Dwi

[Koil Gugliemi]

---

Members don't see this ad.

And in my state this is not the case...If you refuse, you lose your license, but the jury will not know about it. In my example, you know that if you blow you're over the limit, so you're convicted if you blow. If you don't and the jury hears about it...they have to decide whether there's "a reasonable doubt". A good lawyer could convince them that there is.

The only reason I've thought about this is that during a clerkship I had to go do jury duty and the above example is exactly what happened. There was no breathalyzer and we never heard why...The defendant got off 'cause none of us in the jury thought that the case was beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

If you were a judge/jury, what would you think about someone who refuses a drug test, alcohol test, etc?

Obviously if you were innocent, you would have taken the test. It is just like an admission of guilt.

exactly as i said too...

I suppose you could say it's against your relgious beliefs to do a breathalyzer

 

[Koil Gugliemi]

The whole "if you don't consent to a search you must be hiding something" argument is a bit unreasonable. A DWI would be a big huge deal to me for a variety of reasons so if I was stone cold sober with no ETOH in two weeks I might blow, but if I had one beer 40 minutes ago I'd probably refuse, 'cause a false positive would be a total nightmare for me, I'd rather lose the license for 6 mo or whatever than gamble on the little plastic doo-hickey from the cop's trunk being accurate.

In my example, you know you're guilty, and you're trying to minimize the harm. A conviction IMHO is lots worse than just losing your license.

 

[fun8stuff]

If you were a judge/jury, what would you think about someone who refuses a drug test, alcohol test, etc?

Obviously if you were innocent, you would have taken the test. It is just like an admission of guilt.

You're missing the point. If you blow over the limit, the judge will know that you were for sure over the legal limit. This is the same reason to never admit you have been drinking. Never give them evidence. Refusing to take a breathalizer does not result in automatic conviction. They will fine you and temporary take your license, but that's it. Go ahead and ask a lawyer what you should do. I have been told that if I think I am over the limit and get pulled over to refuse the breathalizer, unless I had the drinks within the last 10 mins. Breathalizers are horribly inaccurate and better to have them take you in and get the blood test, hopefully after your blood alcohol has gone down. Koil is right on with this advice.

 

[OSUdoc08]

You're missing the point. If you blow over the limit, the judge will know that you were for sure over the legal limit. This is the same reason to never admit you have been drinking. Never give them evidence. Refusing to take a breathalizer does not result in automatic conviction. They will fine you and temporary take your license, but that's it. Go ahead and ask a lawyer what you should do. I have been told that if I think I am over the limit and get pulled over to refuse the breathalizer, unless I had the drinks within the last 10 mins. Breathalizers are horribly inaccurate and better to have them take you in and get the blood test. Koil is right on with this advice.

Once again, in the eyes of the jury and a judge, a refusal = guilty. You'll be convicted most likely.

 

[Koil Gugliemi]

Once again, in the eyes of the jury and a judge, a refusal = guilty. You'll be convicted most likely.

Whatever dude. you do it your way. [cd ../..]

 

[fun8stuff]

Once again, in the eyes of the jury and a judge, a refusal = guilty. You'll be convicted most likely.

yeah, but if you don't refuse and blow over the limit, you will be convicted as well. If you refuse, then there may be a small percent chance that you will get out of it... maybe like 5%, but that is better than 0%.

 

[DrRobert]

Just an FYI:

This is question #25 on the Missouri State License Application:

25. Have you been arrested, charged, indicted, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, in a criminal prosecution under the laws of any state or of the United States whether or not sentence was imposed, including suspended imposition of sentence or suspended execution of sentence?


So getting a lawyer doesn't make anything "go away". Even if the charges are dropped or the case is dismissed (which is THE best scenario in any criminal case), you still have to report that you were charged.

 

[2Sexy4MedSchool]

Just an FYI:

This is question #25 on the Missouri State License Application:

25. Have you been arrested, charged, indicted, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, in a criminal prosecution under the laws of any state or of the United States whether or not sentence was imposed, including suspended imposition of sentence or suspended execution of sentence?


So getting a lawyer doesn't make anything "go away". Even if the charges are dropped or the case is dismissed (which is THE best scenario in any criminal case), you still have to report that you were charged.

Sorry Dr. Bob, but I've got to disagree with you there. The question, as phrased, is ambiguous at best (and misleading at worst.)

It appears that you interpreted that first sentence as saying, "Have you been arrested (OR) charged (OR) indicted (OR) found guilty or entered a plea of guilty or no contest...". Under your interpretation there would indeed be a duty to report any arrest per se, even one not resulting in a conviction.

I would interpret this as saying, "Have you been arrested (AND) charged (OR) indicted (AND) found guilty or entered a plea of guilty or no contest..." Under this reading there is no duty to report a fruitless arrest.

This is exactly the kind of issue that an attorney with experience in criminal defense and licensing in MO should be able to answer. There is enough variation between the laws of each state that I wouldn't want to just take my best guess.

 

[DrRobert]

Sorry Dr. Bob, but I've got to disagree with you there. The question, as phrased, is ambiguous at best (and misleading at worst.)

It appears that you interpreted that first sentence as saying, "Have you been arrested (OR) charged (OR) indicted (OR) found guilty or entered a plea of guilty or no contest...". Under your interpretation there would indeed be a duty to report any arrest per se, even one not resulting in a conviction.

I would interpret this as saying, "Have you been arrested (AND) charged (OR) indicted (AND) found guilty or entered a plea of guilty or no contest..." Under this reading there is no duty to report a fruitless arrest.

This is exactly the kind of issue that an attorney with experience in criminal defense and licensing in MO should be able to answer. There is enough variation between the laws of each state that I wouldn't want to just take my best guess.

Interesting that you would bring that up. My wife is a defense attorney who hears cases in front of the Missouri Board of the Healing Arts. (which is why I felt the need to post in this thread)

Every physician that has omitted any arrest or criminal charge from their Missouri license application, in which the board has found out about it at a later date, has had his/her license permanently revoked. In other words, your interpretation is incorrect.

Your post reinforces your own advice. ALWAYS consult an attorney before filling out these applications. A mistake could cost you your license, and subsequently your career.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Sorry Dr. Bob, but I've got to disagree with you there. The question, as phrased, is ambiguous at best (and misleading at worst.)

It appears that you interpreted that first sentence as saying, "Have you been arrested (OR) charged (OR) indicted (OR) found guilty or entered a plea of guilty or no contest...". Under your interpretation there would indeed be a duty to report any arrest per se, even one not resulting in a conviction.

I would interpret this as saying, "Have you been arrested (AND) charged (OR) indicted (AND) found guilty or entered a plea of guilty or no contest..." Under this reading there is no duty to report a fruitless arrest.

This is exactly the kind of issue that an attorney with experience in criminal defense and licensing in MO should be able to answer. There is enough variation between the laws of each state that I wouldn't want to just take my best guess.

In the english language, a group of words or phrases separated by commas and then followed by the word "or" or "and" before the final word in the list means that all the previous words or list of words are intended to be separated by the same word, either "or" or "and". You can not just stick in "or" or "and" wherever you see fit ot wherever you want it to be. Come on.

 

[2Sexy4MedSchool]

In the english language, a group of words or phrases separated by commas and then followed by the word "or" or "and" before the final word in the list means that all the previous words or list of words are intended to be separated by the same word, either "or" or "and". You can not just stick in "or" or "and" wherever you see fit ot wherever you want it to be. Come on.

In any other context I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, legalese doesn't always follow the rules of The Queen's English. Case in point: "Have you been arrested, charged, indicted, found guilty, or entered a plea...". In most jurisdictions you can be charged or indicted; rarely does both occur in the same case. Similarly, it is impossible to have been found guilty or to have entered a plea unless one had already been arrested and charged.

This is a poorly written question, both grammatically and legally. It makes the proof-reader in me groan and the attorney in me cringe. The whole point of the law is clarity, which this is lacking.

Dr. Bob, you are absolutely right. I once addressed a very similar cast to this in california -- not a doctor, but a teacher -- and we were able to find a way around the statute based on that ambiguous language. But I would be the very last person in line to suggest going in front of a licensing board in another state based on that experience. Tell your wife to keep up the good fight.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

In any other context I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, legalese doesn't always follow the rules of The Queen's English. Case in point: "Have you been arrested, charged, indicted, found guilty, or entered a plea...". In most jurisdictions you can be charged or indicted; rarely does both occur in the same case. Similarly, it is impossible to have been found guilty or to have entered a plea unless one had already been arrested and charged.

This is a poorly written question, both grammatically and legally. It makes the proof-reader in me groan and the attorney in me cringe. The whole point of the law is clarity, which this is lacking.

Dr. Bob, you are absolutely right. I once addressed a very similar cast to this in california -- not a doctor, but a teacher -- and we were able to find a way around the statute based on that ambiguous language. But I would be the very last person in line to suggest going in front of a licensing board in another state based on that experience. Tell your wife to keep up the good fight.

whereas i can see someone wanting to stretch the law, based on the english language i think it is quite clear...