D.U.Idiot: Trucker Drank Beer to Stay Awake

I would not have thought of this. I thought it had to be some legal explanation. But I can see a lot of drunks doing this.

 

I'd have to fight that on based upon double jeopardy. Essentially you are standing trial twice for the same offense. Charge it one way or the other...but not both. Just because you have multiple laws outlawing the same activity doesn't mean you can prosecute the same activity multiple times for a single incident.

 

Then prosecute for the more severe infraction (or choose the lesser charge if conviction on the more severe isn't a sure thing)...but to charge with both for the same incident is double jeopardy.

Straight out of the 5th Amendment:

 

I was listening to the Road Dog Channel on Sirius Satilite Radio trucking bozo aka Dale Summers was saying about there was this trucker who could not stay awake so he started drinking beer to stay awake the police got alot of call about him running people of the road so the cops stopped him his Blood Alcohol Content was .127

 

This DF has a bright future in politics, should fit in well in Washington.

 

This is the first time I have ever heard of someone drinking beer to stay awake. What? He could not find a cup of coffee?

 

You see, this^^^^ is why we have laws. Not everybody is this irresponsible but there are some out there that dont seem to get it.

 

What your not getting is that they are two different infractions. One is the fact that he was drinking at all and then driving, and the other is for having a content of .08 or higher. This guy? .127, which means he was swimming in it.

The fifth amendment does protect people from double jeopardy, however, some people are not clear on what this exactly means. For instance, in exact relevance to this situation, the supreme court ruled during Blockburger v. United States, "where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not"

Frankly, if your going to drink and then drive your rig, you deserve everything that gets thrown at you. Nuff' said.