The only thing that is up for discussion, as it was in the old days and I am sure it is here, is the 2 charges the state will/should bring against the person.
Driving over the legal limit and driving drunk. Excuse my laymans terms but that is what it amounts to.
One can, irrespective of the actual blood/alcohol limit argue against the more severe driving drunk charge, if you never fell out of the car and were completely incoherent at the time, evidence will be presented one way or another by both the state and the accused.
Driving over the legal limit is a lesser offence.
Most people would plead guilty to the above but deny the driving drunk charge unless a district surgeon had examined them and found them to be blotto, or if they were subjected to various sobriety tests.
It is quite easy to be over the limit, even 5 times and still, at the time of your arrest, have your faculties about you and as such not be declared drunk.
All of the above is done in court, in front of the magistrate, not behind closed frikkin doors trying to leverage your so called political muscle.
Clearly, 2 legal systems at play here.
Last edited:
