Welcome to the APBWeb.
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Terminator's Avatar
    Terminator is offline BANNED
    Join Date
    12-03-05
    Location
    None of your business
    Posts
    16,064
    Rep Power
    0

    Man found not guilty of DWI after telling Judge in court he was too cheap to buy enough drinks to be a .08% BAC

    A Whitehorse man has won a court challenge of his breathalyzer test, after telling a judge he is too "cheap" to buy enough drinks to be impaired.
    In a written decision, territorial court Judge Cunliffe Barnett dismissed impaired driving charges against Thomas Wood, who argued that he could not have consumed enough beer on March 30, 2007, to have had a blood alcohol level above the legal limit of 0.08.
    On March 30, Wood admitted to consuming some alcohol that night, failed the police's roadside breathalyzer test and was arrested. Further tests showed readings of 0.13.
    Wood testified at his trial in December that he drank a pint and a glass of draft beer over the course of 2 hours while talking with his employer at a hotel bar after work that evening.
    As an aircraft mechanic, he does not drink on the job, he told the court, adding that he also doesn't drink much after work.
    "Mr. Wood says that he is 'quite cheap,' and that for that and other reasons, it is his custom to restrict his drinking, as he says he did that evening," Barnett wrote in his decision.
    A blood-alcohol expert from Vancouver backed Wood's argument, testifying that he needed to drink nearly four bottles of beer in order for him to have a high enough blood alcohol level to fail the breathalyzer test.
    Barnett cited past Supreme Court of Canada rulings in deciding not to dismiss Wood's account of what happened simply because he failed the breath test.
    "When I consider all the remaining relevant evidence and testimony, I cannot say that I am convinced by Mr. Wood's testimony; far from it, but Mr. Wood does not bear the burden of proving his innocence. He is required only to raise a reasonable doubt, and I find that he has done that."
    At the same time, the judge invited the Crown lawyers to appeal the decision if they disagreed with it.

  2. #2
    CW Mock's Avatar
    CW Mock is offline Trooper
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    06-05-07
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    636
    Rep Power
    409858
    WTF ever happened to being impaired?

    The 0.08 standard is a per say amount, it has not a whole lot to do with being impaired in the strict sense - IE, a person can be too damn hammered to drive at 0.03 after a beer. If they can't drive, they can;t drive - its impaired driving.

    Crap like this is amazing.
    "I have an open door policy on tickets ... if I have to open my door, you are getting a ticket. If I turn on those lights, somebody has to pay the electric bill."

    The opinions given in my posts and comments
    DO NOT reflect any of the opinions, views, policies, and/or procedures of my employing agency. They are my personal opinions only, thereby releasing my agency of any liability, or involvement in anything posted under the username "CW Mock" on LEF/Officer Resource.

  3. #3
    countybear's Avatar
    countybear is offline BDRT - Baby Daddy Removal Team
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    01-18-07
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,512
    Rep Power
    4611629
    DWI/DUI/OWI has nothing to do with the amount you drank, but the level of impairment you suffer and the BAC you posessed while operating a motor vehicle. The judge was obviously amused by the defendant's argument, and ruled contrary to statute.


    How much funnier would it be had the magistrate's children met this guy on the road that night?

    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
    - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    Tell me not, Sweet, I am unkind,
    That from the nunnery
    Of thy chaste breast and quiet mind
    To war and arms I fly.
    - Lovelace

    The opinions expressed by this poster are wholly his own, and should never be construed to even remotely be in representation of his employer, its agencies or assigns. In fact, they probably fail to be in alignment with the opinions of any rational human being.

  4. #4
    Ostizzle's Avatar
    Ostizzle is offline Brutal Candor
    Join Date
    11-29-06
    Posts
    24
    Rep Power
    0
    Unreal. Sounds like the idiot attorney who was asking me questions on my last OWI telephone hearing.

    "Why did you stop my client?"

    Because he had a headlight out.

    "Well I find that odd for you to say that Officer, because my client has never replaced a headlight on the vehicle you stopped that evening and they both function as of now."

    Uh ok, I guess because your dirtbag client said so it makes it true.

 

 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •