|
|
|
Need some DUI advice
- Thread starter 87m6chris
- Start date
Lol something doesn't even add up in the given story. How the hell is he getting charged already if they can't even prove that he was the on driving?
There are 2 sides of each story.......we really need to hear that other half. All I know is that I'd never take anyone else's DUI. Not a chance. That stays for like the rest of your life.
There are 2 sides of each story.......we really need to hear that other half. All I know is that I'd never take anyone else's DUI. Not a chance. That stays for like the rest of your life.
You would be surprised what you can be charged for, under 'care and control.' With the keys in the ingnition and the car stopped, with 4 people in the back seat and impaired, all four could conceivably be charged with impaired.
But that would never hold up without something else. You need to be able to operate the vehicle from where you are for care and control. If someone got pinched on that in the back seat there's way more to the story lol
I have heard of many cases where being near the car with access to keys was enough to generate a care and control type charge. The bar is frighteningly low for this one. You don't need to have intent to drive, you just have to have access to the necessary equipment.
Actual wording
258. (1) In any proceedings under subsection 255(1) in respect of an offence committed under section 253 or in any proceedings under subsection 255(2) or (3),
(a) where it is proved that the accused occupied the seat or position ordinarily occupied by a person who operates a motor vehicle, vessel or aircraft or any railway equipment or who assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment, the accused shall be deemed to have had the care or control of the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, as the case may be, unless the accused establishes that the accused did not occupy that seat or position for the purpose of setting the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment in motion or assisting in the operation of the aircraft or railway equipment, as the case may be;
How it is applied in practice (although there have been cases where sitting in the drivers seat with the engine running results in acquittal (on appeal, it's hard to find cases that weren't appealed), it can go either way).
From an attorney http://www.medwardgraham.com/TG_drinking.html
"Being found in a vehicle, especially if the keys are in the ignition, will more often than not constitute care or control and the accused will be convicted. The penalties for care or control offences are identical to those for driving. "
Something is fishy about this whole story, but the common theme is the guy that's charged needs a lawyer. Did they both get BAC tests that night? Did they both get charged? Could each testify at trial that the other was driving (at least one obviously risking a perjury charge)? Witnesses are a wash as they aren't consistent, so that would seem like reasonable doubt and an acquittal.
Not sure how insurance is dealing with this whole thing. Hopefully the car was a beater and they just stopped insurance without claiming. I can only imagine the reaction of the insurance company when you tell them someone crashed your car with you in it while you were drunk but you don't know who the driver was. That should immediately put you on the blackest of lists.
There will always be extremes on both sides. Hero complex cops and ******** lucky drunks. But as a rule if you make a concerted effort you'll be fine. I've had to 'sleep it off' in the car before. I locked the keys in the trunk and reclined the passenger seat back and knocked out. There isn't a prosocuter out there that could realistically make a case out of that.
Last edited by a moderator:
And yet standing 10 feet away from your car while impaired, with your keys on your person, can result in a conviction.
OpenGambit
Banned
kiley
Well-known member
I'm sorry but this story just doesn't add up
He's had his first hearing and the crowns disclosure has 3 witness statements, all of them different, one says he was in the drivers seat, one says he was in the back seat, the other one puts him in the passenger seat
Why would the crown use 3 statements that don't add up?
In any event...only one word comes to mind.....lawyer
Because if they were from different times, they can be used to show that the accused moved from seat to seat.
Tell him to hire a Bay Street lawyer. $5000-$10,000 will make the problem disappear. If the lawyer finds that the crown has a crappy case after receiving disclosure the lawyer will talk with the crown prosecutor and the charges will most likely be withdrawn. Also the cost will be under $5000 if the crown's case is weak. I've seen some extremely interesting criminal trials where these lawyers do wonders for the defendant.
suprPHREAK
Well-known member
Remind your employee that this is a Criminal Code offence. While he may be thinking "oh i just lose my license", the reality is he may lose his ability to travel beyond our borders, may lose job prospects, may lose a lot of opportunities if he becomes a convicted criminal.
This is not the time to protect a buddy who ran off. Only a coward would let his friends take the fall, and only a fool would let him do it.
This is not the time to protect a buddy who ran off. Only a coward would let his friends take the fall, and only a fool would let him do it.
|
|
|
|
|