DUI Question

[zeyeon]

First off, Before anybody thinks I'm trying to get off with a loop hole, I apologize for your misinterpretation. I believe DUI laws are just because they save lives.

I was obviously drunker than I thought, because I failed the sobriety test and blew a .15.

However, As with any law, there are proper procedures to follow:

I was originally pulled over for speeding in the state of FL. doing approx. 70 in a 45. I was not clocked on radar, the cop paced me. This is the reason he gave for pulling me over in the first place. He issued me a traffic citation, but I never signed it, nor conceded the point that I was speeding. I didn't refuse my signature, the officer never asked me to sign it, as he was more concerned about the DUI.

My original plan was to just plead guilty. My question is, should I get a lawyer? If I didn't sign the traffic citation, and the officer is unable to provide proof of my unlawful speed, am I in a position to fight the DUI? Would this negate any probable cause he claims to have had, if he is unable to provide proof as to why he pulled me over in the first place? Am I required to accept the claim that alcohol impaired my judgement and / or reflexes, if he is unable to prove the initial infraction he used to pull me over?

Any advice would be appreciated.

[joseph sugarman]

When you blew; you blew it.

[zeyeon]

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

When you blew; you blew it.

Why do you say that? Do you have any precedents that support your statement? I mean aren't the result's of the breathalyzer inadmissable, if the officer cannot proove why he pulled me over? Isn't that a violation of the Due Process Clause?

[Tulkais]

I am currently involved with a case involving DUI's and the lack of jurisdiction. As long as you haven't hit anyone or caused any damage to property(violating someone elses personal liberties and right) under common law you didn't technically break the law and haven't committed a crime. The issue is whether the police have jurisdiction over you? Under common law anyone has the right to travel on a highway for personal use as long as there isn't private gain. Driving is implied to commercial use and is a priviledge but traveling is one of our basic liberties that cannot be taken away. If you would like more information on this i am currently fighting this in court i can email you all the information i have on this case.

[gldskr]

Having a vehicle registration means you have given implied consent. The cop can stop you for any reason he wants. Registration equals jurisdiction to go fishing. There's plenty of fish in the sea, no? And plenty of sheeple too.

gldskr

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by gldskr

Having a vehicle registration means you have given implied consent. The cop can stop you for any reason he wants. Registration equals jurisdiction to go fishing. There's plenty of fish in the sea, no? And plenty of sheeple too.

gldskr

I believe the jurisdiction is over the vehicle not the man!

The vehicle is owned by the legal fiction not the man!

Thanks Dillon

[gldskr]

I believe the jurisdiction is over the vehicle not the man!

Of course it is, that is probable cause. It is the registration contract which ties you to the vehicle where the implied consent kicks in. PERSONS pay fines not people. People would not be dumb enough to register their vehicles in such a bogus system. Or would they?

The vehicle is owned by the legal fiction not the man!

What legal fiction do you speak of? I do not recall ever transferring title to any legal fiction, however, I have in the past given the state a security interest in my vehicle. This was accomplished by obtaining a certificate of title and registration into their taxing system. Such registration establishes a first lien on my vehicle. Perhaps this is where the legal fiction emerges. Did the legal fiction sign the contract or did I? Wouldn't it be better if there was no contract at all?

gldskr

[Dillon Hunt]

The legal fiction I speak of is the ALL CAPS NAME.

(JOHN A. PUBLIC - Legal Fiction) not

(John Alan - the man)

The LEGAL FICTIONS NAME is on the Vehicle Registration not the Man.

I am just traveling / passing over public land to get to my land. (Right of Passage over to my land). I just happen to be in the vehicle that is Registered in the LEGAL FICTIONS NAME. I am not the LEGAL FICTION. Jurisdiction is over the vehicle not me the man. I can travel in any PERSONS vehicle if not stolen.

John A. Public signed the vehicle registration not John Alan !

Also the officer has no criminal probable cause for the apprehension in the first place if no damaged party !
If in court always question the apprehension lawfulness or it might be presumed lawful !

I don't need a DL to access my land, Do I ?

Dillon

[SKYGZR]

When you "give them" the EVIDENCE ("blow"/"walk"/"sobriety test" ..etc..) they NEED to CON-vict you, you already have admitted your GUILT!!

Remember "their" phrase: "The least you can loose is your license"... Well..that sounds like a "better deal" than..a CONVICT-ion...no "rehab/treatment", SR22, "record"..etc..

No "evidence"..no "Judge-ment" against you..and..memorize this line from the "success stories" thread:

"I understand you are trying to do your job, but I cannot make a legal determination about what you are asking me."

Say this to EVERY Question/Demand they "offer" up!!

[Shoonra]

Under the Implied Consent laws (which have been upheld by the US Supreme Court), a refusal to submit to a blood alcohol or sobriety test automatically suspends your license -- no subsequent appeal. Refusing to identify yourself or show the cop your DL can have other undesireable consequences.