Have not seen this before...

But this reversal was because the municipal court failed to properly accept evidence.

The municipality argued in the appellate court that just because the cop failed to circle certain information on the implied consent form should not allow the lower court to not accept the implied consent form as evidence and throw the DUI case out (the lower court suppressed the evidence of the implied consent form illegally). The higher court agreed with the municipality and said that if the document was offered it should have been accepted as evidence in the lower court. The higher court then remanded the case to the lower court and allowed the document as evidence which means the defendant was then probably convicted of DUI in the subsequent hearing which the municipality was seeking because of the error by the lower court of not accepting the evidence.

So in essence the higher court said that just because the form was not circled by the cop is not an excuse to admit it as evidence. But in this person's case he states it was dismissed because the cop didn't show up at a hearing. I still believe it will show up as an implied consent on his license because he and his attorney accepted the 90-day suspension without question, argument, appeal, or anything............he accepted the suspension because of the implied consent and is therefore a part of his record.

 

I agree . I posted this case because it gives a good example of S.C. 's implied consent law . 9STM68 stated he had the right of refusal . True , they can't force you to test but refusal results in automatic license suspension . I agree with you that this likely will eventually show up and potential employers won't be impressed with a dismissal on a technicality . There is a reason a person refuses .

 

I see the case you posted in a slightly different light. It basically shows that when dealing with legal documents(ie the SLED preprinted rights advisment form) that mistakes or omissions deem the document still admissible or valid in court.

Frankly, this is very disturbing news. LEO's just like truckers(log books) SHOULD make sure they dot all the i's, cross all the t's and get the p's and q's in order for legal reasons. It would seem if a LEO makes a mistake on a legal document, they would/should get an Ooops, no harm no foul... Whereas, if a trucker makes a mistake on a legal document(the log book) they are screwed.

Doesn't make much sense to me.

I wont even get into the 'Constitutionality' of implied consent.

 

FYI: Implied consent has been on the books in most states since the 1970's. While not an attorney, I'd just about bet a steak dinner at Outback Steak House that these implied consent statutes have been tested in the appellate courts since then by someone with lots of money e.g. that peroxide blond in CA that thinks she can sing that's had about 6 DUI's and runs around with those dogs the size of a large rat. You know the one. She shaved herself bald a couple years ago.

 

Come on, implied consent laws are a way for law enforcement to conveniently tiptoe around individuals Constitutional rights. (See Admendment 5 ....nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself).

Similar to these, are muli-jurisdictional, non-border, suspicionless checkpoints where American citizens can be stopped, asked where they are going, and further detainment me be required if they don't comply(or simple execute their Constitutional Rights). Where will it end? Think, Nazi Germany era, "Papers please".

I fail to see ANY benefit of the excessive governmental abuse of power.

Please enlighten me.

 

With the knowledge you had you would have been better off to take the test and provide the data on equipment flaws as a reason for the case to be dismissed . As you stated , the fact that these machines have flaws is common knowledge on the internet and I'm sure there have been legal precedents .

 

Apples and oranges here . There are regulations prohibiting driving defective equipment .