Bad choice and not sure what to do

The State Bar of Texas can refer you to an attorney for the proper jurisdiction. With how much you've invested into training, I have to assume that the rest of your career is worth at least the price of a consultation with an attorney. Asking pilots for legal advice is like asking lawyers for flying advice; it's outside their specialty, and as the good Doctor has noted, the laymen usually get it wrong. While this is NOT legal advice, if you would like an accurate answer to a legal question, the best option is usually to call an attorney.

http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Lawyer_Referral_Service_LRIS_
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I'll never understand the aversion some people have to getting legal counsel. This is a multi-million-dollar career, and you're going to risk it over $2,000 in legal fees? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Because lawyers suck. Anyone can be a lawyer - they allow Jtrain to be a lawyer - this tells you most of what you need to know. Much better, and safer, to trust random people on the internet who fly airplanes and whose legal experience consists of LA Law reruns and Judge Judy. And masturbating to internet porn.
 
Everything jtrain609 said is true. Almost everything WacoFan said is true - except the part about Jtrain - I'm pretty sure he'll make a good lawyer.

The parts I referred to above were from direct experience. This is why I was careful to qualify it as one specific scenario because things can obviously change.

EDIT: Decided that you guys were right. He oughta talk to a lawyer, and I should just shut the hell up. I deleted the post.
 
killbilly said:
Everything jtrain609 said is true. Almost everything WacoFan said is true - except the part about Jtrain - I'm pretty sure he'll make a good lawyer.

The parts I referred to above were from direct experience. This is why I was careful to qualify it as one specific scenario because things can obviously change.

EDIT: Decided that you guys were right. He oughta talk to a lawyer, and I should just shut the hell up. I deleted the post.
Click to expand...

There is never a completely identical legal issue, especially when you're talking about different jurisdictions.

Also, I'm going back to the airline in a few weeks, and I'm not going to practice law for a living.
 
I have an old pilot friend from a certain northern state where drinking and driving is pretty much a sport unfortunately. He got plowed drunk and wrecked his car against a tree years ago. Lucky for him he had two unbroken cases of beer in the back. He started chugging them until the cops showed up... they flipped a <expletive> and detained him, charges ended up getting dropped though because they couldn't prove how intoxicated he was prior to the crash or if he was intoxicated at all. I'm not sure if this strategy would work anymore though and I wouldn't recommend it...
 
Derg said:
Ahem...

Barrister. The preferred nomenclature is "Barrister", SIR!
Click to expand...

Counselor. Esquire. Barrister. Solicitor (if you're in the UK). Attorney (if you're licensed). Lawyer (if you have graduated from law school but do not hold a license). Doctor (in Texas and a few other jurisdictions).

Basically, all it means is that there are a whole lot of ways to call somebody an asshat.
 
Older thread, but I just wanted to mention that a state's BAC represents the statutory limit for DUI. That is, if your state's statutory limit is .08 or .06 and you blow over that you're automatically in violation of DUI/DWI laws.

That being said, having a BAC under that doesn't mean you can't and won't be charged with a DUI, simply that it makes the officers/prosecutors case harder. If you have any intoxicant in your system, if you blow anything on a breathalyzer while showing signs of impairment (weaving, failing a field sobriety, running into trees) they can and will charge you with DUI.

Having a BAC over the legal limit simply makes the case a slam dunk for the prosecution, having a lower BAC doesn't mean you won't get a DUI it just makes the burden of proof higher for the prosecution -- they'll need other corroborating evidence to make a case. If you've been drinking and you get pulled over it's up to the discretion of the cop what to charge you with regardless of BAC, I know a lot of cops but not one who can't be a real dick sometimes, something to think about.
 
HVYMETALDRVR said:
I have an old pilot friend from a certain northern state where drinking and driving is pretty much a sport unfortunately. He got plowed drunk and wrecked his car against a tree years ago. Lucky for him he had two unbroken cases of beer in the back. He started chugging them until the cops showed up... they flipped a <expletive> and detained him, charges ended up getting dropped though because they couldn't prove how intoxicated he was prior to the crash or if he was intoxicated at all. I'm not sure if this strategy would work anymore though and I wouldn't recommend it...
Click to expand...
Isn't this how open container laws came into existence?
 
I did the full test, blew the breathilizer on site and registered a .073. He stated because I hit the fence and had booze in my system I would be arrested for dwi. At the station not 30 minutes later I blew a .062 then .61








Tx Trooper, Lt White, Waco (254) 759-7121 stated .04 is only in commercial vehicle.

I call Foul! Meaning BS.
You called and consented to field sobriety, but surprised them with a lower number.
Find a local lawyer who guarantees to get it dropped.
Money well spent.
 
texas_pilot said:
Tx Trooper, Lt White, Waco (254) 759-7121 stated .04 is only in commercial vehicle.

I call Foul! Meaning BS.
You called and consented to field sobriety, but surprised them with a lower number.
Find a local lawyer who guarantees to get it dropped.
Money well spent.
Click to expand...


I don't remember the OP saying that he was ever charged with anything. At least around here, DUI arrests are really common - since the court admissible breathalyzer is done at the jail. I know lots of people that have been arrested for suspicion of DUI, tested, released and not charged with anything.

It doesn't take much to be arrested - a pal of mine was when the police stopped and searched his boat. This can happen without a warrant anyplace you might possibly hide a fish. They found a bag full of white powder. OFF TO JAIL! Tests came back, confirming it was in fact French Vanilla Coffee Creamer (you put dry things in ziplock bags on boats around here). It is a slippery slope when an arrest is treated the same as a conviction.
 
It doesn't take much to be arrested - a pal of mine was when the police stopped and searched his boat. This can happen without a warrant anyplace you might possibly hide a fish. They found a bag full of white powder. OFF TO JAIL! Tests came back, confirming it was in fact French Vanilla Coffee Creamer (you put dry things in ziplock bags on boats around here). It is a slippery slope when an arrest is treated the same as a conviction.[/quote]

Is there no deterent teaching LEO to use their noggin and not arrest people?
There is no reduced to .04 for a crash- that BS was a
'he called us, he was under .08 and should have been released.
On another thread:
Welcome to Canada, have you ever been arrested?
Yeah, but there were no conviction.
Go back where you came from!
 
drunkenbeagle said:
It doesn't take much to be arrested - a pal of mine was when the police stopped and searched his boat. This can happen without a warrant anyplace you might possibly hide a fish. They found a bag full of white powder. OFF TO JAIL! Tests came back, confirming it was in fact French Vanilla Coffee Creamer (you put dry things in ziplock bags on boats around here). It is a slippery slope when an arrest is treated the same as a conviction.
Click to expand...

Not to hijack the thread, but how would the airlines (or any prospective employer) look at this in an interview? Obviously it wasn't the guys fault but now he's got an arrest on his record for some complete BS reasoning that amounted to nothing.
 
themightyquinn said:
Having a BAC over the legal limit simply makes the case a slam dunk for the prosecution, having a lower BAC doesn't mean you won't get a DUI it just makes the burden of proof higher for the prosecution -- they'll need other corroborating evidence to make a case. If you've been drinking and you get pulled over it's up to the discretion of the cop what to charge you with regardless of BAC, I know a lot of cops but not one who can't be a real dick sometimes, something to think about.
Click to expand...

This.

I served on a jury for a DUI trial where the defendant blew something like a .06 but since the state law uses the phrase "impaired to the slightest degree" to define "under the influence", they were charged with a DUI.

We ended up finding the defendant not guilty without much deliberation (the traffic stop was made only because they threw a cigarette butt out the car window), but they were still out whatever $$ they paid their DUI lawyer, on top of having the arrest on their record.
 
ndakcfi said:
We ended up finding the defendant not guilty without much deliberation (the traffic stop was made only because they threw a cigarette butt out the car window), but they were still out whatever $$ they paid their DUI lawyer, on top of having the arrest on their record.
Click to expand...

[/quote]

I'm surprised more of these cases don't go to juries more often. There was a bit of a scandal here a few years ago of a DUI unit arresting a very large number of very not intoxicated drivers. Even without any evidence, they pretty much all plead guilty. Prosecutors doing their jobs, I guess (not like they have the time to take all these cases to trial).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top