A question for Lawyers??

Question

When I catch a drunk driver, time and time again the offender tells me that their Lawyer advised them not to do any Field Sobriety Test, Do not give a sample of their breath or blood, and invoke your rights and remain silent.

Now I know that the Lawyers are suppose to be on the clients side and not the Officers side when it comes down to trial, but would it not be better for everyone, Client, Officer, Public, if the Lawyer told the client "Don't Drink & Drive?"

Answer 1

That is a darned good question. I am not an attorney, but I do know that my lieutenant at one point asked me if we should arrest an attorney who advised their client to take no tests for "obstruct official duty."
I knew we'd never get away with it because after all, the black robed guy on the bench is probably a fraternity brother for the lawyer, but it was a tempting idea.
So, no they won't say "don't drink and drive" because it's BAD FOR BUSINESS!

Answer 2

Not a lawyer...

Kentucky has an "implied consent law." When you get a drivers license and sign for it, you are consenting to field testing for DUI (amongst many other things)

You have the right to refuse a test, but by doing so you went against your "implied consent" of the test. Evidence of your refusal can be used against you in court to argue that you were indeed impaired. The refusal is also an aggravator to the offense. On a DUI with a refusal, the penalties are raised substantially.

SO, due to our implied consent law, If they (the drunk) do make contact with an attorney, the attorney tells them (99%) to take the test. Usually the ones that refuse DON'T talk to an attorney. And because of our law, refusal is a VERY stupid thing to do.

Answer 3

I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV. Just kidding.
Nobody is going to call their lawyer before they drink and drive.
Nobody is going to call their lawyer if they drink and drive and make it home. I'm sure if an intoxicated person called their lawyer before they drove, he would advise them not to drive.
I've dealt with a couple of lawyers, their line of thinking is "I've got to have every conceivable edge to win". Field sobriety tests give the edge to the prosecution.
The right to remain silent is just what it is. It's a right of a United States citizen.
Be safe officer.

Answer 4

Most states have a clause that includes refusing to take the test.Calling for a lawyer to come in and representing finally starts wastes time that allows the alcohol level to be reduced from the initial stop time.I hour for each drink means a reduced reading when it is finally taken--then it is not DWI it is impaired driving or even less. I wonder how the lawyer would feel if that same drunk killed his wife, child, or another family member. ??? Don't you video stops from the car???Voice recordings and video have been a big help.

Answer 5

In rebuttal of fire_in_yur_eyes's answer above..

Delaying the test to get a reduced reading would seem to make sense to the Average joe except for one little thing.

Alchohol disappears from the bloodstream and a fixed rate. Knowing the Time lapse from the time he was stopped to the time he was given the test... they can backtrack to determine from his current B.A.C. to what what the B.A.C. was during the Stop. So delaying does NOTHING.

Maybe its just best not to drink and drive huh?

Answer 6

Then how would they make their money?

Not taking field sobriety test is a bad idea. Why piss off the cop.?

Answer 7

That is not an attorneys job. They have to work to the hardest level, to get thier client off from the criminal charge.

They system is not about what is right, it is about proving facts using evidence

Answer 8

Don't you think if they can remember what their lawyer said, they may not be that drunk...

Answer 9

Yes, you are right.