Wisconsin court rules in favor of dru...

Wisconsin court rules in favor of drunken driver

There are 65 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Jul 14, 2010, titled Wisconsin court rules in favor of drunken driver. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

Everyone knows driving drunk is illegal. But drinking and then getting behind the wheel is not, a state appeals court pointed out in an opinion today overturning a drunken driving conviction against an Oshkosh woman.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
SpaceCowboy

Minneapolis, MN

#61 Jul 14, 2010
Bad police work.

He should have waited for her to drive away and then pulled her over for a code violation or failure to signal or failure to maintain a lane or a cracked windshield or or or.

Shame on the officer for being proactive and keeping her from killing herself and her friend and whoever else might have been in her path.

Obviously her BAL was at or over the limit. Likely right at .08 which is probably why they kept it out of the court records. Also likely why her lawyer "can't recall".

Right... Well next time maybe she'll kill someone.

How freakin hard is it to call a cab? Or, GASP! Call a freind. Or bring a sober driver. WOW! so little options.

Since: Nov 08

Twin Cities

#62 Jul 14, 2010
SpaceCowboy wrote:
Bad police work.
He should have waited for her to drive away and then pulled her over for a code violation or failure to signal or failure to maintain a lane or a cracked windshield or or or.
Shame on the officer for being proactive and keeping her from killing herself and her friend and whoever else might have been in her path.
Obviously her BAL was at or over the limit. Likely right at .08 which is probably why they kept it out of the court records. Also likely why her lawyer "can't recall".
Right... Well next time maybe she'll kill someone.
How freakin hard is it to call a cab? Or, GASP! Call a freind. Or bring a sober driver. WOW! so little options.
why fabricate charges? thats just as bad as no probable cause! If he had chose to follow her, and she did in fact exhibit signs of impairment, he would have had a case. If she showed no signs, then he was probably incorrect in his assesment of her impairment to begin with and had no case from the start. But, yes it was bad police work on what was probably a legitmate cause for concern! In the end, the court got it right!
Jill

Beverly Hills, CA

#63 Jul 14, 2010
tarmancer wrote:
<quoted text>
Because SHE WAS drunk! Dufus
You're a drunk!

And if I was a cop, I could ruin your life by saying that.

Comprendo? It's abuse of power.
Thrall

New York, NY

#65 Jul 14, 2010
What quite a lot of post-ers here don't seem to understand, is that the court is not only concerned with THIS case. There is precedent to be considered- for future cases of this nature. Maybe the woman WAS drunk- and the court knew it- but also knew the policeman had not followed the LAW in order to PROVE it. In such an instance, as unfair as it seems, the court would toss the conviction in order to protect all the rest of us' rights in the future. For example, if they had upheld this conviction, all ANY cop would have to say in the future is 'I smelled alcohol, so I arrested the suspect.' Next, somebody would be arrested for 'smelling bad' because the 'unwashed odor' led the cop to believe the suspect had been drinking and not paying enough attention to personal hygiene. Then, it evolves to the suspect 'looking unwashed' etc. etc. And as long as the suspect IS actually drunk, no one can object. But the court is more concerned with all those who get stopped by the police on these nebulous grounds that AREN'T drunk. They have the right to go about their business free from government intrusion IF THEY AREN'T DOING ANYTHING WRONG! How would you feel if you got pulled over and given the sobriety test IF YOU HADN'T BEEN DRINKING? Just 'cause a cop thought you might have. Now imagine it happening repeatedly. This is known as a 'police state', and our judicial system is set up to prevent it. Unfortunately, to protect ALL our rights, in some cases the clearly guilty must be set free- paradoxical as that seems. My point is, one cannot just look at individual cases to see what is 'right'- one must look beyond to the future and see the law as a whole.
Newday

United States

#66 Jul 15, 2010
In the late 70s to early 80s, the the trial lawyer-insurance marriage (the money end of the equation) connected with the Madd Mothers (the noise-maker end). Media felt compelled at that time to report "alcohol was involved" after each accident report. I have never heard whether the alcohol was in the trunk or in the person who caused the accident or in the other party. People who hurt people with their cars should be punished; be they old, drunk, drugged, young, texting, phoning or just plain stupid. MADD MOTHERS would have us believe that anyone that drives after a drink is going to kill or maim someone. That thinking is faulty, much like saying anyone/everyone who goes out hunting with a gun is going to kill someone or rob a bank. Financially horsewhipping a non-accident offender will not bring back your loved ones or mine. Going along with the lawyer-law enforcement-insurance extortion fiasco will only empower them create more of the same kind of laws. I never qualified for a GET-OUT-OF-JAIL-FREE CARD. These are, of course free to judges, power attorneys, businessmen and local landowners. Any policeman (telling the truth) could name a couple fellow policemen, lawyers, or judges who have been LET GO numerous times.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pewaukee Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Dress-wearing' students must submit photos bef... 12 hr Ted Haggard s Mas... 7
Is it time to decide on your style of winter co... Sep 17 Modeljoanie 1
Anyone heard this (Nov '16) Sep 2 geworker 2
News Generac Power Systems expands in Waukesha Tuesd... Sep 2 guest 1
Review: Camco Management Inc (Jun '08) Sep 1 azia2152000 52
News Anti-Gay Church Protests Brookfield 'Mega Church' (Jul '12) Jul '17 fuuny 21
News Chinese citizen working for Rockwell charged wi... (May '16) May '16 Moe 1

Pewaukee Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pewaukee Mortgages