How exactly did buddle escape clink with his record of flagrantly disregarding the laws of the road??? I've only been here a year and know of several instances where people have ended up doing bird after only getting done once for drink driving - I thought it was compulsory???
First of all, his case has not been adjudicated. He had an appearance last week and I understand is scheduled for another, but there has been, AFAIK, nothing even appraoching a "trial" per se. SO the penalty - if any - has yet to be determined, but he has not in any way "walked" on these charges. At least, not yet. Secondly, the judge will have a great deal of latitude here. For example, he CAN if he's so inclined, restore Buddle's license at the first appearance. Essentially, that's the first time anyone gets to speak to what the arresting officers did on the scene. Plus, you are correct: the guy has 11 moving violations in the last two years. I'm not sure how the heck he still has a license. The law is very specific: Buddle can in fact do three days as a guest of Franklin County for a first offense OVI. Lots of people do. The MLS Psych-analysis and treatment thing, one suspects, might convince a judge that the guy's back on track. As TimD pointed out earlier, a lot will depend on the Judge and the Prosecutor. If they elect to stick with all the extraneous stuff - resisting, failure to obey - they can really stick it to him. Edson needs a good courthouse guy on his side. Just a note: a second offense would mean a mandatory 18 days, which is rarely waived, although you can do much of it with electronic monitoring. I just was wondering how well you can play soccer with a transmitter strapped to your lag.
Like I said on the first page, when Edson refused the Breathalyzer he took a huge tool out of the hands of the prosecution. You lose your license right off the bat, but your going to lose your license anyway, plus do jail time if your drunk. Without a breathalyzer there simply is no way beyond a resonable doubt to prove Edson was DRUNK. Drinking maybe, but drunk, there's no evidence of that. Unless they got you falling all over yourself on the on-- board video. With a Breathlayzer he does a few days, without it he gets a deal because the prosecution wants something so MAAD doesn't get up their asses. Usually it means pleading guilty that gets you a fine and a continued suspended license and sometimes community service. Only smart thing he did all night was not taking the Brethalyzer. The two things the Judge friend of mine said was, you don't have to answer whether or not you've been drinking. You simply say I choose not to answer that question. And you don't have to submit to the breathalyzer. You do have to take the field sobriety tests if they ask you, though.
Charge(s): Charge.. Action Code .........Disposition Code 1 OVI................................ GUILTY 2 FAILURE TO COMPLY............ DISMISSED 3 ROMV - WILFUL DISREGARD ..... DISMISSED 4 UNNECESSARY HORN ............. DISMISSED 5 ONE-WAY - HIGHWAY/ROTARY ..... DISMISSED
Edson's deal seems to be pretty standard, drop the crap get the OVI guilty on the record so you can notch another one on the belt. The interstate commerce clause really doesn't have anything to do with this. Drunk driving laws (as other criminal laws) are the states right to establish so long as they do not go beyond the bounds of constitutionality. The right to use the road is not a priviledge, as a tax paying citizen you have the right to use any public road for all legal purposes. Operating a motor vehicle and being licensed by the state for same is, however, a privilege. The issue originally addressed was how does law enforcement obtain the right to curtail a legal privilege of the individual without a judicial decision. Like any privilege it can come with certain restrictions. A condition of issuance of an Ohio drivers license is that you have unconditionally consented, anytime upon request, to the taking of blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of testing for the use of alcohol. As possessing a license is deemed a privilege than any authorized agent of the state or officer of the court may revoke that privilege for non-compliance. If you do take the test and you blow a .08 or above than yes you have just given the prosecution all it needs to convict you. Unless you can argue that the machine was was not properly calibrated or there is some other opportunity to get the case tossed. I don't think that we need to go beyond this to search and seizure issues as they pertain to ones person. I also don't feel like researching something I haven't even thought about in over a decade. But if you do want to discuss it how is waiving a fundamental right of this country required to receive a privilege that most everyone see as more of a requirement for daily existence?