WTB: Defense Attorney

[Garg]

Thanks, this guy has a lot of good info on his website and I will be getting the free consultation (or at least, someone taking down my case info) in a few minutes. He's got someone answering phones for him on Sunday evening so he must be pretty fancy.

Jim also does a lot of 2A law. Rights restoration and what not.

 

[spengo]

Ok, I talked to Jim and he says that for $1580 he wants to try and talk the DA out of prosecuting since the %BAC was so low and the drug specialist thought I was clean and if that doesn't work I should just go along with the police and have it commuted since it is my only offense. Think it's worth it?

I will also see what advice Thuemmel & Uhle have for me tomorrow as well. Thanks everyone!

Jim also does a lot of 2A law. Rights restoration and what not.

I saw that, very nice. Depending on what happens I may keep them on my speed dial in case I ever have to use a firearm in self defense or come into any other sorts of legal trouble.

 

[Garg]

Sounds cheap. I would also check in with the other firm. See what they say.

 

[JimmyS1985]

As someone who has an alcohol related driving charge on his record, Trust me just spend the $1580 on the lawyer. My lawyer cost $1000, $1580 aint that much more. I think you could get off with nothing more than the lawyer charge, since your BAC % was so low.

All I had to do was promise to never get another alcohol-related driving charge ever again. And I am paranoid about getting the 2nd charge.

If this goes on your record, maybe you won't experience the full wrath of the law because you don't qualify for a DWI. I dont know but they put you through hella BS if you get a DWI, and if you have a DUI on your record for .01% and then get a legitimate DWI your 2nd time around, they treat that as your 2nd. Ive had the first DWI, its horrible. 40 hours community service, SATOP, VIP, $2500 in legal fees after lawyer. I got off cheap by most peoples standards, they literally think you are made of freakin money when you get a DWI.

Just reading this thread has made me want to add a minimum of 2 hours ontop of the 4-6 hours I wait before I get behind the wheel after drinking. You think its an inconvenience to not drive for hours on end while you sober. you will never see it that way again after you get a DWI. If you get a DWI, even a DUI to some extent, the legal system has your balls in a vicegrip and slowly cranking it.

Really though, in all honesty, our DWI laws are freakin broken even if you have to abide by them. Texting and Driving has been proven to be MUCH MORE DANGEROUS than driving with alcohol in your system ,but u get like a $150 for texting and driving and they nail you to the wall for DWI. I speak from experience, I didn't risk any cars or lives when I got pulled over and got my DWI, My bro totaled a car that the family bought just 3 months before and got let off with nothing.

My mom has a friend who had an alcohol driving related offense in 2001, it was a DUI so it was minor, but it still counts. Then in 2005 she got a full blown DWI. They treated it as if it was her 2nd offense and really nailed her. She couldnt drive for a minimum of 2 years without having a breathalyzer on her car so she didn't drive. Missouri has passed laws to make the breathalyzer on your car unavoidable, you have to go through like 15 months of paying tons of money to have that device on your car, before you can ever drive a car in your state without it.

 

[Zepoll]

You can be charged no matter what you blow. People can be under the influence of alcohol and still have less than .08 on a breath test. The breath test is not an end all be all get out jail free card.

Under the Influence means you were influenced by the alcohol in your system regardless of the amount. DUII means Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants. Notice the word "alcohol" is not in there. So if you were influenced by some other intoxicant...i.e.. illegal drug, or something as simple as cough syrup, you can still be arrested.

Good luck.

 

[Meridian7750]

I speak from experience, I didn't risk any cars or lives when I got pulled over and got my DWI,

How do you know? You were intoxicated. Ridiculous thing to say...

 

[JimmyS1985]

All I know is they have proven distracted driving, which is texting and driving, is much more detrimental to driving than impaired driving. I didnt total a car or crash into a sign or nothing. My brother has while texting and driving. From firsthand experience someone looking down at their phone is a worse driver than someone who has alcohol in their system.

Really the DWI laws are a modern form of alcohol prohibition since they over-exaggerate the problems with it.

 

[spengo]

You can be charged no matter what you blow. People can be under the influence of alcohol and still have less than .08 on a breath test. The breath test is not an end all be all get out jail free card.

Under the Influence means you were influenced by the alcohol in your system regardless of the amount. DUII means Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants. Notice the word "alcohol" is not in there. So if you were influenced by some other intoxicant...i.e.. illegal drug, or something as simple as cough syrup, you can still be arrested.

Good luck.

I'm a huge square, I never do the illegal drug thing. Even with legal drugs, all I do is take Vitamin C when I get sick, lol. Unless it's somethin' real bad anyway but I haven't been that sick in many years.

 

[sasquatch]

Really the DWI laws are a modern form of alcohol prohibition since they over-exaggerate the problems with it.

In 2009 in the US, there were 10,839 fatalities in crashes involving a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher – 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year.......I would hardly call that "over-exaggerated".

 

[oldbrass]

If you failed the field sobriety test did they take into account that you were involved in an accident ?? I`d fight it to the bitter end

 

[Meridian7750]

From firsthand experience someone looking down at their phone is a worse driver than someone who has alcohol in their system.

Really the DWI laws are a modern form of alcohol prohibition since they over-exaggerate the problems with it.

Oh, FIRSTHAND experience. Wow, solid argument there.
I'm sure M.A.T. (you know, Mothers Against Texting) would agree with you.
Dude, when you either grow up, or sober up, I hope you realize that you're just trying to justify an unjustifiable position.
Party on...

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Really the DWI laws are a modern form of alcohol prohibition since they over-exaggerate the problems with it.

Bullcrap. I lost my 18 month old cousin and her 24 year old mother to a drunk driver who just had "a couple beers." Sixteen thousand (16,000) people are killed in alcohol related crashes each year. These people are someone's family member. A 10 year old boy was just killed two days ago here locally. Alcohol is involved in over 50% of traffic fatalities. Texting is not, no matter how much some eggheads like to play with numbers. Although texting while driving should carry a stiff penalty as well, when people text while driving they are distracted for a small and finite amount of time. When driving drunk you are impaired for the full drive. Looking at my dashboad clock impairs my driving more than being a little drunk, but the short time frame of the action does not equal greater overall risk. Drinking while driving is never unavoidable and never necessary. It is deadly, irresponsible, childish, and just plain stupid. Anyone convicted of doing it SHOULD be treated like a common criminal. Not only because they are criminally negligent, but because they are criminally stupid.

Want to know my personal opinion of anyone that would defend the act of driving drunk? PM me and I will be happy to fill you in on it.

 

[1stIDFMP]

My mom has a friend who had an alcohol driving related offense in 2001, it was a DUI so it was minor, but it still counts. Then in 2005 she got a full blown DWI.

There is no such thing as a "minor" DUII. Either you are, or you aren't. Kind of like saying, "a little bit pregnant.........."

 

[Burt Gummer]

The very best. I used them over 20 years ago and they were incredible.
Thuemmel & Uhle: DUII Attorney Portland, Oregon | Multnomah County DUI Attorneys

Good luck. Like has already been stated, if you had a BAC of .01% you shouldn't need a lawyer. If it was .10% you will and these guys will be the best help you can get.

Thanks - I put that in my mobile phone under 'DUI"

The other guy I put under "DUI/Gun"

Nice to have numbers handy.

Plus .... never say a word without an attorney, it is YOU vs THEM.

Not defending driving DUI, defending your right to self-preservation under whatever 'freedoms' we have left. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

 

[spengo]

Please, I would rather not turn this thread into a debate on the ethics of drunk driving. I will not defend unnecessarily endangering the lives of others. All I can do is assure you guys for whatever my word on the internet is worth that I felt completely sober before driving and was quite careful about how much I consumed and how long I waited before driving.

 

[deen_ad]

they literally think you are made of freakin money when you get a DWI.

Not really, they just want you to think about the consequences of a repeat offense. If it doesn't hurt you'll probably do it again.

 

[JimmyS1985]

I dunno you really should read this website before you come to conclusions. Ill give you this that MADD won the PR campaign on drunken driving. But if my bro can text and drive his car and total the car and get let off with no legal consequences what so ever, but I garner $3000 in legal fees and didn't cause any damage to anyones property not even my own, I think either the laws are overly harsh for drinking and driving, or underly harsh for texting and driving.

I lost faith in the driving laws when I realized that far more dangerous things to do while driving are let off with a slap on the wrist as long as alcohol is not involved. How about we put red light runners through the same bubblegum as drinking and driving? Here it is $100 fine, but most accidents happen at intersections.

getMADD.com BAC, .08, madd, lies, crash, statistics, ridl, alcohol, use, abuse, drinking, drunk,

I particularly like this quote from the website.

"This social conditioning is similar to Pavlov's experiments with his dog. Ring the bell, offer Fido some food and watch him salivate. After a while, just the ringing of the bell causes the dog to salivate. Sound the alarm, mention a dead child and watch the public demand tougher laws against all drinking drivers. "

edit: I thought of another thing where the criminal justice system is broken. This is directly taken from my paper on research methods of criminology regarding the sentencing for drinking and driving vs crack cocaine.

"An example Alexander uses where the punishment doesn't fit the crime is the amount of deaths related to crack-cocaine versus drunk driving. While drunk driving fatalities numbered around 22,000 a year in the 1980's, drug related deaths due to AIDS, overdosing and violence associated with the sale and buying of all illegal narcotics was only 21,000 deaths. But while the drunk drivers are rehabilitated, counseled, allowed to do community service to re-enter as a productive member of society, drug offenders are sentenced to prison for years at a time. (Alexander, 201)
Even though the chances of a violent death are much higher with drunk driving offenders, the racial differences of the offenders is vast. Seventy-eight percent of white men compromised drunk-driving arrests, while those charged with crack-cocaine possession are disproportionately people of color and sentenced to much harsher prison sentences (Alexander, 201)."

btw I got an A in the course and my teacher was a veteran of law enforcement and has a PHD from a top rated criminal justice non-profit school in the country.

edit2: This is a good read, a sober text and driver has about 3x slower reaction time than someone driving at the limit for DWI. This should enrage all of you at texter and drivers if you are that mad at drinking and driving. Steering control was more than 2x worse than someone under the influence of canabis.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080918100933.qj8ms49l

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/texting-is-more-dangerous-than-driving-drunk/

The results:

Unimpaired: .54 seconds to brake
Legally drunk: add 4 feet
Reading e-mail: add 36 feet
Sending a text: add 70 feet

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

jimmys895,

Your first link is a poorly written opinion piece type website. I am glad you think it is so important since it supports your own opinions, but it is nothing more than ramblings on the internet.

As for the statistics on the other pages, they are not scientific. They take no account for the level of intoxication (using only the lowest possible level of intoxication), they allow no variance in the level of distraction, and they do not factor in time impaired in relation to time in transit. In other words they are meaningless and are clearly set up with a preconceived result in mind. To accurately compare the danger of texting while driving (which is very dangerous and people should be charged when caught doing it) you would have to take all these things into account. If I am drunk and take a 30 minute drive home I am impaired to a specific degree (which can can vary during the drive) for the entire 30 minutes of the drive. Meaning if something happens at anytime during the drive I am in danger. If I sent a couple texts during the drive I may be impaired for 30 seconds of the drive. Meaning I am at a certain level of impairment for 1/60th of the drive. At all other times during the drive I am unimpaired. Also, a person texting can make the decision to not text in traffic. A drunk driver cannot decide to not be drunk when they hit traffic. Statistics like these are very important to people who are bad at math.

Anyone that would defend the act of driving while impaired by alcohol is a moron. It is a clearly dangerous act that is completely avoidable. To try and defend it in any way one would first have to declare a degree of necessity or inevitability in the act itself. That cannot be done with drinking and driving. It can always be avoided and if you decide to do it you should be treated like a criminal.

As for trying to defend drunk driving by comparing it to another dangerous act, that is foolishness. That is like saying rape is okay because murder is so much more damaging.

 

[Dell_dude]

Call Hunt & Associates in Portland.

My wife is there. She works for two excellent lawyers.

 

[1stIDFMP]

Please, I would rather not turn this thread into a debate on the ethics of drunk driving. I will not defend unnecessarily endangering the lives of others. All I can do is assure you guys for whatever my word on the internet is worth that I felt completely sober before driving and was quite careful about how much I consumed and how long I waited before driving.

Spengo, I know you didn't start this is a debate, and was just looking for some advice/defense attorney info. It's just that when someone chimes in, keeps saying because he didn't crash his car, or hurt anyone, while drunk - he implies it's okay - he says in his experience looking at your phone is more dangerous than drunk driving (his words, not mine). I and others were just calling BS on him. He just doesn't get it, and probaly never will. I'm done wasting my time on him. Anyway, thanks for letting me put my .02 out there, and good luck on your situation.