Don’t drink and drive. No remorse for you needed to pay your fines and lose your privileges. I feel very strongly about this, and in this day and age there really is no excuse for it.
[Reply]

Echoing everyone here... you weren’t “barely over“ and shouldn’t have been on the road. Not a whoops. Even in a rural area, you were endangering others.

That said, I sympathize with the potential impact to your life when no actual damage was done. Recently, I’ve had a few friends who have had a lot of success visiting and posting on Reddit’s legal advice (r/legaladvice) message board. Might be worth your effort.
[Reply]

Best lawyer contact I had in NE died a few years ago so I’ll do some diggingMonday when I get into the office.

About the other matters:

1. I generally don’t do straight DUI cases. I will for friends and family but when I was a public defender, I did about 30-40 a year. So I’ve done a few hundred in my life.

2. Each beer raises your BAC by about .02. Males eliminate about .015-.02 per hour, depending upon body weight and drinking history. Females eliminate about .01-.012. Thus, 2 beers in one hour should put you at a BAC of about .02 to .03. Generally state crime lab people will testify to this. The rates and effects of alcohol absorption have been so thoroughly tested and documented as to pretty firmly establish these ratios.

3. About the search of your car. Because cars are inherently mobile, police do not need a warrant to search a car. Google ‘automobile exception’ and you’ll see what I mean. I have not seen any police reports, but in this case, the cops searched the car to find your registration and insurance. This is likely allowed under Arizona v Giant, which limits automobile searches incident to arrest to evidence related to the offense. Put another way, if cop pulls you over and arrests you because they got an APB for a bank robbery, cops can only search the car for evidence related to the bank robbery. Of course, if they find anything, they can use that under the ‘plain view’ doctrine. Because DUI is a driving offense, and because registration and insurance are elements of driving offenses, the cop was likely justified in searching for those items.
Also, the officer could state that he feared for his safety, so he took you into custody (put you in cuffs, put you in back of cop car, did something that prevented you from leaving) but he still needed to get that information. Driving on public roads means that you consent to a whole variety of things, including providing license, registration and insurance to a law enforcement officer who has a legally sufficient reason to demand those items. I do not know Nebraska law, but I would imagine that this search would be upheld.

3. Re: Miranda. Most people do not understand Miranda. It is not a talisman to protect an arrest. It is a talisman to protect evidence. Crucial difference. Miranda applies when 3 conditions are met: 1) a suspect is in custody, that is, not free to go; 2) police ask questions of the suspect; and 3) the state seeks to use any statements that result from the questioning. So, cops have an arrest warrant for John Doe. They see John Doe walking down the street. They walk up to him, confirm it’s John Doe and arrest him. Do they have to read him his rights? Not unless they ask questions. And if they just are executing the arrest warrant, they may well not ask him any questions.
So if the cops have probable cause to believe that you committed a crime, cops can arrest you and they do NOT have to read you your Miranda rights.
What happens if cops arrest you, do not read your Miranda rights and they ask you questions anyway? In that case, assuming the court agrees that is what happens, any statements cannot be used against the defendant. This means that the arrest is still valid and the defendant has to face the charges but the statements the defendant made cannot be used against the defendant in the State’s case in chief, or, the State’s main case. If the defendant takes the stand and testifies to something other than what he had previously told the police, then those statements CAN be used to impeach him. So, Dan is arrested. Cops don’t read him his rights. They question him. He admits he committed the crime. Defense lawyer challenges statements and court suppresses them. Dan goes to trial. State puts on its evidence. They never reference Dan’s statements. Dan (unwisely) takes the stand and denies committing the crime. NOW the prosecutor can ask Dan, “Did you not tell Officer X that in fact you did commit the crime?”

4. License forfeiture for refusing bloodwork. I don’t know anything about that. That strikes me as something particular under Nebraska law. I would talk with a Nebraska attorney.

5. Searching through your wallet. This is called search incident to arrest. They might have looked for drugs, but also to see if you had any one else’s credit cards or identifications. My guess is they did not really expect to find anything but they wanted to check. That’s one reason.
They also likely (99.9% likelihood) inventoried what was in your wallet. That way if you say, “Man, I had a $500 Sam’s Club gift card in my wallet and now it’s gone,” they can point to photos/written logs of what they found in your wallet. Same with money. If you get your wallet back and say, “Where’d my $500 go?” It’s your word versus theirs so they have procedures about how they handle inmate property. Likely, there are 2 officers who open your wallet and they either write down what is in there or they photograph it. They sign off on what they saw, so there is evidence of which officers were involved and the case number so those documents can be found later. The wallet is then put into an envelope and sealed so they can show no one opened it after they inventoried it.
If they seized your car, they inventoried what they found in it as well for the same reason. They don’t want to hear, “Man, I had a $500 chain saw, or (likely in my case) a Winston fly rod or a rifle in my car and now its gone” without having some proof that I am incorrect.

Anyway, that’s my initial take on your situation as you’ve described it.
[Reply]

You're hosed. Be prepared to pay thousands of dollars in fees. Get over it.
[Reply]

Prayers, growing up can be challenging at times. Hope for the best and expect the worst. I
wish I could turn the clock back on some miscalculations in judgement I’ve had. 30-40 years later and I’m still having to explain Infractions eveytime another clearance comes around. After the investigators get done with me I swear I make Charles Mansion look like a choir boy. I always come out feeling like complete crap.
[Reply]

Probably not the wisest thing to post your story here either. Sympathy seems very unlikely.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/13A7Y...&rid=giphy.gif
[Reply]

I've thought about buying one over the years just to play with it at home, but I assume results could be wildly inaccurate if you don't buy the right one.


I'll always stick to less than one drink per hour and will still make myself feel like a slightly terrible human being, after having judged myself pretty harshly for driving home once years ago when my ride bailed and I drove home anyway (nothing happened, but it was pretty fucking stupid).
[Reply]

Got hosed when blowing .15?
[Reply]

You're just a giant douche everywhere you post. :-)
[Reply]

Is your AVATAR your booking photo? :-)
[Reply]

Any state that draws blood this is standard when you refuse. Also many states suspend your license when you refuse a breathalyzer.

Usually 6 months to a year
[Reply]

TheSupreme Court has ruled that blood draws require a warrant. Most states make refusal to take a breath test equivalent to the DUI itself so even if you have a good defense to the DUI, if you don’t blow, you’re hosed.

Here, he says he blew, so there’s no refusal to take a breath test. He said that they forfeited his license for refusing to do the blood work. If he blew into the machine, he didn’t refuse the test. So in inferred blood work was a blood draw.

There is another possibility, which isn’t clear from the factual scenario presented. He blew into a portable breath test (PBT), which are not as accurate but are used at the scene to determine probable cause. PBTs might not be admissible at court, though, which is why they’re used to establish probable cause and then the final BAC is from a BreathAlyzer machine.

It’s possible he took the PBT and then refused the breath test at the station. Most of the time the actual breath test requires someone be under observation for. Period of time (15-20 minutes usually) to ensure they don’t belch or regurgitate, which can elevate BAC readings. If that was what happened, then yes, that’s a pretty straight forward refusal and results in some type of license suspension. But it wasn’t clear and the details on this vary so much from state to state that he should talk with aNebraska lawyer for details on how that works in his state.
[Reply]

The police can call a judge and have a warrant for a blood draw in 2 minutes. It's a fait accompli when a DUI is involved. Just the refusal is an automatic suspension.

When a state grants you a driver's license, all the power is in their hands as they all say the same thing in their law, "it is a privilege, not a right" for them to grant you a drivers license.
[Reply]

[Reply]

All hiring a lawyer in this situation would accomplish is wasting money.
[Reply]