In CT simply being behind the wheel with the key in the ignition is enough for a DUI charge, the vehicle does not even need to be running.
I’m guessing that the blood in the hematoma was analyzed for alcohol and found to be under the limit. It’s as if they took a blood sample at the time of the accident, not when the suspect was captured later at the bar.
The most common situation I encounter where this happens is in event of an accident where the suspected drunk driver is taken to the hospital. If the person is injured, they can’t do the field sobriety tests, and they can’t take a breath sample because the Intoxilyzer isn’t exactly portable; it’s in a dedicated room over at the sheriff’s office. So, they do a blood draw (by consent or warrant or implied consent if he’s unconscious), send the blood to the lab, and wait for the results. With our lab and their backlog, that can take two months.
When the officer gets the results from the lab, they bundle that up with their report and send it to the prosecutor’s office; if we then file the case, a warrant is issued, and the drunk driver will finally be arrested.
DWI cases are actually really hard to get a conviction on if you don’t have SCIENCE!! on your side in the form of a breath or blood test. It’s one of those “there but for the grace of God go I” crimes that just about every potential juror has committed or nearly committed at one time or another. A good defense attorney will be sure that the jury identifies with the poor shlub. We had one defendant with seventeen prior DWI arrests and seven prior DWI convictions get off, just because the jury felt sorry for the pathetic old bastard. And yes, the jury heard about the priors, because the defense attorney opened the door while questioning the officer.
Anecdote from a police friend of mine.
Drunk driver crosses over the center line, goes into the ditch on the other side of the road, weaves along in the ditch for a 1/4 mile or so until coming upon a farmers field access drive, follows that back up onto the road again, soon crosses over the road and goes into the ditch, on the other side of the road, weaves along the ditch for a while, comes back up onto the shoulder of the road, goes along that for a while, then turns into this own driveway, drives his car halfway onto his lawn, goes into his house and falls asleep. All this on a not-very-heavily traveled road in Minnesota, late in the fall – enough snow that the police could easily track his movements all the way right up to the car, with distinctive tread marks (pickup with dually wheels, not very common at that time). And when they knock at the house door and ask to talk to the driver, his wife says they can try but “he’s dead drunk and passed out on the sofa”.
They had testimony from another driver who had called them about him, Polaroid pictures of his tire tracks weaving about and going in and out of ditches, and of his car missing the garage & parked on his lawn. But they didn’t charge him with DWI. They said that despite all this evidence, it would be hard to prove DWI. So they just charged him with multiple counts of careless or reckless driving – easier to prove, and much the same penalties.
Of course you can, you can be arrested for anything. Now having the charges stick is a totally different ball of wax, but at least here in Illinois the 'ol “intent to commit DUI/DWI” is one of those things that generally falls under contempt of cop -it’s probably not going to happen unless you’re being an enormous jackass and the cop decides to try and charge you with anything he can think of.
Edit - This is GQ, my statement is anecdotal in the extreme and I don’t know anyone who’s ever been charged with it, but my wife came close one evening about 7 or 8 years ago when we decided to go on a walk in our apartment complex while very drunk and right after shooting off a bunch of fireworks (yes, we were being jerks) so the cops were already there. The cop wanted to know if she had her keys and where her car was because she was being a bit mouthy. Didn’t happen but you could see where he was going with it. We refused to say where our car was.
True. There was a case where I live in which a woman had a single-vehicle accident. Officers arriving on the scene found an empty vodka bottle. The woman claimed she had been so rattled by the accident, she knocked back a half-pint of vodka to “settle her nerves.” With no way to disprove it, her ruse worked. Nice loophole.
But…it appears that if there is some delay in testing, you can blow a number slightly below the legal limit and still get charged for DUI…
Anyone recall the episode of Quincy where a driver was exonerated of DUI after the ‘accident’ because his blood sample taken at the hospital tested well below the limit? He failed the breath test, because after the ‘accident’ he chugged a bottle of hootch.
The ‘twist’ in the case was the driver had deliberately murdered the occupant of the other car via running into him, and knew prosecution (in those days) for a DUI would be much preferable to a murder rap.
A little social commentary worked into a TV plot line. Since then DUI penalties have been tightened up.
The rule in most jurisdictions is “being in control of a motor vehicle”. Being passed out, even in the back seat, but with the keys in your pocket, can earn you a DUI; even on private property. There was a whole thread on this a while ago. IIRC there was even a case where the convicted person did not have the keys.
The story is old - goes back to a joke I heard in the 60’s. Lawyer and doctor have a minor accident on a foggy evening. While waiting for the police, the lawyer pulls out a flash and offers the doctor a drink. After, he puts it away. “Aren’t you going to have a drink too?” asks the doctor. “Not until after the police arrive” says the lawyer.
Then there’s the Gordon Lightfoot defense. Gord was driving along in Toronto, pulled over because his headlights were off at night. (he forgot). They smelled alcohol, took him to the station, and he blew over 0.08; so he was charged. The judge let him off saying that just because he was drunk when he got to the station does not mean he was drunk in his car. (Lightfoot is one of Canada’s famous over-the-hill folk/rock stars). That was overturned on appeal, after many editorials about “one law for the common folk…”
The question is how badly the prosecution wants to nail you. Typical conviction for a DUI is what? Fine and suspension first time, a few months max even after several convictions. That’s why it’s not worth chasing. They’d have to find the bartender or other witnesses, not only would they need to have served the guy but also observed him actually consume all that alcohol. The time-line would have to work out too - not too long between drinking and driving. As mentioned above, proving he was behind the wheel without witnesses is tough. There’s a limit to how much “inference” or assumption you are allowed to do and still meet the “beyond reasonable doubt”. Just because “we all know he did it, who else could it be” that’s not enough to stand up in a court of law. Just ask OJ.
I think the theory goes that if you are in a habit of drving drunk (many are) then eventually they will nail you. It’s not worth a major investigation for a minor crime.
A guy I worked with many years ago - his brother borrowed his car and driving home, hit a dumpste in the back lane; then drove another block to the apartment and parked the car. The next morning he got a minor “leaving the scene” citation, while staying there would have earned a much more severe DUI.
Even if the police are witnesses, it may not stick. Crystal Taman was killed one morning n western Canada by a Winnipeg police officer who had been partying with his buddies all night. During the inqury, none of them could testify for sure he had consumed enough alcohol to be intoxcated. They were too busy trying to repair a popcorn maker, apparently. The police chief in the neighbouring town where the accident happened, who came along and took over the arrest, purposely did not make the necessary tests for intoxcation, even after fellow officers (including a cousin of the dead woman) told him the officer was drunk. The DUI charge did not stick. Fortunately, the (ex)chief has been charged with obstruction of justice, and as a bonus, his small-town force was disbanded and replaced with RCMP.
Here in Jersey, DWI defendants are not permitted a trial by jury. That never made any sense to me as there are huge fines, possible incarceration, license suspension, and insurance surcharges facing the defendant if he loses the case.
Do you mean former congressional candidate Gary Dodds? He might not have been charged with a DUI, but he faced charges for staging a (non-alcohol/drug related) car crash. He claimed he hit a deer, they proved that he didn’t, and made him pay for the search & rescue too.
Bit of a hijack. Sorry… What about confessing to doing something illegal? I.e.: In a 60 Minutes interview, Lady Gaga said that she smokes a lot of pot while she’s writing music. And I seem to recall many other celebrities admitting to drug use or drunk driving. Couldn’t they be arrested if someone really pursued it? Just curious…
See post 30 above.
I was once charged with DUI “after the fact.” I was walking along a road, about 1 mile from my car.
Another anecdote here. A neighbor of mine drove his car into our house at 3:00 a.m. The cops showed up, cited him for reckless driving, but wouldn’t test him for alcohol on the grounds that he had gone into his house and might have had a few more drinks after the accident.
Now in our case, no one was hurt (except for his insurance company). If someone had been injured or killed, it’s likely the police and the prosecutor would have taken a harder line.
What was Ted Kennedy charged with, and what was the result? The one witness was not available for comment.