Remember those lawyer commercials......

RealLindaL wrote:I didn't realize there was such a stiff penalty for refusing the breathalyzer, but maybe in his case for some reason losing his license was preferable to the alternative.

Yeah, let's watch this one and see what happens.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.1932.html

The 2015 Florida Statutes
316.1932 Tests for alcohol, chemical substances, or controlled substances; implied consent; refusal.—

(1)(a)1.a. Any person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by so operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved chemical test or physical test including... ...The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to any lawful test of his or her breath will result in the suspension of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 1 year for a first refusal...

I remembered this from studying hard with my then 17 yo grandson last summer (he is an ESE student at Tate HS, so he is a bit slow) so he could get his learner's permit. We studied weekly for about 6 weeks., I made-up several exams for him to take. Still, he failed the written exam at the DMV. I told him it had to come from him if he really wanted it. He went back on his own a few months later and passed the test.

March 18 made 34 years of sobriety. DUI is not a issue for me.
View user profile Send private message


Big thumbs up. I worry about my son transitioning from a social drinker to a problem drinker, but recently he went about three months without drinking and has one or two beers when we have a gathering. It worries me with the grandkids and his wife traveling for business where he might be in a position to have to drive with the kids in the car. I think that being a father helped him slow down his social drinking.

Linda I am rarely wrong.....at least in my mind, but if they have radar, the defendant is clever, and he would have asked to see the reading on the radar.....they would cut him off and try to do a field sobriety test which you should always refuse and simply say "officer if you believe I have been drinking and you have a basis for that conclusion, I will happily take a breathalyzer, but I will not be doing a field sobriety test." However, he probably had been drinking and in that case a refusal is much better than a conviction, which they can still get by officer testimony without a breathalyzer.....much more difficult. My point that the radar is going to be an achillies heel for the case and he will argue no probable cause for the stop based on not seeing that radar or the refusal of the officer to show the same. Arguing that people speed on De Luna is not relevant to his case, what is relevant did the officer know who he was before zeroing in on him, and was he speeding.....all to be determined in a motion to suppress.

Powerful story, Hallmark.  Wow.   These days it's hard to get up the nerve to criticize anyone for fear of rage and/or retaliation, but here you are telling us it can make a real difference.  I feel like that's the most important thing I've read in a long time.  Thanks very much for sharing.

And needless to say, you are heartily to be congratulated on your sobriety.

2seaoat wrote:
Linda I am rarely wrong.....at least in my mind, but if they have radar, the defendant is clever, and he would have asked to see the reading on the radar.....they would cut him off and try to do a field sobriety test which you should always refuse and simply say "officer if you believe I have been drinking and you have a basis for that conclusion, I will happily take a breathalyzer, but I will not be doing a field sobriety test."  However, he probably had been drinking and in that case a refusal is much better than a conviction, which they can still get by officer testimony without a breathalyzer.....much more difficult.  My point that the radar is going to be an achillies heel for the case and he will argue no probable cause for the stop based on not seeing that radar or the refusal of the officer to show the same.  Arguing that people speed on De Luna is not relevant to his case, what is relevant did the officer know who he was before zeroing in on him, and was he speeding.....all to be determined in a motion to suppress.  

Well, my rarely wrong friend, I'm afraid the above is at present nothing more than a big bunch of pure speculation with smoke and mirrors thrown in for fun.  Lots of ifs, virtually no facts.   So let's wait and see what the case actually reveals, OK?  Oh, and please do give me some credit; I know that the fact that other people speed "is not relevant to his case."   I'm telling YOU, not a judge, that people speed out here all the time and, frankly, that your being so cocksure that someone in a Lamborghini was not significantly exceeding the 35 mph speed limit on Via de Luna at 2 a.m. on a Saturday night when the fuzz stopped him for same, is naive at best.

I've just naturally stopped drinking very much. It really only affected my life between hs and mid twenties. Even that was manageable... and I found that control get stronger as I've aged. It's simply not as much fun any more... and harder to shake off.

That doesn't mean I don't drink... or even get schnockered on occasion when I'm having fun. Just a natural progression.

It's my understanding that a good DUI lawyer (like Tommy Ratchford) can find ways to beat a DUI rap even when the subject refuses the breathalyzer.

Bob wrote:It's my understanding that a good DUI lawyer (like Tommy Ratchford) can find ways to beat a DUI rap even when the subject refuses the breathalyzer.

Yes he can.

Hallmarkgard wrote:The county will wind up getting sued over this..  Oats has this one
correct..

Only time will tell what the outcome of all this will be. And since everyone is speculating, I'll do a little of that myself and say I've got a sense that this attorney is not a particular favorite among the judiciary. Again: we shall see.

Joanimaroni wrote:

Bob wrote:It's my understanding that a good DUI lawyer (like Tommy Ratchford) can find ways to beat a DUI rap even when the subject refuses the breathalyzer.

Yes he can.

I'll refrain from asking the obvious question.

RealLindaL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Bob wrote:It's my understanding that a good DUI lawyer (like Tommy Ratchford) can find ways to beat a DUI rap even when the subject refuses the breathalyzer.

Yes he can.

I'll refrain from asking the obvious question.

I'll answer to avoid the obvious insinuation you are trying to make.....no I have never ever had a DUI, furthermore, I rarely drink.

Tommy is a friend.

Tommy didn't get a call.

Joanimaroni wrote:Tommy didn't get a call.

Not surprised.  I noted in those Escambia court records that in 2003 Maloney appealed two of the several traffic infractions he's had, and in those appeals was listed as "Attorney PRO SE."  

Still, In both those cases the judges affirmed the judgment of the county courts (i.e., he lost), so you'd think he might reconsider representing himself this time, especially with DUI involved. Maybe he called someone else.

How does someone who has 27 speeding tickets still have a drivers license?
How many do you have to get to lose your license? A hundred, a thousand, or what exactly?

He has a Lamborghini.  He has at least four properties.  And who knows what all else he has for personal assets.
Obviously the ambulance chasing business been velly velly goot to him.

So here's the obvious question.  What kind of moron would risk losing all that by driving drunk and speeding down Via Deluna?
Even if they let him keep his law license and let him keep advertising, I cannot imagine that anyone would want such a dumbass for a lawyer after this.
I mean it's not like he's the only tort lawyer available. There are thousands of them in this area alone. lol

Bob wrote:He has a Lamborghini.  He has at least four properties.  And who knows what all else he has for personal assets.
Obviously the ambulance chasing business been velly velly goot to him.

So here's the obvious question.  What kind of moron would risk losing all that by driving drunk and speeding down Via Deluna?
Even if they let him keep his law license and let him keep advertising,  I cannot imagine that anyone would want such a dumbass for a lawyer after this.  
I mean it's not like he's the only tort lawyer available.  There are thousands of them in this area alone.  lol

Did the cop just happen to be sitting there?

Not quite Hallmark.....first was the call to alert the cops.

Such fun speculating.  Perhaps, though, we might want to at least wait for the dash cam video when it's released with discovery, for what light it might just shed on the incident.  

In any event, IF there are wild-asz conspiracies for arresting speeders on Via de Luna, WHOEVER they are, we can use all we can get.   I'm telling you it's terrible, and someone is going to get killed out here one of these days.

Many years ago I worked for the Sheriffs dept.  I was a mechanic but I used to ride with them a lot at night.  I have a good idea how it works.   LOL    They knew it was a big time lawyer.  They will be careful to show it was just a "Random" stop..

Hallmarkgard wrote:Many years ago I worked for the Sheriffs dept.  I was a mechanic but I used to ride with them a lot at night.  I have a good idea how it works.   LOL    They knew it was a big time lawyer.  They will be careful to show it was just a "Random" stop..

You can believe whatever you want. As for me, I'm just damned glad the man was stopped, and I wish they'd do it a helluva lot more often out here. And yes, to whoever asked if the cop was just sitting there, they DO occasionally spot deputies' cars in certain less visible locations in order to catch the law breakers on the road. Just not frequently enough.

I was once down at NY Nicks for happy hour and got to talking with this woman who said she was a DUI attorney. She said the best thing you can do for yourself if you get pulled over and you are certain that you are over the limit is to refuse all field sobriety tests, breathalizers, and then invoke your right to remain silent. Say absolutely nothing and show know emotion. She said that as long as you do that you are almost guaranteed to get off on the DUI, though you will still lose your license for a year since that is the penalty for refusing the tests. Still better than a DUI though which would have you lose your license anyway and would come with even greater cost. Long story short, you can avoid the DUI but you're still going to be screwed either way.

There was a call!