A lawyer friend defended a similar case, driver crashed car, was on scene and wondering around for about thirty minutes. Deputy arrived, noted smell of alcohol, driver failed the field sobriety test and breathalyzer.
At court, deputy testified that he did not see driver operating the car, did not observe when the drinking occurred. Driver was not advised of Miranda rights, so any confession was not admissible under the fifth amendment. Government could not prove when the alcohol was consumed, and adequate time has passed between crash and arrival of deputy that driver could have become impaired after the crash. Not guilty. -- Max Dillon Charleston SC On July 16, 2019 12:27:14 PM EDT, Randy Bennell via Mercedes <mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: >On 16/07/2019 11:10 AM, Curt Raymond via Mercedes wrote: >> Is that evidence always admissible in court? In Canada do you have >the right to know your accuser? Has this yet been used in a weaponized >fashion? >> Seems like reporting the lawmakers who started the law would be a >really interesting thing, it'd hassle them if nothing else. I'm >interested in those cases where lawmakers get caught up in their own >laws. >> >> -Curt >> >Some of these cases have been successfully fought but at considerable >expense to the person charged. There is some talk of a constitutional >challenge but I think there is hope that the Liberal government will be > >voted out this fall and the Conservatives will amend the law. > >_______________________________________ >http://www.okiebenz.com > >To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > >To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: >http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
