Not knowing all of the situation, I can only comment on what is written above..........disorderly conduct arrests (generally) do not require or use blood/breath/urine tests when alcohol is suspected. The officer's training and experience will be used to make that determination and if this person was not intoxicated, they may have appeared so to the officer at the time of arrest.
Unless the charge is for being drunk specifically, that alone (providing that he/she could PROVE that they were not intoxicated at all) would not be enough to get the charge thrown out or dropped. I don't know too many people who get arrested that don't say some or all of the accusations are false. However, saying it %26amp; proving it are two completely different things.
And if I had a buck for every person I arrested for public intox who ';asked/demanded/whatever'; to go to the hospital for a blood, breath or urine test.....well, I would have a lotta bucks. ;)
It is not a requirement of the charge to have their level of intoxication certified or even checked/tested.
Your friend can try to use that to fight it, but it is by no means a sure-fire way to get the case tossed.Can a charge hold up in court if there is a false statement on the citation?
';All statements are true except it says that the person was intoxicated ';
So when it says the person had red, watery eyes, smelled of alcohol, slurred or staggered, admitted drinking, etc., those are all true...but being intoxicated wasn't true?
I guess it's a little difficult to give you much of an answer here without knowing more of the details.
At least here in California, there's no reason to administer a blood or breath test for public intoxication (and I'm just guessing that's what you're talking about, since you made reference to intoxication and a blood test). The standard for such a charge isn't the amount of alcohol in your system, it's your behavior while you have alcohol in your system.
Some people can be drunk as a skunk and remain polite and quiet. Others can be only a little drunk and get obnoxious and start harassing other people. That's why it's not the amount of alcohol, but the behavior along with the alcohol.
If this person was not intoxicated and intoxication is a part of the charge of ';disorderly conduct,'; then certainly they should contest it. Hard to know without more details.
oh what a sad sad case sorry to hear this because my father had a simular encounter. My dear fact is they always take a officers word unless the proof is so concreate that it about smacks them in the face. My father had no licence from 4 dui's one day he was driving and they had no probable cause to pull him over he wasnt drinking, but the dispatch said that he had plates that they ran and the car was stolen. Guess what the car wasnt stolen my father was a white man in a black neighborhood can you guess why they pulled him over. Well when it got taken to court some how the copy of the dispatch tape (they make copies) was lost lol right right:(
It seems to YOU that cops should not lie???? WHO THE HECK ARE YOU TO SAY THAT????
Cops learn to lie before they learn to tie their shoes.
AND: Don't take any legal advice from a cop.
How would a cop know what will stand up in court? Cops are not trained in the law, and they know almost nothing about the law. Cops are trained in law enforcement--which means making arrests, not making legal arguments or predictions as to which legal arguments will convince a judge.
Judges know that cops lie, everyone except John Q. Public knows that cops lie--even under oath--that citation by the way has a line at the bottom, just above the cop's signature (illegible--right? how did I know?) that says he swears under oath and/or under penalty of perjury that the information above (on the citation) is true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Now, a cop here will say, well, to the ';best of his knowledge,'; lets him off the hook as long as he thought the guy was acting intoxicated. WRONG--that is perjury for making a reckless statement--that he could easily have determined the true answer to--that turns out to be false. Actually, every cop here knows dang well that the cop who wrote that citation intentionally lied. And he did so because people don't stand up to cops, and when they do, cops will win 99 times out of 100--even when the judge knows the cop is lying.
If you want legal advice it doesn't come cheap. Hire a lawyer. Free advice from cops on Yahoo is not something I'd bet my shoe laces on.
Circumstantial evidence could easily be used to prove this one: i.e., staggering, red and watery eyes, smell of alcohol on breath, words, admissions of drinking if any. You don't need a blood or breath test to prove someone's had one too many.
However: the good news, is that in California, they often drop the charge of 647(f) because it takes up valuable time and energy to prosecute it when there are much bigger fishes to fry. If he has a court date, he should go to it (do not fail to appear--this will result in an additional misdemeanor charge and a bench warrant for his immediate arrest). He should ask for an attorney and one will be appointed to him.
And, we are VERY VERY good.
The disorderly conduct charge has nothing to do with being intoxicated. The person may have acted like they were intoxicated so the officer wrote it on the citation. The charge can hold up, because #1 the charge of DC can stand on its own, and #2 if this goes to court, the officer can testify as to why he thought that the subject was intoxicated
The officer is not required to have blood drawn for this charge. The officer can testify to the odor of alcohol on the offender, slurred speech, blood shot eyes, or any other behavior that made the officer believe the person was drunk. It's up to the judge if the court determines the offender was drunk at the time.
Were you there?
Edit:
The box for my signature simply says ';Signature of Officer.'; When you go to court you must swear (or affirm) to tell the truth before testifying. I have never lied in court.
I have seen plenty of defendants do it though. I keep waiting for lightening to strike them but so far it hasn't happened.
Like I said it is up to the judge to find the defendant guilty or not guilty.
If you got witness I would fight it
No comments:
Post a Comment