How can a person be arrested for DUI when not driving?
Son in Florida arrested for DUI, was not driving, not in vechile and did not have keys in his posession. He and another person got in a shoving match and cops were called. Cop put him under arrest for DUI. How is it possible to be charged with this ? Will the charges stand up in court? ...
Son in Florida arrested for DUI, was not driving, not in vechile and did not have keys in his posession. He and another person got in a shoving match and cops were called. Cop put him under arrest for DUI. How is it possible to be charged with this ? Will the charges stand up in court?
Your son needs a good Criminal Defense Attorney.
I would expect that if what your son has told you is true, a good Criminal Defense Attorney who specialises in the defense of DUI will get him an acquittal of those charges.
This is not something that he should attempt without a good attorney. The stakes are very high.
You sure it wasn’t drunk and disorderly? If no keys were in the ignition, it will be dropped down to this charge.
i don’t think so…A DUI is driving under the influence and they were not driving so i don’t think they could get in trouble for that…they did not even have keys so that might back them up in court…tell them good luck
Can’t see a charge of DUI in this case. Can see a public intox, and disorderly conduct.
If your son isn`t lying……..then the cop is!
What`s the evidence?
I don’t see how they would? get a pretty good lawyer, thats dumb!
probably not charged with DUI/DWI. Instead, "Public Intoxication" or "Drunk and Disorderly" are more likely the charges.
in iceland you can be charged for simply having car keys on you. – i am not joking….
Hi there,
With all due repsect you can be arrested for just about anything. When this happens and you belive they have over stepped his/her authority get good legal advise.
Not to speak negatively of your son but I don’t think that you have been informed of the full story. It sounds like it might be difficult to prove him guilty in court.
Irene,
This is a bit more complicated than it appears.
If he was going to drive, then he can’t be charged (most likely).
However, if witnesses state he had been driving, then he can be charged. It’s just like a cop doesn’t have to see one person shoot another to charge the shooter with murder- witnesses state they saw it, shooter gets charged.
If, in this case, the cop felt the hood of the car and it was warm, witnesses state your son was driving, and the BA is above the legal limit, he can be charged.
"Ranger"
You do not have to be actually driving to get a DUI. You do not even have to be sitting in the car to get a DUI. Assuming what your son is saying is correct, he could still get a DUI if in fact he was driving shortly before he got out of the car and the altercation started.
He may have admitted to driving the car and even if he did not, it would not be difficult for the prosecutor to establish that he was in fact driving right before they stopped and the altercation started. How did they get to that location, the altercation must have been next to the car.
This is not something new or unusual. In one recent case in California, someone’s car broke down, the person was sitting next to the car (outside) waiting for a ride, the officer who came to inquire felt the car’ hood (engine), the officer said it was still warm, case was tried and the driver found guilty of DUI.
In your son’s case, it is likely the charges will be reduced, if you get an attorney to defend him. Also, remember, this friend of his may well testify against your son. He may say your son had a few drinks, before getting behind the wheels
Irene , in order for your son to be arrested for DUI the car has to be moving, he has to be pulled over by a policeman with common sense, listen to the charges honey DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE. I say DRIVING, this feeling the hood is a lot of hogwash, wittiness hogwash , it looks like Police harassment to me , i am writing a book called When Falsely Accused it will be in all the book stores in about three months get one .it has a lot of stuff about when officers over step their boundaries
The question you need to be asking, more importantly, is "what elements does the State need to meet in order to get the defendant convicted of a DUI?"
In Florida, criminal charges have elements – meaning that each charge is broken down step by step and each step must be met in order to convict.
For instance, a DUI in Florida:
DUI is covered in 316.193 and that means it’s Jury Instruction 28.1:
To prove the crime of Driving Under the Influence, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Defendant) drove or was in actual physical control of a vehicle.
2. While driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle (defendant)
Give 2a or b as applicable.
a.was under the influence of [alcoholic beverages] [a chemical substance] [a controlled substance] to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired or
b.had a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, or a breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
Definitions. Give as applicable.
“Vehicle” is any device, in, upon or by which any person or property is, or may be, transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
“Normal faculties” include but are not limited to the ability to see, hear, walk, talk, judge distances, drive an automobile, make judgments, act in emergencies and, in general, to normally perform the many mental and physical acts of our daily lives.
“Actual physical control of a vehicle” means the defendant must be physically in or on the vehicle and have the capability to operate the vehicle, regardless of whether [he] [she] is actually operating the vehicle at the time.
“Alcoholic beverages” are considered to be substances of any kind and description which contain alcohol.
( ) is a controlled substance under Florida law. F.S. Chapter 893.
( ) is a chemical substance under Florida law. F.S. 877.111(1).
When appropriate, give one or more of the following instructions on the presumptions of impairment established by Fla.Stat. § 316.1934(2)(a), (2)(b), and (2)(c).
1. If you find from the evidence that the defendant had a blood or breath alcohol level of 0.05 or less, you shall presume that the defendant was not under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired.
2. If you find from the evidence that the defendant had a blood or breath alcohol level in excess of 0.05 but less than 0.08, you may consider that evidence with other competent evidence in determining whether the defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired; or
3. If you find from the evidence that the defendant had a blood or breath alcohol level of 0.08 or more, that evidence would be sufficient by itself to establish that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. However, such evidence may be contradicted or rebutted by other evidence demonstrating that the defendant was not under the influence to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired.
These presumptions may be considered along with any other evidence presented in deciding whether the defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired.
Give only if this defense is raised.
It is a defense to the charge of driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence if at the time of the alleged offense the vehicle was inoperable. However, it is not a defense if, while impaired, the defendant drove or was in actual physical control of the vehicle before it became inoperable. Therefore, if you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle was operable at the time of the alleged offense, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if you are convinced that the vehicle was operable at the time of the alleged offense, then you should find the defendant guilty if all the other elements of the charge have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
its florida.. the cops here think they can do whatever they want.
get a good attorny && try 2 turn the charges around on them. he should only have an assualt/ battery charge. the cops r mad dumb. hate them pigs…