaired pulled over to the side of >>>>> the road and decided to sleep for a while. The police came along after >>>>> he'd been sleeping awhile and charged him with drunk driving. He pointed >>>>> out that the car was parked, the engine was off and the keys were in his >>>>> pocket but the police said he could have started the car and driven off >>>>> at any time.
I've never understood this line of logic. If merely having access to car keys
is enough to charge someone with drunk driving, then they could theoretically
charge you with drunk driving if you're in your home sitting on the sofa >>>> watching the ballgame and drinking beers. After all, the car keys are right
there on the kitchen counter and you could take them to the garage, start the
car, and drive drunk if you want to.
Until then, I always thought you had to have actually been DRIVING drunk >>>>> to catch a drunk driving charge. I never would have imagined that
sleeping on the side of the road with alcohol in your system was enough >>>>> to sustain a drunk driving charge.
There have been people in California that have been charged with DUI because
they were intoxicated within a certain distance from their car. If you're >>>> standing within 50 feet of your vehicle intoxicated and you're in possession
of the keys, they presume you to have access to the vehicle in an intoxicated
condition. Again, it would seem the cops could just walk into any bar and >>>> start giving all the patrons who have keys in their pockets breathalyzers and
then charge them with DUI since they all "have access to their vehicle in an
intoxicated condition".
So how does California handle people who drink but are out 'camping'
in an RV. If they were driving then I get them being charged with DUI,
but what about when they are at a camp site. Maybe cooking up some
food while drinking some beers around a camp fire? Technically it
sounds like they can be charged with a DUI since the keys and vehicle
are there and they may even be in the vehicle, but it's hard to that
sticking if they fought the charge.
It's all selective enforcement. Yes, the law would make the campers criminals,
too, but the cops never charge people in situations like that, so the question
has never come before a court.
Among other drunk-driving laws that seem to have unintended consequences is
the law that basically says, "If it has wheels, it's illegal to be drunk >>>> while
operating it". This is how people riding bicycles, riding lawnmowers, even >>>> children's toys, like Big Wheels, have been charged with DUI. However, it >>>> would also seem to make it illegal for people in wheelchairs to ever be >>>> intoxicated.
Sometimes it doesn't even have to be wheels. I heard of one case of a guy >>>> being charged with DUI for riding a horse while drunk. I seem to remember him
beating the charge because the horse has a mind of its own and will avoid >>>> collisions on its own regardless of the idiotic naked ape on its back. >>>>
Then again, maybe they reasoned that
if he was sleeping drunk at the side of the road, he must have driven >>>>> drunk to get to the spot where he was sleeping.
They could reason that but they couldn't prove that.
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started
drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew
over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was >>>> before she crashed or after she crashed.
Supposedly, she’s pulled that like half a dozen times. The most famous case it came out she done it four times in a different state before that one.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 14:06:11 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 1:30:37 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started
drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew
over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was >>>>> before she crashed or after she crashed.
Supposedly, she’s pulled that like half a dozen times. The most famous case
it came out she done it four times in a different state before that one.
At some point you think they would be able to call her on it. After
you have pulled the same trick multiple times it shouldn't be a
defense.
operating it". This is how people riding bicycles, riding lawnmowers, even children's toys, like Big Wheels, have been charged with DUI. However, it would also seem to make it illegal for people in wheelchairs to ever be intoxicated.
Did any of those charges turn into convictions or did they all get
thrown out?
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 14:06:11 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 1:30:37 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >>> wrote:
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started
drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew
over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was >>>>> before she crashed or after she crashed.
Supposedly, she’s pulled that like half a dozen times. The most famous case
it came out she done it four times in a different state before that one.
At some point you think they would be able to call her on it. After
you have pulled the same trick multiple times it shouldn't be a
defense.
On 8/17/2025 5:11 PM, shawn wrote:
At some point you think they would be able to call her on it. After
you have pulled the same trick multiple times it shouldn't be a
defense.
She's a quaff-law...
Verily, in article <107tjmn$2kfbk$1@dont-email.me>, did
nobody@nowhere.com deliver unto us this message:
On 8/17/2025 5:11 PM, shawn wrote:
At some point you think they would be able to call her on it. After
you have pulled the same trick multiple times it shouldn't be a
defense.
She's a quaff-law...
LOL.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 14:06:11 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 1:30:37 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >>> wrote:
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started
drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew
over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was >>>>> before she crashed or after she crashed.
Supposedly, she’s pulled that like half a dozen times. The most famous case
it came out she done it four times in a different state before that one.
At some point you think they would be able to call her on it. After
you have pulled the same trick multiple times it shouldn't be a
defense.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 14:06:11 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Aug 17, 2025 at 1:30:37 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >>> wrote:
It's why Halle Berry famously walked across the street to a bar and started
drinking when she got into a car wreck. When the cops got there and she blew
over the legal limit, the state couldn't prove the alcohol she drank was >>>>> before she crashed or after she crashed.
Supposedly, she’s pulled that like half a dozen times. The most famous case
it came out she done it four times in a different state before that one.
At some point you think they would be able to call her on it. After
you have pulled the same trick multiple times it shouldn't be a
defense.
Real life prosecutor goes to court with less evidence than Price
typically presents on an episode of Law & Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQINClZopt0
Truly shitty arrest. Noncom officer from Ft. Knox is driving a vehicle
that completely breaks down. He's on the side of the road for a very
long time. Hours after a celebration of his promotion, cop arrests him
for drunk driving because he was given a gift of a bottle of alchohol,
and drank some after the break down, then fell asleep.
Why did the prosecution prefer charges? In her opening remarks, she emphasizes that none of her witnesses are witnesses to drunken behavior
but the jury is free to infer from the absense of evidence that he must
have been driving drunk before his vehicle broke down.
How did this survive the probable cause hearing?
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 11 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 43:07:34 |
| Calls: | 166 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 77,601 |