Comments on: State Supreme Court: DUI Doesn’t Require Driving http://www.duiblog.com/2010/05/10/state-supreme-court-dui-doesnt-require-driving/ Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:35:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: DUI BLOG: Drunk Driving….Parked on a Private Driveway? http://www.duiblog.com/2010/05/10/state-supreme-court-dui-doesnt-require-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-33017 DUI BLOG: Drunk Driving….Parked on a Private Driveway? Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:46:51 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=2266#comment-33017 [...] see Convicted of Drunk Driving – Without Driving, Alcohol on Breath + No Driving = DUI, State Supreme Court: DUI Doesn’t Require Driving and How to "Drive" Under the Influence While Sleeping. [...] […] see Convicted of Drunk Driving – Without Driving, Alcohol on Breath + No Driving = DUI, State Supreme Court: DUI Doesn’t Require Driving and How to "Drive" Under the Influence While Sleeping. […]

]]> By: DUI BLOG: Alcohol on Breath + No Driving = DUI http://www.duiblog.com/2010/05/10/state-supreme-court-dui-doesnt-require-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-19421 DUI BLOG: Alcohol on Breath + No Driving = DUI Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:53:52 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=2266#comment-19421 [...] if you think this is an isolated example, see a few of my earlier posts: State Supreme Court: DUI Doesn’t Require Driving, Convicted of Drunk Driving…Without Driving, Sleeping Under the Influence and How to [...] […] if you think this is an isolated example, see a few of my earlier posts: State Supreme Court: DUI Doesn’t Require Driving, Convicted of Drunk Driving…Without Driving, Sleeping Under the Influence and How to […]

]]> By: standup http://www.duiblog.com/2010/05/10/state-supreme-court-dui-doesnt-require-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-18649 standup Tue, 11 May 2010 18:12:31 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=2266#comment-18649 Innocent until proven guilty. Yeah, right... Innocent until proven guilty. Yeah, right…

]]> By: RichardAlan http://www.duiblog.com/2010/05/10/state-supreme-court-dui-doesnt-require-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-18648 RichardAlan Tue, 11 May 2010 18:07:54 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=2266#comment-18648 The Government and the police brought these magical fantasy land charges so, is there evidence of a complaining party”? common sense tells us that there needs to be a complaining party, "corpus delecti" and a fair trial. We all know that lawyers prosecutors and judge's are representing the state and are members of the Bar, we also know based on this rabbit hole ruling that we the people will not get a fair trial, the "we don't need any evidence to put you in jail" routine is in full affect and we the people have allowed the fox to guard the hen house . The Government and the police brought these magical fantasy land charges so, is there evidence of a complaining party”?

common sense tells us that there needs to be a complaining party, “corpus delecti” and a fair trial. We all know that lawyers prosecutors and judge’s are representing the state and are members of the Bar, we also know based on this rabbit hole ruling that we the people will not get a fair trial, the “we don’t need any evidence to put you in jail” routine is in full affect and we the people have allowed the fox to guard the hen house .

]]> By: David W http://www.duiblog.com/2010/05/10/state-supreme-court-dui-doesnt-require-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-18632 David W Tue, 11 May 2010 09:27:08 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=2266#comment-18632 Here's the ruling for those interested. This is a case decided upon " assumptions" favored in light of the Gov't unless proven otherwise..That certainly is messed up. It basically says, if you don't present evidence to the contrary of the beliefs of the State in an accusation against you, that the claims made will be considered valid..Yet, on the other hand, they claim that the defendant was not prejudiced in any way nor was the burden of proof to show he didn't commit the offense put upon him...Did he operate the car to get to the location? probably. Had he consumed alcohol? Yes Was he in violation of the law when he operated the vehicle? Totally unknown, but since he did not offer testimony showing he wasn't, it is considered that he did...At least Nevada or Arizona, can't remember which, got this right. They held in their State a man could not be prosecuted or sanctioned for doing the right thing. Getting off the highway if he felt he was a risk to himself or others. Clearly this is what this guy did. And is being punished for doing the right thing. Conviction based on assumption and the "lack" of contrary evidence...Lovely.. http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/wv-dmvdui.pdf Here’s the ruling for those interested. This is a case decided upon ” assumptions” favored in light of the Gov’t unless proven otherwise..That certainly is messed up. It basically says, if you don’t present evidence to the contrary of the beliefs of the State in an accusation against you, that the claims made will be considered valid..Yet, on the other hand, they claim that the defendant was not prejudiced in any way nor was the burden of proof to show he didn’t commit the offense put upon him…Did he operate the car to get to the location? probably. Had he consumed alcohol? Yes Was he in violation of the law when he operated the vehicle? Totally unknown, but since he did not offer testimony showing he wasn’t, it is considered that he did…At least Nevada or Arizona, can’t remember which, got this right. They held in their State a man could not be prosecuted or sanctioned for doing the right thing. Getting off the highway if he felt he was a risk to himself or others. Clearly this is what this guy did. And is being punished for doing the right thing. Conviction based on assumption and the “lack” of contrary evidence…Lovely..

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/wv-dmvdui.pdf

]]> By: David W http://www.duiblog.com/2010/05/10/state-supreme-court-dui-doesnt-require-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-18630 David W Tue, 11 May 2010 08:41:12 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=2266#comment-18630 Being this is the land of "equal opportunity", it seems to me in order for this to be proper, "we the people " ought to have a certain right in this decision..That being? The right to throw any public official or office holder "out of office" based on "individualized reasonable suspicion! Because thats what this ruling represents. After all, the people are suppose to have the final say. Or at least the Constitution indicated that the last time I checked the document.. I knew West Virginia was a little behind, but what they've done is violate 2 major principles of law..Bottom line? He was arrested for drinking. And punished the way they decided fit..If there ever was a case that needs to get to the Supreme Court,,this is one of them.. Being this is the land of “equal opportunity”, it seems to me in order for this to be proper, “we the people ” ought to have a certain right in this decision..That being? The right to throw any public official or office holder “out of office” based on “individualized reasonable suspicion!

Because thats what this ruling represents. After all, the people are suppose to have the final say. Or at least the Constitution indicated that the last time I checked the document..

I knew West Virginia was a little behind, but what they’ve done is violate 2 major principles of law..Bottom line? He was arrested for drinking. And punished the way they decided fit..If there ever was a case that needs to get to the Supreme Court,,this is one of them..

]]> By: RichardAlan http://www.duiblog.com/2010/05/10/state-supreme-court-dui-doesnt-require-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-18610 RichardAlan Mon, 10 May 2010 20:33:53 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=2266#comment-18610 Wow, do you ever get that magical fantasy fairy tale feeling? After reading this, one very tuff question still remains: In the history of the USA and in the last lets say 75 years, and lets get even more specific; has a lawyer representing his client ever asked the prosecutor, judge and the arresting officer this one very simple question: "do you have or is there evidence of a complaining party"? without evidence of a complaining party or a corpus delecti there is no case, so why are the lawyers allowing this to happen? Where am I wrong? this is the first thing that came to my mind. what is the arresting officer "imagining" ?? Wow, do you ever get that magical fantasy fairy tale feeling?

After reading this, one very tuff question still remains: In the history of the USA and in the last lets say 75 years, and lets get even more specific; has a lawyer representing his client ever asked the prosecutor, judge and the arresting officer this one very simple question:

“do you have or is there evidence of a complaining party”?

without evidence of a complaining party or a corpus delecti there is no case, so why are the lawyers allowing this to happen?

Where am I wrong? this is the first thing that came to my mind.

what is the arresting officer “imagining” ??

]]>