2007-12-06 17:59:47 · 4 answers · asked by LELAND 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I was thinking the same thing when I read that. My guess is he didn't do a breath test and claimed he was on medication so they can't prove he was "drunk". But, most states have a mandatory revocation if you don't do the breath test. Or, it was just part of the plea deal he worked out.
2007-12-06 18:05:26 · answer #1 · answered by tikitiki 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you read the small print on any prescribed med which can alter normal response, there is a warning not to drive or operate equipment. This is not placed there so people can argue that only alcohol consumption merits such sentencing.
2007-12-07 02:27:19 · answer #2 · answered by cattbarf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The last time I did jury duty on a DUI case the Judge instructed us that the law is about an intoxicating substance and Alcohol may have nothing to do with it.
It's whether you were intoxicated and not what you were intoxicated on.
2007-12-07 02:08:18 · answer #3 · answered by Citizen1984 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because in addition to the percripton medication he was taking, he was also under the influence of alcohol. (He was consuming alcohol and got behind the wheel, which is illegal so he has to take some mandatory classes)
2007-12-07 02:24:18 · answer #4 · answered by Have Compassion 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋