Reminds me of someone I knew that would keep a pint of Jack in his trunk. He drove drunk constantly and it was there for when if he ever got into an accident he was prepared to run out of the car, pop the trunk, and pound the bottle in front of all the witnesses.
Can’t prove he was drunk at the time of the accident.
I know I’ve read of at least one successful case where the person fled the scene and went home, then claimed he was drinking at home. Honestly, though, there’s so many things that factor into whether an individual gets arrested or released that we’d need more examples to differentiate between just letting someone go and This One Simple Trick Judges Hate.
It’s up to the police to show you were driving while intoxicated. You have witnesses corroborating that you were drinking after the accident. Any field sobriety, or blood test they give you would be worthless because it would be after that.
This kind of thing has been repeated amd handed down for like a century. But I’ve never ever heard of anyone actually doing it, much less having it work.
That sounds like a terrible legal defense. Yes - I had alcohol in my car, and I was pounding it at the time of the accident. But trust me, I was totally sober when I actually hit that person.
It’s up to the police to prove you were drunk while driving. Normally that’s not hard since they can show that between them getting to you, field so riery testing, and taking you in there’s no way for you to have had a drink before they take a blood test for instance. But if you break that chain, there isn’t a good way to prove that it wasn’t from after the incident.
Ah but you didn’t just have alcohol in your car. That’s totally legal, otherwise you would never be able to drive home from a store with alcohol. You even have witnesses stating you got it from your trunk, so even if it was already open, it could not have been within reach while driving. Which is a component of most open container laws.
It’s up to the police to prove you were drunk while driving.
Actually, its up to the prosecution to prove you were drunk while driving. And that standard is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, which I’m pretty sure ‘pounding liquor after an accident to have plausible deniability on your insobriety’ would make an easy argument to meet that threshold.
The cops will take you either way and let a judge decide what to do with you.
You might not be able to prove it, but anyone willing to chug alcohol in front of witnesses to have that kind of plausible deniability can easily be assumed to have already been drunk to start with. That just doesn’t seem like it would hold up to the ‘reasonable doubt’ standard…
Reminds me of someone I knew that would keep a pint of Jack in his trunk. He drove drunk constantly and it was there for when if he ever got into an accident he was prepared to run out of the car, pop the trunk, and pound the bottle in front of all the witnesses.
Can’t prove he was drunk at the time of the accident.
There is zero chance that would work.
There’s a low chance of that working…but it’s not zero with the right legal team.
With the right legal team you can kick the police in the balls and piss on their car and get away with it.
I know I’ve read of at least one successful case where the person fled the scene and went home, then claimed he was drinking at home. Honestly, though, there’s so many things that factor into whether an individual gets arrested or released that we’d need more examples to differentiate between just letting someone go and This One Simple Trick Judges Hate.
Fleeing the scene is completely different than chugging alcohol at the scene.
With a half competent lawyer it could.
It’s up to the police to show you were driving while intoxicated. You have witnesses corroborating that you were drinking after the accident. Any field sobriety, or blood test they give you would be worthless because it would be after that.
I’m sure someone has tried this before somewhere.
“I wasn’t drinking and driving, officer. And I’ll prove it by drinking out of this open container!”.
Holy shit that was close. I gotta relax, having ptd issues. Must self medicate…
This kind of thing has been repeated amd handed down for like a century. But I’ve never ever heard of anyone actually doing it, much less having it work.
It might work depending on how much your lawyer costs
At that point anything works.
That sounds like a terrible legal defense. Yes - I had alcohol in my car, and I was pounding it at the time of the accident. But trust me, I was totally sober when I actually hit that person.
It’s up to the police to prove you were drunk while driving. Normally that’s not hard since they can show that between them getting to you, field so riery testing, and taking you in there’s no way for you to have had a drink before they take a blood test for instance. But if you break that chain, there isn’t a good way to prove that it wasn’t from after the incident.
Ah but you didn’t just have alcohol in your car. That’s totally legal, otherwise you would never be able to drive home from a store with alcohol. You even have witnesses stating you got it from your trunk, so even if it was already open, it could not have been within reach while driving. Which is a component of most open container laws.
Actually, its up to the prosecution to prove you were drunk while driving. And that standard is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, which I’m pretty sure ‘pounding liquor after an accident to have plausible deniability on your insobriety’ would make an easy argument to meet that threshold.
The cops will take you either way and let a judge decide what to do with you.
You might not be able to prove it, but anyone willing to chug alcohol in front of witnesses to have that kind of plausible deniability can easily be assumed to have already been drunk to start with. That just doesn’t seem like it would hold up to the ‘reasonable doubt’ standard…