DUI

Better class of people. At least they’ve got a car. They are hard, fun, and anybody can get one. DUI’s are different. This is because there is much more law on DUI. DUI law changes fast. Very fast. Stay tuned for a big change coming to Georgia with the Intoxilyzer 5000 source code. Enormous.

DUI is biology, chemistry, science. The science is false. The machine doesn’t work. The science is on our side. And the prosecutor’s in Savannah, Georgia are going to have to square with that. Soon. The prosecutor’s so-called expert witnesses are advocates, not scientists. There ex-police agents with new titles, like “area supervisor.” The Intoxilyzer 5000 (the DUI breath test used in Savannah, Georgia) is accurate only because the legislature says so. The evidence they need to find you guilty in a DUI case isn’t even forensic. The State doesn’t need a forensic expert to testify to the jury that their breath estimator was reliable and accurate. Rather, the prosecutor only needs to show the you that a machine makes the sample and spits it out. Is this fair, accurate, reliable? Where does the hospital keep their breath machine? They don’t use one. Why do doctors use blood testing? Because they need accuracy. And reliability. Whose choice was it to use a breath sample? Ever taken a prescription pain medicine? Did it last four to six hours? Not a full day? Scientifically, you know that most pain medications can be detected in you the next day? Not alcohol.

Ain’t good enough for Alabama…

The Intoxilyzer 5000 DUI breath testing device ain’t good enough for Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Florida, and many more states. Sweden quit using it over 15 years ago because it’s bad, old science. Most states don’t use it. But, Georgia still uses it to convict people.

CMI, the manufacturer out of Owensboro, Kentucky now only makes the 8000 series. They will not make new parts for the 5000 machines. The design of Georgia’s instrument is over 25 years old. The computer was built and last updated in 1985. Ever owned a boat with an outboard motor? How about a lawn mower? Did it ever fail to start? Ever heard of a space shuttle exploding?

Interfering substances are not subtracted from your sample.

Filters are made to detect and subtract out interfering substances. But, GBI made the manufacturer set up a different software protocol for the Georgia Intoxilyzer 5000. This is important because if the machine is not sniffing out interferrents perfectly then your breath sample can be falsely high. But, since Georgia has chosen to not use easily available software to capture data from the machine, interfering substances will always go undetected.

No paper trail

Almost every state in the U.S.A. uses a breath machine that leaves a paper trail for you to challenge your sample. Not Georgia. Our breath test samples leave nothing. But, you are always allowed to challenge a breathalyzer’s sample. This is where I come in. Challenge. Attack. Challenge. Show me. Challenge.

DUI Exception to the Constitution

Many constitutional protections that you and I have are not there for DUI. Instead, there are DUI exceptions to the constitution. For example, the crime of “Failure to maintain lane” includes driving and weaving within your own lane. The law says this is a good stop. Roadblocks are the falsest thing out there. But, the law says it’s all good. Unlike every other crime, you’ve got no right to an attorney until you are arrested, processed, and booked. Make sense? No? That’s the point. To make it “O.K.,” the court’s have gone and carved out what Lawrence Taylor has quoted as the ‘DUI Exception to the Constitution.”

You are required to give evidence against yourself when you get arrested for DUI in Savannah, Georgia. This is ridiculous. In some states it’s a separate crime to refuse a DUI test. It’s coming to Georgia. In Arizona the cops are authorized to do a forced blood withdrawal.

There’s a presumption of guilt in DUI cases because the law says if there’s a test result, we’ll let the jury “infer” guilt. And most people think if you drink and drive, you’re guilty. You understand it’s not against the law to drink? And drive? Rather, it’s against the law to have too many drinks and drive. What’s the first thing a waitress says to you after “Hello?” — “Do you want a drink?”

You can tell the truth in DUI cases. This is good. The bible says “the truth shall set you free.” So it will. I’m just bringing you the truth. I like that.

Double jeopardy is here for DUI, even though the Constitution says you and I are free from double jeopardy. You’ve got two fights in a DUI case. First, your administrative license suspension battle. Second, your criminal DUI case. How can this be? Because there’s a DUI exception to the Constitution of the United States of America — that’s how.

Criminal intent or state of mind is never an issue. So think of it as a strict liability crime. Do this and that’s it. We don’t care why.

Well, that’s my dish. I must shove off.

I don’t trust authority. Nor, the government. So, I defend those who seem doomed. For me, popularity isn’t as important as doing the right thing. There’s a trend taking away your rights in DUI law. I’m fighting it. In a recent DUI jury trial in Savannah, Georgia I helped a girl named Claire. I talked to the jury like they were folks on the post office corner. This is about what I said…

What did the prosecutor leave out? Why did he leave it out? What does this say about reasonable doubt? What did the prosecutor leave out? Why did he leave it out? What does this say about reasonable doubt?

One thing the prosecutor did not mention is that the officer testified in a preliminary hearing just two months after he arrested Claire and he admitted on cross-examination that he did not know what the time rates were for the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Field Sobriety evaluation. The time rates are the key to performing the test. The officer just did his own eye test and decided Claire failed that.

Another big thing they didn’t tell you is that the officer knew Claire had back problems. The officer is trained to not do the field sobriety evaluations if you have back problems. But he did them here. Then he said she failed.

Another point the prosecutor did not tell you is that Claire walked normally during normal activities. The officer told you that people under the influence of alcohol often have trouble walking. Did the prosecutor just forget to tell you about this? Or is it possible that they did not want you to think that Claire walked fine? Were they afraid that this might create a reasonable doubt in your mind?

Another thing that the prosecutor did not mention is that the police officer left this out of his report. If the officer is just fair and unbiased, if he is just giving you the facts, why did he leave this out of his report? Can you really rely on reports or witnesses that only give you one side of the story?

Use your common sense. It is just not possible for Claire to have been under the influence when she forgot to signal, but normal a few seconds later when she walked around the side of the car. If alcohol was the problem, it should have been present in her legs as well as her arms. What this shows you is that the failure to signal was created by something other than alcohol.

The prosecutor said Claire had bloodshot eyes. Why didn’t they tell you that she has allergies? You think they left the allergies part out because it’s not important? Or could they have left it out because they didn’t want you to think there was a reasonable doubt about whether bloodshot eyes were a sign of intoxication?

The prosecutor listed five things that they claim shows Claire was under the influence. They argue that it cannot be a coincidence that these five things are here. What they did not do is list the 55 clues to intoxication from the officer’s manual that were not here. For proof beyond a reasonable doubt, they should have more than 5 of 60. Have they given you proof beyond a reasonable doubt when 55 out of 60 clues aren’t here?

Claire looked normal. She acted normal. So, she probably is normal. The cop’s opinion that Claire was under the influence was wrong, just like his administration of the field sobriety evaluations.

The prosecution is biased. The officer is biased. The prosecution is hiding things here that are inconsistent with intoxication. I am not saying the officer is a liar, but I think you are entitled to an explanation of why many of the statements in his report don’t go along with the video.

In America, before they can destroy your life, they have the burden of proof. A girl’s life is on the line. Matching Claire up against the government isn’t a fair fight. The State of Georgia can pay lawyers to fight as long as it takes. They can make sure their lawyers are well-trained. Do they need an investigator to help make their case and testify? They’ll pay for it. Do they need to talk to an expert? They can afford it. They can afford tests and machines that Claire and I don’t have access to. They can double-team her with police officers so that it’s two against one in court. They can double team her with lawyers. So….is this a fair fight?

The State of Georgia has to rule out every reasonable doubt in this case. You have all heard this before. The government must rule out everything but alcohol as a cause. We don’t have to prove anything else was a cause.

The things Claire did right show that the things she did wrong were not caused by alcohol. Their case sucks! I am confident you will go find Claire not guilty. Find her not guilty. Let her go home.

The Chatham County jury found her not guilty of DUI less safe.

If there’s a magic in DUI lawyering, it’s the magic of fighting battles beyond endurance. Beyond ability. It’s the magic of risking everything for a dream that nobody sees but you.