In the real world, couldn’t a lawyer face significant penalties from the Bar for giving advice like that? Seems like that would be an ethical breach.
This was used by a SF fire department engineer. After going through a red light without slowing down he hid a motor cycle and killed the driver. Many around the seen said the driver appeared drunk. The fireman went directly into a bar and downed a bunch of whisky one drink right after another. Then claimed he failed the breath and blood test because of te drinks after the accident. He did get away with it.
Similar situation here, a sheriffs deputy got in a accident after leaving a bar, after a golf outing with a couple local prosecutors. He t boned a car coming out of the bar parking lot, putting the other driver and his son in the hospital. The kid had broken bones and lost his spleen. The cop immediately opened a beer and started drinking, later saying he was in shock. He was legally drunk, but managed to get only a impaired driving charge. And he kept his job. I think that was the real crime…
The Captain of the Exxon Valdez maintained that he only hit the bar after he realized he was kind of stuck and wasn’t going anywhere anytime soon. I believe that weighed in on his general lack of paying attention to the situation that found him guilty.
IANAL, but I think you’re right. During the episode, I think they got in trouble for it, too. (Certainly the person who was hit–I think it was the secretary–was furious. I’m not sure she ever found out if one of her bosses advised him to do that.) And the lawyer felt bad about it.
Actually, they often used unethical tactics (at least I thought they were shady) in that series.
An old Quincy episode had a villain run down the guy who slept with his wife (or something), and then quickly downed a fifth of booze, so that it would look like DWI, death resulting, and not murder. In those days, the penalties for the one were much less than the other.
Now, you might be better off being charged with murder, at least in some states.
I was a witness to rear-end collision in Texas. Dude pulled over, was obviously drunk, but not drunk enough to have presence of mind to take off. When the cops arrived we (the witnesses that bothered to stick around) give testimony, and some of use were invited to the police station. About an hour later, nope. Nothing we witnesses could testify to. The asshole’d been found in his apartment, and was then untouchable other than hit and run.
Of course, if anyone other than the client and his lawyer knew about it, it sounds like the lawyer was in breach of his confidentiality.
Not sure about some states, but in Canada the rule is “in control of a motor vehicle”. Does not matter if it’s parked or moving, running, public street or private property, or the guy is sleeping in the back with the keys. This is simply to avoid the hair-splitting “but I didn’t actually drive”) People do weird stuff they don’t remember sometimes when seriously drunk - a guy with the keys could wake up at any moment and start driving while still over 0.08.
The weirdest thing I remember - when the more serious attitude was taking over Canadian law - was the take-out drive-thru window at a bar in Jackson Hole Wyoming in the early 1980’s.
David E Kelley, the producer of The Practice, Picket Fences, and many more TV shows, particularly liked the “lawyer advises client to drink after accident” plot line.
Before using it in The Practice, he had previously used it in Picket Fences in 1993 (Season 2, Episode 4).
I recall seeing it in other TV shows, but can’t recall any other than the ones that have already been mentioned.
In vic.aus, you can be breathalysed an hour or two after you get home. And blood tested if you fail the breathalyser. And, since drink-driving is a strict-liability offence here, if you are over the limit, you’re done Sunshine.
We used to have drink-driving laws you could argue about. And the courts used to figure that if you put up $500 for a lawyer to argue your case, that was as good as paying a $200 fine.
Not anymore. They decided that they just wanted to cut down on drink-driving here, not argue about it or collect fines.
This defence is called Nachtrunkbehauptung in Germany and apparently can sometimes be refuted by analysing the proportions of isobutanol and 1-propanol to ethanol in the blood sample - the proportions depend on the type of alcoholic beverage so it can sometimes be proven that e.g. you got drunk on beer not the spirits you swigged after your accident.
A few years back, some guy slammed into a parked car outside my stepson’s house where we were staying (in NZ). The driver was obviously drunk after the crash. While we waited for the police, the guy’s wife turned up and handed him what looked like a water bottle. The owner of the car grabbed the bottle before any was drunk and tipped it out - he figured it was vodka, and the driver would try to claim he got drunk after the crash.
The driver was charged with drink driving.
I think that if they dunk you after crashing your car and you float that means that you’re a witch.
When the crime is “Driving under the influence”, that hardly seems like hair splitting. If you didn’t drive, you didn’t commit the crime.
My late younger sister used to go to all-you-can-eat places, then go outside to the parking lot, chug vodka, and puke everything up. She maintained that would not get her drunk.
She died in a prison hospital of cirrhosis of the liver
This is basically what happened at the Salem Witch Trials.
You can get charged with DUI just sitting in a car drinking without the key in the ignition!
Same with “open container”.
So best to…
- Get in accident.
- Get OUT of car, go sit on curb.
- Wait for officer to smell your breath.
- THEN start drinking at the curb.*
*In many cities you would then be charged with drinking in public. Might want to switch to soda pop or water!
The opposite, actually. A breathalyzer is no good for several minutes after consuming a drink, because for a while, the alcohol remaining in your mouth is going to evaporate into your exhalation.
If you are sober, then take a shot of hard alcohol and blow into a breathalyzer a minute or two later, you’ll blow like a 5.0.
Yeah, I guess a real Canadian lawyer can chime in here, but I believe the offense is being in control of a motor vehicle with over 0.08 BAC. There is an additional offense of impaired driving, etc. for cases where the person fled the scene and it’s too late to do a breath test but they really want to nail the person.
Another problem, I guess, is how do you prove you were drinking after the crash, not before? The police are likely only going to say “he was surrounded by empty bottles” unless there’s a convenient bar across the street or similar witnesses. Your lawyer can’t say “he was drinking afterwards” because that would be testifying; so the defendant would have to get on the stand and testify, never a recommended process. Then they have to either admit to prior drinking, or deny it and risk a perjury conviction if the crown can prove they were. And of course, the judge does not have to believe the witness; quite often in the news judges will find one way in a case and at something like “this witness was not credible”. There’s no magic formula which negates the charges. It always depends on the evidence.
Nope. Alcohol in the mouth will affect a breathalyzer.
Using mouthwash can result in a false positive.
The local cops visited my junior high school as part of community outreach program. For fun, they had one of the students gargle with mouthwash, spit, and take a breathalyzer. They told us that if he actually had the BAC shown by the machine, that he would have been long dead of alcohol poisoning.