0.232

[cebeu]

Woman who blew a 0.232 in Aspen won't face DUI charge

"... local defense lawyer Lawson Wills, who claims that [officer] Cole has an "over-aggressive" style in his pursuit of tipsy motorists."

Tipsy vs 0.23 hmmmmmm...

[2008f450]

There is a scum bag lawyer for every occasion

[Byte Stryke]

I Smell more to this story...
this isn't the first one of his thrown out?

Reserving comment until we get the rest.

[cstone]

I no longer drink, but if me or one of my loved ones was caught DUI in Aspen, I know which attorney I would hire.

I'm no fan of lawyers, but when you need one, you get the best you can afford.

I'm amazed it wasn't plead out. Normally the BAC is the final word on DUIs.

Let's just hope this woman doesn't kill someone next time.

[patrick0685]

Holy crap, I don't know that I could even find my car that drunk

[CrufflerSteve]

Definitely more to the story. I haven't had a drink in decades but I'd assume someone with that level would be all over the road. Wonder if that cop has been out of line on previous cases.

In Colorado the justice system is pretty honest other than the part of "Not able to afford a good lawyer" = "guilty". I lived in Chicago for a few years in the early '70's and that own was openly corrupt. I worked for a retired police captain who liked to tell stories. Back then the going rate to beat a DUI was $5000. The judge got most, DA & lawyer & cop split the rest. I can't see that happening here when it causes that much publicity.

Steve

[BushMasterBoy]

It's not who you know...but who you blow!

[BigDee]

Good for the lawyer.

I don't agree with people who get behind the wheel after having some drinks but I think there are many situations where cops cross the line.

2 beers put most people over the limit and most people will have 2 beers with dinner. We hear about DUI arrest like the cops are big hero's geting drunks off the road and that is not the case in many DUI situations.

A guy goes to Chili's with a few friends and has a presidente margarita and 1 beer with lunch. The guy leaves Chili's and on his way home someone blows through a red lights and plows right into the guy. Officers repond to the scene and notice the smell of alcohol on guys breathe they make him do a breathalizer and he blows .081. The guy is charged with a DUI even though he didn't cause the accident and there is no reason to believe he was a danger to the public.

A woman ends a night at a company party. While driving down the highway her car starts to accelerate. She notices the acceleration and hits the brakes. She finally puts the car into neutral because the car continues to accelerate even with the brake pedal full depressed. The woman pulls off to the side of the highway and turn off the car. The car catches on fire so the woman calls 911. Police arrive along with the fire department and the vehicle fire is put out; an officer notices a smell of alcohol on the womans breathe and she is charged with DUI.

A guy gets into a fight with his GF, she throws him out of the house and tells him not to come back home. The guy goes to th ebar and gets hammered. After a long night of drinking the guy goes out to his car and goes to sleep. Due to the fact that it's 5 degrees outside the guy turns on his car and fires up the heater before going to sleep. Not long after dosing off the guy is awoken by an officer knocking on his window, the officer smells alcohol and demands a breathalize. The guy gets arrested for DUI.

MOST DUI's are NOT the result of someone swerving or driving recklessly. MOST DUIS ARE the result of someone speeding or being involved in an automobile accident that is often not their fault.

In no way shape or form am I codoning the act of DUI. I think drinking and driving is wrong but I also think DUI enforcement is enforced in a chicken sh*t fashion.

[spyder]

MOST DUI's are NOT the result of someone swerving or driving recklessly. MOST DUIS ARE the result of someone speeding or being involved in an automobile accident that is often not their fault.

I would have to agree with fox here and say that you are wrong about the "MOST" part in that statement. Does random stupid shit happen to drunk people that shouldn't happen? Ya, on rare occasion. Funny enough, on my brothers 40th we got him drunk at a bar here and he went out and got into his car to wait on us. He was cold, it was last January, he put the keys in the ignition and turned on his car to get warm. He was arrested and gone by the time we got out, his wife got the call as we were looking for him. Anyway, it went to court and the judge ruled in his favor. Stupid shit like that does happen, but not often and when it does I am sure it gets ruled in the defendants favor, most of the time...

[Bailey Guns]

Good for the lawyer.

I don't agree with people who get behind the wheel after having some drinks but I think there are many situations where cops cross the line.

2 beers put most people over the limit and most people will have 2 beers with dinner. We hear about DUI arrest like the cops are big hero's geting drunks off the road and that is not the case in many DUI situations.

A guy goes to Chili's with a few friends and has a presidente margarita and 1 beer with lunch. The guy leaves Chili's and on his way home someone blows through a red lights and plows right into the guy. Officers repond to the scene and notice the smell of alcohol on guys breathe they make him do a breathalizer and he blows .081. The guy is charged with a DUI even though he didn't cause the accident and there is no reason to believe he was a danger to the public.

A woman ends a night at a company party. While driving down the highway her car starts to accelerate. She notices the acceleration and hits the brakes. She finally puts the car into neutral because the car continues to accelerate even with the brake pedal full depressed. The woman pulls off to the side of the highway and turn off the car. The car catches on fire so the woman calls 911. Police arrive along with the fire department and the vehicle fire is put out; an officer notices a smell of alcohol on the womans breathe and she is charged with DUI.

A guy gets into a fight with his GF, she throws him out of the house and tells him not to come back home. The guy goes to th ebar and gets hammered. After a long night of drinking the guy goes out to his car and goes to sleep. Due to the fact that it's 5 degrees outside the guy turns on his car and fires up the heater before going to sleep. Not long after dosing off the guy is awoken by an officer knocking on his window, the officer smells alcohol and demands a breathalize. The guy gets arrested for DUI.

MOST DUI's are NOT the result of someone swerving or driving recklessly. MOST DUIS ARE the result of someone speeding or being involved in an automobile accident that is often not their fault.

In no way shape or form am I codoning the act of DUI. I think drinking and driving is wrong but I also think DUI enforcement is enforced in a chicken sh*t fashion.

DISCLAIMER: Between 1992 and 2000 I made over 850 DUI arrests in the Evergreen/Conifer and south-metro areas. I lost 2 of those cases in court....both because I missed court for one reason or another. Rough guess...99% of the cases never made it to court because of a plea bargain.

The part I highlighted is pure nonsense. The overwhelming majority of DUI arrests are the result of poor driving witnessed by the officer. "Weaving", I would guess, is far and away the number one reason for a stop in DUI cases...no other cause for stops even comes close.

And your examples, while plausible, are still considered DUI violations under the law.

So what? In your "guy goes to Chili's" example...so he's driving through a red light and gets nailed by another at-fault driver. That should excuse his DUI? I don't think so. Let's say your same driver (sober this time) just stole $10,000 in cash/product from the company he works for (without any violence) and gets into the same accident. Cops arrive, find evidence of the theft at the accident scene and arrest him. By your logic he shouldn't be arrested because he wasn't at fault and he wasn't a danger to the public.

I've got news for you. Anyone driving with a BAC of .081 IS a danger to the public. In accidents where a driver is DUI, the DUI driver is at fault in many more of those accidents than not.

And, yes, I made plenty of those "chickenshit" arrests where people were sleeping in their cars and were shitfaced. Not necessarily in parking lots at bars, but in various places. Most of the time they drove to wherever it was they were parked. Do you actually think that person stays there until they're sober? Not likely.

I had no tolerance for someone driving under the influence when I was on the job. I arrested one guy 5 times in a 2 year period for DUI. I was also hit by a DUI driver while standing beside a car talking to...you guessed it...another DUI driver. Luckily I wasn't badly injured...but the impact tore my holstered gun and a few other things right off my belt and left me with some pretty good bruises. I had two patrol cars hit head on by DUI drivers...while I was driving them. So you'll excuse me if I don't buy your assessment that most DUI drivers are arrested for things other than reckless or dangerous driving.

You'd probably also be surprised at how often drunk drivers, especially women, have their kids in the car with them while driving drunk. If someone is driving with a BAC of .081 would you allow your children to ride with in the car with them?

Drunks are responsible for a large part of a cops enforcement activity outside of driving, too. If it weren't for people drinking to excess, we'd probably only need about 25% of the cops that are normally on duty.

You say you aren't condoning drunk driving yet in the same breath you complain about "chickenshit" enforcement. You can't have it both ways. It's entirely possible your life has been saved because a LEO arrested a drunk, in a "chickenshit" stop, before that drunk was able to kill you in an accident.