Hassan Adams acquitted in DUI case [Archive]

View Full Version : Hassan Adams acquitted in DUI case

HiCat

10-25-2006, 05:08 PM

10.25.2006

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/photos/2006/10/25/30466-1.jpg
Hassan Adams acquitted in DUI case
A.J. FLICK
Tucson Citizen
Hassan Adams was acquitted today of DUI and DUI with a blood-alcohol level if 0.08 or higher.
The verdict was read shortly after 1 p.m.
The jury this morning asked to hear the testimony of an expert witness, which the judge granted.
Adams, 22, a former University of Arizona basketball star now with the NBA's New Jersey Nets, was arrested March 5 and charged with driving under the influence and having a blood-alcohol content above 0.08 percent. Breath tests indicated his BAC was 0.12 percent.
Testimony in City Court began Monday and ended Tuesday. Jurors deliberated for two hours Tuesday.

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/30466.php

HiCat

10-25-2006, 05:18 PM

Ex-Cat Adams acquitted of DUI charges
By Bruce Pascoe
ARIZONA DAILY STAR

Tucson, Arizona | Published: 10.25.2006
advertisementFormer UA basketball player Hassan Adams was acquitted of both charges in his DUI trial this afternoon.
The six-person jury in Adams' trial continued with over two hours of deliberation this morning at Tucson City Court.
The jury requested to hear an hour-long digital recording of testimony from defense witness MarcStottman, a toxicologist expert who discussed breathalyzers and the potential problems in measuring blood-alcohol levels with them.
Adams was measured to have a BAC of 0.121, according to a Tucson Police report, when he was arrested on March 5 near Park Avenue and Sixth Street. Adams was charged with DUI, DUI with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or greater.
He already settled a related speeding infraction (40 mph in a 30 zone) from the same incident.
After closing arguments Tuesday, the jury began its first two hours of deliberations. The trial was in its third day today.
This year Adams is a rookie with the NBA's New Jersey Nets.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/152845.php

Daryl Zero

10-25-2006, 05:20 PM

Guess he isn't no maroon.

HiCat

10-25-2006, 05:24 PM

Part of the testimony included:

The defense then brought the first of three witnesses, toxicology expert Marc Stottman, who dissected all the problems breathalyzers could have in relaying estimated blood-alcohol levels. He said Adams could have had a BAC as low as 0.06 if enough variables had come into play.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/wildcats/152595

Seems like reasonable doubt there.. (only speculation not having sat through the trial)

NorCalCat

10-25-2006, 05:29 PM

http://www.historyguy.com/biofiles/cochran%20glove.jpg

No test on the pee.
You must set free.

Taylor

10-25-2006, 05:29 PM

Good. Our DUI laws are too ****ing strict.

.08 is ridiculous.

They should be cracking down on repeat offenders and people who get pulled over DRUNK, not giving DUI arrests to people who drank two beers. **** MADD.

If MADD is so damn concerned about people driving while impared, they should also start cracking down on people who can't drive stone cold sober. Make it hard to get a license, You should have to actually know how to drive. There are so many horrible DWA drivers around here in Virginia that you're taking your life in your hands every time you get behind the wheel. Driving around the snowbirds in Arizona is truly scary.

I'd rather be a passenger in a car driven by a 22 year old with a .12 than a 90 year old with a bad hip any day.

Zero

10-25-2006, 05:32 PM

from Lutes book

"The policeman who stopped him said he had tracked him on radar going 40 in a 30 mile an hour zone. Apparently he was tested with a breathalyzer "probably six times" he told me, and he passed all the field tests."

"I'm proud to have been Hassan Adams coach. He's a very good person."

Daryl Zero

10-25-2006, 05:35 PM

The expert disputing the BAC machine is probably a standard whore, er, expert who would always testify to that. The difference makers would be the initial problems with testing and if Hassan passed the field sobriety tests. If he was falling around and slurring his speech, he would have lost.

HiCat

10-25-2006, 05:37 PM

That's why I like juries.. He might have been found guilty in a judge trial. Hassan's a cool kid, glad it worked out for him.

SlothFratelli

10-25-2006, 05:41 PM

That's why I like juries.. He might have been found guilty in a judge trial. Hassan's a cool kid, glad it worked out for him.
Amen to that.

I was on a jury that acquitted someone with a .21 that was a blood sample. The reason was the sample was taken over 3 hours after he was pulled over - so it was possible that he chugged a bottle of vodka 20 minutes before getting in the car, got pulled over while still sober, and then his BAC continued to rise. Mostly the cops who testified were dicks and the prosecution's expert kept making simple math errors in his presentation.

Taylor

10-25-2006, 05:44 PM

Hassan passed the field sobriety tests. If he was falling around and slurring his speech, he would have lost.

So, in other words, maybe he DID have a .12, but was completely capable of driving. That's what's stupid about those things.

Taylor

10-25-2006, 05:45 PM

Amen to that.

I was on a jury that acquitted someone with a .21 that was a blood sample. The reason was the sample was taken over 3 hours after he was pulled over - so it was possible that he chugged a bottle of vodka 20 minutes before getting in the car, got pulled over while still sober, and then his BAC continued to rise. Mostly the cops who testified were dicks and the prosecution's expert kept making simple math errors in his presentation.

Somebody who has a BAC of .21 three hours after getting pulled over deserves to lose their license for life. :confused:

Chicat

10-25-2006, 05:50 PM

I'd rather be a passenger in a car driven by a 22 year old with a .12 than a 90 year old with a bad hip any day.

:roll:

HiCat

10-25-2006, 05:52 PM

So, in other words, maybe he DID have a .12, but was completely capable of driving. That's what's stupid about those things.

A lot of folks are capable of driving with a .12, it's just that the laws impose a "strict liability" if you will when you drink. If your bac gets over a certain limit..let's say .08, you're presumed to be "under the influence". It doesn't mean you can't really handle the car while driving. (this is a grey area though) It varies with each person, and you mentioned a couple of factors already that may interfere with driving. (Body type, tolerance, driving skills, focus, state of mind, physical impairments, age...etc...)

HiCat

10-25-2006, 05:54 PM

"Mostly the cops who testified were dicks and the prosecution's expert kept making simple math errors in his presentation."

You mean they were bending the truth?? ha...

1UofACat

10-25-2006, 05:56 PM

Somebody who has a BAC of .21 three hours after getting pulled over deserves to lose their license for life. :confused:

Or clear repeat offenders... those who practice driving while under the influence.

How is it we can read about some that have multiple DUIs and are not locked up when in AZ you can loose your car and get jailed for reckless endangerment driving 20+ over the posted speed limit?

Some things don't make sense.

Daryl Zero

10-25-2006, 05:57 PM

So, in other words, maybe he DID have a .12, but was completely capable of driving. That's what's stupid about those things.

There are problems with the testing. When they are pointed out and when the other facts seem out of whack, the jury isn't going to buy it. But a lot of people who get pulled over for DUI are in pretty bad shape. When I was at the City Prosecutor's office for a short time, reading the police reports, DUI supplements (which had the field sobriety testing) was pretty amusing.

I differ about the DUI offense. There are a lot of bad accidents caused by drunks. Also, chronic alcoholics can seemingly hold their liquor much better even at high BAC levels. The old lady with the hip is going to be an annoying driver but not dangerous. The young guy or girl with the .08 can kill you or your family.

I have heard there are places that can demonstrate the impairments for those who want to see how impaired you are with just a .08. Why don't you try it? (I can't since I don't drink).

Taylor

10-25-2006, 06:01 PM

A lot of folks are capable of driving with a .12, it's just that the laws impose a "strict liability" if you will when you drink. If your bac gets over a certain limit..let's say .08, you're presumed to be "under the influence". It doesn't mean you can't really handle the car while driving. (this is a grey area though) It varies with each person, and you mentioned a couple of factors already that may interfere with driving. (Body type, tolerance, driving skills, focus, state of mind, physical impairments, age...etc...)

I know. I just think it's dumb.

Honestly, I DON'T drink and drive.

That having been said, I could drink a sixer and be a much safer driver than a 70 year old with alzheimers, parkinsons, and an artificial hip who still has his license and doesn't even know where he's driving.

Taylor

10-25-2006, 06:03 PM

There are problems with the testing. When they are pointed out and when the other facts seem out of whack, the jury isn't going to buy it. But a lot of people who get pulled over for DUI are in pretty bad shape. When I was at the City Prosecutor's office for a short time, reading the police reports, DUI supplements (which had the field sobriety testing) was pretty amusing.

I differ about the DUI offense. There are a lot of bad accidents caused by drunks. Also, chronic alcoholics can seemingly hold their liquor much better even at high BAC levels. The old lady with the hip is going to be an annoying driver but not dangerous. The young guy or girl with the .08 can kill you or your family.

I have heard there are places that can demonstrate the impairments for those who want to see how impaired you are with just a .08. Why don't you try it? (I can't since I don't drink).

That would actually be fun.

DZ, I think DRUNK drivers should be slammed. The problem with tha law is that it's evolved to the point that two drinks makes you a "drunk" driver which is absurd.

gman4gov

10-25-2006, 06:05 PM

Guess he isn't no maroon.

Not if you can afford a good attorney.

HiCat

10-25-2006, 06:07 PM

I know. I just think it's dumb.

Honestly, I DON'T drink and drive.

That having been said, I could drink a sixer and be a much safer driver than a 70 year old with alzheimers, parkinsons, and an artificial hip who still has his license and doesn't even know where he's driving.

Exactly, but some boozers aren't safe to have on the road at any level. And yes, if you're too old and don't have the reflex- action or mental capacity to appreciate the significance of driving through a crowded shopping mall, you are also a danger to society arguably more than a .12 bac driver. Priorities I guess..

Officer Craig

10-25-2006, 06:11 PM

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k299/Q_Surf/argentiniancheeka.jpg

SlothFratelli

10-25-2006, 06:49 PM

Somebody who has a BAC of .21 three hours after getting pulled over deserves to lose their license for life. :confused:

I think you missed the point. Dude passed all field tests, was coherent enough to refuse breathalyzer until cops could get warrant, and was calm and alert for the entire 3 hours in custody. He probably wasn't under .08 but he could have been and he could have easily been under .10 at the time he was pulled over and went up .11 over the next three hours.

RichardCranium

10-25-2006, 06:50 PM

I have heard there are places that can demonstrate the impairments for those who want to see how impaired you are with just a .08. Why don't you try it? (I can't since I don't drink).

Research shows that driving while holding a conversation on a cell phone to your ear is equivalent to driving with .08 alchohol. You can try that...but please, NOT on a public road...anywhere near me...or anyone else.

You ARE seriously impaired with a BAL of .05; just how seriously depends on a lot of things, but you are impaired. The .08 figure is already a compromise to take into account time factors and measurement imprecision. In Victoria Australia, the BAL is .05 but some other states use .07 or .08.

Some pubs have self testers so you can check before you leave. For me, I am uncomfortable driving at .04, I know that I 'can' do it, but it doesn't feel right and my driving actions are a bit messy. I'd rather take a taxi.

If Hassan Adams had a blood test show .12, he was drunk. Period.

Whether he could 'maintain' has nothing to do with it. Whether he chugged a bottle of vodka 15 minutes before that hadn't worked its way into his blood stream has nothing to do with it. In fact, the record shows that he couldn't maintain, as he was speeding, doing 30% over the posted limit.

His judgement was so impaired, he was unable to judge his own abilities or the consequences of his ignorance. Perhaps he could appear to maintain concentration for short periods of time, but he could be easily distracted, and the intense concentration involved means that he wouldn't be able to see/comprehend the hazards around him. Like the speed limit signs, the traffic lights, the little girl running out from behind the parked car.

He was drunk.

According to the jury, he is also innocent.

HiCat

10-25-2006, 07:02 PM

"According to the jury, he is also innocent."

Maybe a minor point, but the jury probably found that there was reasonable doubt, therefore acquitted Hassan. In other words, the prosecution didn't prove their case to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Daryl Zero

10-25-2006, 07:07 PM

[QUOTE=RichardCranium;628680If Hassan Adams had a blood test show .12, he was drunk. Period. [/QUOTE]

I think that was one of the main issues. They didn't do a blood test, they did a breathalyzer which is a conversion test which also is much shakier than a blood test. Apparently, the machine he was blowing into had problems. That, along with the passing of field sobriety tests and the expert's testimony, created reasonable doubt.

azpatnca

10-25-2006, 07:25 PM

HiCat

10-25-2006, 07:48 PM

Who was his attorney, and who was the expert witness? I don't drink and drive, but it'd be good to know who the attorney was. Perhaps the expert witness can talk about the inaccuracies of radar guns, should I ever need it. (I don't speed any more either, cause I'm old. But sometimes the traps trap me.)

:)

Expert:
"defense witness Marc Stottman, a toxicology expert who discussed the potential faults of breathalyzer readings. "

Attorney:
"Obviously, we're very, very pleased with the outcome," said Stephen Paul Barnard, Adams' attorney. "This was a huge weight off his shoulders. It means he can go play some basketball."

After the verdict was read, Adams smiled while Barnard patted him on the shoulder. Adams declined to comment, but Barnard said Adams was "almost trembling he was so happy about the outcome."

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/wildcats/152845

azcat49

10-26-2006, 12:47 AM

Does anyone think if he was tried in Tempe he would have got off? Just asking. The man was drunk according to his blow. I hope he learned something and I hope that if any of us get put in the same predicament we will have Adams luck.

haji81872

10-26-2006, 01:12 AM

I think you missed the point. Dude passed all field tests, was coherent enough to refuse breathalyzer until cops could get warrant, and was calm and alert for the entire 3 hours in custody. He probably wasn't under .08 but he could have been and he could have easily been under .10 at the time he was pulled over and went up .11 over the next three hours.

So he might not have been drunk yet at the time he was pulled over, but would have been a while later? He played the system well and got off.

I say thank you police for stopping him before that happened. It might not have gotten them a conviction, but it may have saved a life.

Daryl Zero

10-26-2006, 01:13 AM

Steve Barnard has been doing DUI cases even back when I was at the City Prosecutor's office in 1985 and probably years before. He probably knows how to do them by now. I laugh when I hear lawyer commercials on the radio and tv because they are usually nobodies who claim to be the "premiere lawyer" in one or multiple areas. The good lawyers don't advertise, they have their clients tell other people how good they are.

PieceOfMeat

10-26-2006, 02:11 AM

As any halfway smart rich person does, Hassan got a good lawyer.

The jury let him off.

And that's that.

What a joke though, but I digress.

HiCat

10-26-2006, 06:27 AM

The basis for the acquittal: (reasonable doubt)

The jury spent over an hour this morning replaying testimony from defense witness Marc Stottman, a toxicology expert who discussed the potential faults of breathalyzer readings.

"At the very end he said I'm an expert in this field and knowing all these facts and looking at everything, I can't say for sure that the blood-alcohol level was below or above .08," said Kirsten Larsen, the jury foreman. "Without anything to refute that evidence, we felt we had to give credence to that expert testimony."

Because the case was a criminal matter, juries were instructed that they must find Adams proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/wildcats/152845

HiCat

10-26-2006, 06:38 AM

THE HASSAN ADAMS DUI VERDICT
'HE WAS TREATED LIKE ANYBODY ELSE'
Jurors' doubts of breath test lead to hoopster's acquittal
By A.J. FLICK
Tucson Citizen

Doubt about the reliability of alcohol breath tests led to the acquittal of former University of Arizona basketball star Hassan Adams in Tucson City Court.
Six jurors on Wednesday declared Hassan Adams, 22, not guilty of driving under the influence and driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or higher.
Adams, a rookie guard with the New Jersey Nets, left without talking to the media. He missed Wednesday's exhibition game at Philadelphia but is expected to see action Friday at home against the New York Knicks.

Defense testimony that questioned the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer breath test led to the not-guilty verdict, said three jurors who spoke afterward.
"The fact that it was not the latest machine and had a built-in margin of error" was influential, said forewoman Kirsten Larsen, 36. "And that a person's physiological situation could affect the reading was enough to create a level of doubt."
Jurors said the first charge was pretty well resolved Tuesday. On Wednesday, after hearing a recorded transcript of a defense expert witness, the second verdict was reached.
"None of us took this lightly," said juror John Ouzts, 30. "I thought of it as putting myself in Mr. Adams' position. And I would have wanted it to be taken seriously."
Juror Jon Pyle, 39, said Adams' fame as a former UA basketball star and his current status with the Nets wasn't a factor in the deliberations.
"I'm pretty sure most of us had heard of him, but we put that aside," Pyle said. "He was treated like anybody else."
Adams is expected to make the Nets' roster. He's averaging 5.4 points, 3.6 rebounds and 1 assist in five exhibition games.
Defense attorney Stephen Paul Barnard said the verdicts lifted a "huge weight" off Adams' shoulders.
"He shook my hand and he was almost trembling," Barnard said. "He wants to put this behind him and get on with his life."

Barnard said the fact that jurors doubted the breath test results was significant.
"Most people tend to believe that since it's a machine, it's infallible," he said.
Assistant City Prosecutor Michael Spiersterbach declined to comment. Judge Margarita Bernal fined Adams $250 for speeding, a charge he didn't contest and which was not part of the trial.
Adams was arrested March 5. Breath tests indicated his blood-alcohol level was 0.12 percent, according to testimony.

He was suspended for the Pacific-10 Conference Tournament by UA coach Lute Olson but played in the NCAA Tournament.
"Generally in cases like these, athletes are presumed to be guilty," Olson said in a statement released by UA. "This country is all about being innocent until proven guilty. . . . Hassan was suspended . . . for publicity that was detrimental to the program, not for guilt or innocence. That was decided today."

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/sports/30532.php

Taylor

10-26-2006, 12:40 PM

lofty

10-26-2006, 04:16 PM

What gets me is that if he passed all the field sobriety tests, there was no reason to move to giving a breathalyzer.

ZonaCats8

10-26-2006, 04:18 PM

What gets me is that if he passed all the field sobriety tests, there was no reason to move to giving a breathalyzer.

I thought that you had to fail the field sobriety test before they could give you a breathalyzer?

lofty

10-26-2006, 04:22 PM

I don't know about that. But I do know that that is the normal order of things/protocol. I was pulled over once in college on sixth st. for running a red and it was bar closing time. I had had two beers (yep, no kidding) over a couple hours. First, they did the eye test thing. Then he made me do the field sobriety test. I passed and was let go with a warning for the red light. No breathalyzer.

ZonaCats8

10-26-2006, 04:28 PM

I thought that because I have had 2 friends get pulled over after having a few and passed the field test, so they weren't given a breathalyzer, and the cop told them that was why they didn't get one. DUI laws vary by state I believe, so that may be why.

Itamicbomb

10-26-2006, 04:29 PM

If you fail a field test, you're taking the breathalyzer. If you pass a field test, I think it's up to the cop.

ZonaCats8

10-26-2006, 04:32 PM

If you fail a field test, you're taking the breathalyzer. If you pass a field test, I think it's up to the cop.

Here's to hoping I never have to find out :cheers:

HiCat

10-26-2006, 04:39 PM

lofty

10-26-2006, 04:43 PM

That's right. So, in Hassan's case, why the breathalyzer? I'm assuming from the articles I've read that he passed the FSTs.
I had to do items 1-3 and then he let me go.

HiCat

10-26-2006, 04:49 PM

That's right. So, in Hassan's case, why the breathalyzer? I'm assuming from the articles I've read that he passed the FSTs.
I had to do items 1-3 and then he let me go.

Without the benefit of reading the police reports it's not clear. But if he passed he FST he should have been told to be on his way. Maybe there's more to the story..

I'm guessing that the cop said Hassam "failed" the FST.. or did not perform well on 1 or 2 out of the 3 fst activities.

Daryl Zero

10-26-2006, 05:17 PM

Arizona's FSTs are simple compared with some of the tests done in Europe. Here is a video of a test in Austria:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-N6Pxh7Ni10"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-N6Pxh7Ni10" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Taylor

10-26-2006, 05:23 PM

Generally if you passed the FST you don't get arrested and therefore there's no need for a breath or blood test. In theory, the FST is just that, a test to see if you're impaired from drinking alcohol.

The normal sequence of events is:

. some sort of driving that attracts the attention of the police
. or an there's an accident, or something wrong with your car e.g. tail lights out, license out of date
. after the stop the officer notices an alcohol odor from you, and maybe he notes you have blood shot eyes and/ or slurred speech
. after he questions you about drinking you're asked to exit the vehicle
. the officer may then perform a "horizontal gaze nystagmus" test where the officer shines a light in your eye and notes the movements
. at this point he may request that you participate in a field sobriety test

The tests can include activities like:
1. leg raise and count
2. close your eyes and touch your nose with your finger
3. heel to toe walk for 10 steps
4. alphabet a,b,c's

If in the judgment of the officer you failed the FST's you're placed under arrest.

All of the above is spot on.

If you get pulled over, only open your window a crack. That way, the cop can never claim that he smelled your breath.

If he asks you to get out of the car, respectfully decline. He ASKED you to get out. There is a difference.

Unless you just did something ridiculous in your car, he has no probable cause to charge you with DUI.

People try to cooperate when they are pulled over and get themselves in trouble.

Why did he pull you over? Tail light out? 10 MPH over limit? THose are not reasons to charge someone with DUI. It's when you say "Yeah, I only had two beers" and proceed to stumble out of the car that you get yourself in trouble.

HiCat

10-26-2006, 05:24 PM

DZ,
Too funny...

HiCat

10-26-2006, 05:30 PM

T,

And sometimes cops "embellish" their reports on how badly you were driving, or how you slurred your words, or fumbled for your wallet..

True story: I had friend long ago stopped by the LAPD asked to do a FST. He proceeded to walk on his hands upside down back and forth in front of the officer. The cop let him go, told him to "get out of here". ha..

Taylor

10-26-2006, 05:52 PM

T,

And sometimes cops "embellish" their reports on how badly you were driving, or how you slurred your words, or fumbled for your wallet.. ..
True. Don't give them a chance.
True story: I had friend long ago stopped by the LAPD asked to do a FST. He proceeded to walk on his hands upside down back and forth in front of the officer. The cop let him go, told him to "get out of here". ha..
LOL! Awesome.

Taylor

10-26-2006, 05:57 PM

I'm gonna get hammered for this one - LOL!

If you ARE drunk and you get pulled over?

Crack your window.

Drop your keys on the ground (if you forget this step, you are ****ed).

Show the officer the unopened, sealed bottle of rum you keep in your glove box.

Open it.

Drink.

Get out and let him arrest you.

Go to court.

Make them prove you were drunk before you cracked the bottle and drank it right in front of the cop (with your keys outside of the car, remember).

This takes HUGE balls, but is a fool proof way to avoid a DUI.

edit: Like I've said, I will not drink and drive - way too much to lose - so no, I do not drive around with an unopened bottle of rum in my car.

Longhorned

10-26-2006, 06:41 PM

Wow, Taylor, that's pure genius.

Daryl Zero

10-26-2006, 07:23 PM

Taylor

10-26-2006, 08:04 PM

I hope nobody is dumb enough to drink and drive. If they do, however, that's a sure fire way to make sure they are never convicted.

azpatnca

10-26-2006, 08:22 PM

So no one knows who his attorney was? Since it seems Fox Sports AZ is brought to us solely by the hundreds of Arizona DUI attorneys - and Stagg chili, I just wondered which one would be getting his/her name on the court when the alltell contract is up.

Daryl Zero

10-26-2006, 10:59 PM

I hope nobody is dumb enough to drink and drive. If they do, however, that's a sure fire way to make sure they are never convicted.

If you are serious, I don't think it works. First, you are going to piss the officer off mightly and risk bodily harm. Second, alcohol takes time to be absorbed into the system so the idea that you are going to mess up the FSTs and/or the BAC is wrong. Third, you better drop those keys out because, as you obviously know, just being behind the wheel with keys and drunk is illegal. What do you think will happen to your keys?

I'd say it is not a good strategy.

azpatnca

10-26-2006, 11:18 PM

Taylor you forgot the part where you make your passenger friend run out of the car, hide in the bushes and film the beat down you're about to take. Then you sue for unreasonable force and count the money all the way to the hospital.

Longhorned

10-26-2006, 11:41 PM

If you are serious, I don't think it works. First, you are going to piss the officer off mightly and risk bodily harm. Second, alcohol takes time to be absorbed into the system so the idea that you are going to mess up the FSTs and/or the BAC is wrong. Third, you better drop those keys out because, as you obviously know, just being behind the wheel with keys and drunk is illegal. What do you think will happen to your keys?

I'd say it is not a good strategy.

OK, how about this? You're driving down the road and swerving a bit because you've had several drinks, get pulled over for a number of reasons, the cop comes up to your window and you start munching on a big white onion. First, the cop can't smell the alcohol on your breath. Secondly, in response to the question of why you're driving like an idiot, you say say it's because you're eating a big onion and you didn't know it would make your eyes start watering and you couldn't see a thing. When he asks you to blow into his device, you complain that you're blinded by your own tears and can't even see where to place your mouth. Draw this long conversation out as you continue to breathe into the officer's face repeatedly take big bites of onion.

Daryl Zero

10-26-2006, 11:43 PM

How 'bout when the cop pulls you over for weaving, you say its because of the dead guy in the trunk?

Longhorned

10-26-2006, 11:46 PM

How 'bout when the cop pulls you over for weaving, you say its because of the dead guy in the trunk?

That's it! Absolute genius. Gosh, I impress myself with my ability to hold a conversation about complex legal considerations with a real lawyer.

Taylor

10-27-2006, 12:15 AM

If you are serious, I don't think it works. First, you are going to piss the officer off mightly and risk bodily harm. Second, alcohol takes time to be absorbed into the system so the idea that you are going to mess up the FSTs and/or the BAC is wrong. Third, you better drop those keys out because, as you obviously know, just being behind the wheel with keys and drunk is illegal. What do you think will happen to your keys?

I'd say it is not a good strategy.

I learned it from a cop, ran the idea past a few other cops, several lawyers, and a judge I met at a party.:eek:

It's foolproof.

1. So he's pissed. He knows you just got away with a DUI. So what? You think he's gonna Rodney King you for it?

2. Alcohol takes time to be absorbed. True. It's also true that you can't get an accurate reading from a breathalizer within 15 minutes of drinking. So, once again, try to prove you were drunk BEFORE you cracked the bottle open. You can't.

3. Ummm, you pick the keys up and lock the car with them after you get out. There's the obvious reason why you toss them out of the car first, but why would you just leave them in the road? No matter what, you're not getting behind the wheel again that night.

4. It's only a strategy to pursue if you see it as your only way out. In other words, you're ****ed if you don't.

5. Don't put yourself in this position in the first place. Keep it to one drink an hour, or less.

Longhorned

10-27-2006, 12:40 AM

Then, when the judge asked why you'd suddenly pull an unopened bottle of Jack out your glove compartment and down it, you say, "I had to deal with a cop and couldn't face that sober."

Taylor

10-27-2006, 11:07 AM

When they take you to court and try to convict you of DUI, they can't change their minds and convict you of being crazy. :lol2:

bhanson

10-27-2006, 11:14 AM

Not if you can afford a good attorney.

Again this proves the difference in justice if you are rich or poor. A poor person could not afford a good attorney nor could they hire an expert for hire.

Hassan Adams acquitted in DUI case
A.J. FLICK
Tucson Citizen

You guys note the name of the writer? His last name was the only normal word not allowed in comic books.

Bucktown

10-29-2006, 02:08 PM

That would actually be fun.

DZ, I think DRUNK drivers should be slammed. The problem with tha law is that it's evolved to the point that two drinks makes you a "drunk" driver which is absurd.

What's even more odd is if you have a CDL (Comercial Drivers License) in Illinois. That lowers your "threshold" to .04. Yikes...I think you get that walking past a liquor store.

RichardCranium

10-29-2006, 06:11 PM

I think that was one of the main issues. They didn't do a blood test, they did a breathalyzer which is a conversion test which also is much shakier than a blood test. Apparently, the machine he was blowing into had problems. That, along with the passing of field sobriety tests and the expert's testimony, created reasonable doubt.

Ex-Cat Adams acquitted of DUI charges
By Bruce Pascoe
ARIZONA DAILY STAR

Tucson, Arizona | Published: 10.25.2006
advertisementFormer UA basketball player Hassan Adams was acquitted of both charges in his DUI trial this afternoon.
The six-person jury in Adams' trial continued with over two hours of deliberation this morning at Tucson City Court.
The jury requested to hear an hour-long digital recording of testimony from defense witness MarcStottman, a toxicologist expert who discussed breathalyzers and the potential problems in measuring blood-alcohol levels with them.
Adams was measured to have a BAC of 0.121, according to a Tucson Police report, when he was arrested on March 5 near Park Avenue and Sixth Street. Adams was charged with DUI, DUI with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or greater.

If he didn't hava a blood test, then how did his BAC get measured? Stop being wishy-washy about this. He was drunk. The jury found him not guilty (not the same as innocent - I made an error in my previous post).

In my opinion he got a hometown decision. Good for him. Bad for whoever he kills next time.

Daryl Zero

10-29-2006, 07:58 PM

If he didn't hava a blood test, then how did his BAC get measured? Stop being wishy-washy about this. He was drunk. The jury found him not guilty (not the same as innocent - I made an error in my previous post).

In my opinion he got a hometown decision. Good for him. Bad for whoever he kills next time.

You are not understanding. There are two ways to determine BAC (blood alcohol content). The first is a blood test where the blood is drawn, etc etc. The second is a breathalyzer machine which takes your breath and does a calculation of your BAC. The second method is more indirect and is more attackable. The reason that the breathalyzer is used is because cops don't take blood samples. You usually have a blood sample drawn when there has been an accident and the driver is in the hospital. The other issue is time. Your BAC changes over time. First it takes some time to absorb the alcohol into the system and then it could get worse or better depending on the length of time between drinking and testing. The breathalyzer is done on the scene after flunking the FST (field sobriety tests) or the HG test.

From Wikipedia:

"A breathalyzer (or breathalyser) is a device for estimating blood alcohol content (BAC) from a breath sample. "Breathalyzer" is the brand name of a model made by one manufacturer of these instruments (originally Smith and Wesson, later National Draeger), but has become a genericized trademark for all such instruments. Intoxilyzer, Intoximeter, Alcotest, Alcosensor and Datamaster are the other most common brand names in use today.

* * *

Breath analyzers don't directly measure blood alcohol content or concentration, which requires the analysis of a blood sample. Instead, they estimate BAC indirectly by measuring the amount of alcohol in one's breath. Two technologies are most prevalent. Evidentiary machines, used by policeforces, generally utilize infrared spectrophotometer technology. Hand-held field testing devices, less accurate but becoming increasingly popular with law enforcement, are based on electrochemical fuel cell analysis; used by officers in the field as a form of "field sobriety test", they are commonly called PBT (preliminary breath test) or PAS (preliminary alcohol screening)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathalyzer

The breathalyzer estimates and has a margin of error. Additionally, the machines have to be maintained and tuned. They are subject to attack:

Continuing on from Wikipedia:

"Research indicates that breathalyzers are not as accurate and reliable as widely believed. [1]. Breath testers can be very sensitive to temperature, for example, and will give false readings if not adjusted or recalibrated to account for ambient or surrounding air temperatures. The temperature of the subject is also very important. Each one degree Celsius (Centigrade) of body temperature above normal (+1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) will cause a substantial elevation (about 7%) in apparent BAC.

Breathing pattern can also significantly affect breath test results. [2] One study found that the BAC readings of subjects decreased 11 to 14% after running up one flight of stairs and 22-25% after doing so twice. Another study found a 15% decrease in BAC readings after vigorous exercise or hyperventilation. Hyperventilation for 20 seconds has been shown to lower the reading by approximately 10%. On the other hand, holding your breath for 30 seconds can increase the breath test result by about 15%.

Some breath analysis machines assume a hematocrit (cell volume of blood) of 47%. However, hematocrit values range from 42 to 52% in men and from 37 to 47% in women. A person with a lower hematocrit will have a falsely high BAC reading.

Failure of law enforcement officers to use the devices properly or of administrators to have the machines properly maintained and re-calibrated as required are particularly common sources of error.

Research indicates that breath tests can vary at least 15% from actual blood alcohol concentration. An estimated 23% of individuals tested will have a BAC reading higher than their true BAC. And police in Victoria, Australia use breathalyzers that give a recognized 20 per cent tolerance on readings. Noel Ashby, Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner (Traffic & Transport) claims that this tolerance is to allow for different body types."

If the accuracy of a breathalyzer can be challenged (in this case by an expert and by indications that the machine was having trouble) and you add to that other indications that Hassan was not drunk (doing well on FSTs) then that could be enough to convince the jury that Hassan was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

What a good criminal defense attorney does is (1) try to pick a jury that will be open to questions of doubt; (2) try to undermine the prosecution's case to create questions of doubt; and (3) hammer the issues of doubt into the jury during the case and arguments. All the defense attorney has to do is to create a question of doubt in the jurors' mind (and just a few of them, not all) and the case can be won. No one can say, just based upon headlines, that Hassan won because he is a hometown hero. It sure sounded like there were some issues that the defense attorney could make hay with.

azpatnca

10-29-2006, 08:53 PM

Cars should come standard with a Breathalyzer. If you don't blow, you can't drive. I know you could have your sober friend blow, but why not have your sober friend drive then too. I know there's a BJ joke in here somewhere, but I'm ignoring it because this is a serious topic.

HiCat

10-30-2006, 08:14 AM

"No one can say, just based upon headlines, that Hassan won because he is a hometown hero. It sure sounded like there were some issues that the defense attorney could make hay with."

Right on point counsel. The jury acquitted based on the courts instructions regarding reasonable doubt. It appears that the jury understood their charge to hold the gov't to that standard. The defense presented evidence via expert testimony that the BAC could have been below the legal limit of .08, therefore there was reasonable doubt as to the validity of the readings. In weighing the evidence, the jury must have reached this conclusion, therefore, the not guilty verdict.

Did it help that Hassan is a good guy? Maybe, but the jury said it didn't.

azpatnca

10-30-2006, 11:04 AM

Taylor

10-30-2006, 11:10 AM

azpatnca

10-30-2006, 11:21 AM

You're kidding, right?

It would be optional, of course. But it would be nice to have on record to show if you ever did get pulled over. Look, I blew, my car said I was ok to drive. See, here are the records.

Of course, I'm the kind of guy who wants my car to know the speed limit and not let me break it, unless I override the setting, of course. I think it would be great to have the car know that in this section of the road the *******s made it only 35 MPH, so I better slow down. I'll just push full throttle all the time, and my car will keep me from speeding. :) But having a % of the limit over is a good idea. Like I'd set mine to not let me go more than 5 MPH over the limit, except on the freeway where it would be 10, except on a road trip, where it would be 12.

azpatnca

10-30-2006, 11:29 AM

we're way off topic now, but check this out.

Siemens, showing its European focus, says that it wants to help drivers solve a common problem: "is there a speed limit or not?" While this isn't usually what US drivers are wondering, it's easy to blow past limit signs when you're doing 140mph through Austria—and consequently to ring up large traffic tickets when a speed limit suddenly comes into force and Austria's finest have set up a sting a quarter-mile past the sign. Not that I would know.

It's an "electronic traffic sign recognition function" that uses cameras and special software to scan the road ahead for speed limit signs, which the system can identify and then display on the dashboard.

Drivers who are going too fast are warned with a visual signal, but are allowed to continue driving at whatever speed they like. The system can also be tied in with the adaptive cruise control, in which case the car will speed up or slow down to match changes in the speed limit.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061016-7994.html

*Why do we have to be such girly men about the speed limit. I wish I could go 140 MPH legally. Anyway, the technology is coming.

The only thing I'd add is a sign on the back of my car that says
"Speed Limit: 50. Current Speed: 55"
If you want to pay my ticket, I'll go faster.
PrePay Only!

RichardCranium

10-31-2006, 02:17 AM

I understand all that Daryl, fully and completely. The newspaper article said he was measured with a BAC of .12 - that means a blood test. I know the difference between that and an estimation done via breathalyser.

I've been out of the USA too long know how it works there, but in Australia, when you get breathalysed, if you blow over the limit, they take you to the "Booze Bus" or a hospital for a blood test. You can refuse the blood test, but you will then automatically loose your license for (I think) twelve months (depending on State I suppose).

Look, I am not a person to give ground on this. The public is too educated about drinking and driving to be dithering about technicalities. If you drive drunk, you are endangering others and should be considered in charge of a dangerous weapon. If you are in an accident when you are drunk and cause an injury, IMHO it is assault with a deadly weapon. If you cause a death, it should be premeditated murder - because you know perfectly well what you are doing before you start drinking. But I recognise that I am a bit over the top with that opinion. Others say since you are drunk you cannot be held responsible for your actions, but I say bollocks to that.

I am not a wowser, I drink plenty. I have a large wine collection and love drinking it with friends. I do not drink and drive.

Daryl Zero

10-31-2006, 09:47 AM

The newspaper article said he was measured with a BAC of .12 - that means a blood test.

Why does that mean a blood test? And if you are relying on the newspaper's semantics, isn't it possible that the newspaper was imprecise? All I saw was the account that the breathalyzer was used.

Your assumption that a blood test (barring any mistake in procedure) would be more open and shut is probably correct.

cpt

10-31-2006, 12:31 PM

What's even more odd is if you have a CDL (Comercial Drivers License) in Illinois. That lowers your "threshold" to .04. Yikes...I think you get that walking past a liquor store.

OK, this is only half-serious but...I think you should be able to get an alcohol "endorsement" on your license. Just like a motorcycle or commercial endorsement. If you can take a test that shows you are compentent at .08 to .12 or so, you get the green light. I totally agree that there are different skills of drivers and that plays into it. Some people are such bad drivers they can't handle driving and talking on a cell phone. Or smoking. Or eating. Or putting on make up. Others could probably do all of those things and drive well. Same with alcohol. Of course I realize there are limits to this -- see the .12 threshold.

RichardCranium

10-31-2006, 06:02 PM

Why does that mean a blood test? And if you are relying on the newspaper's semantics, isn't it possible that the newspaper was imprecise? All I saw was the account that the breathalyzer was used.

Your assumption that a blood test (barring any mistake in procedure) would be more open and shut is probably correct.

Because the newspaper was quoting the Police Report. I suspect that the police know the difference between an estimate and a measurement too.