Who should I call? (other than an attorney)

American Patriot · Jul 4, 2009

imported post

"I know, the GATTTOTP charge is crazy. From my research, itis some archaic law from 1839. Only actual convictions I've found are people with other serious felonies. The least serious was assualt with a deadlyweapon with intent to kill. I even saw one that was posesssion of weapons of mass destruction.

When my attorney pulled up my charges he was shocked.

As much as I hated to do it because I disagree with alot of what they do, I contacted the NC chapter of the ACLU. After court, I am going to sue the pants off of them if my attorney thinks I have a case.

Not for money. For pure principle. I did not deserve thisand now it isaffecting my family. I feel very lucky my employer knows me well enough to know this is total horse@#$% and they have allowed me to keep my job despite me not having a license for 30 days (I refused to blow). the attorney says this is a good thing."

mekender · Jul 4, 2009

imported post

American Patriot wrote:

"I know, the GATTTOTP charge is crazy. From my research, itis some archaic law from 1839. Only actual convictions I've found are people with other serious felonies. The least serious was assualt with a deadlyweapon with intent to kill. I even saw one that was posesssion of weapons of mass destruction.

When my attorney pulled up my charges he was shocked.

As much as I hated to do it because I disagree with alot of what they do, I contacted the NC chapter of the ACLU. After court, I am going to sue the pants off of them if my attorney thinks I have a case.

Not for money. For pure principle. I did not deserve thisand now it isaffecting my family. I feel very lucky my employer knows me well enough to know this is total horse@#$% and they have allowed me to keep my job despite me not having a license for 30 days (I refused to blow). the attorney says this is a good thing."

oops... didnt see that... still, if he was not a driver under the legal definition, they had no justification to give him a sobriety test... this is like saying that you cant refuse one if you are a pedestrian or you will loose your license...

realistically, it only matters what is on the arrest report... if that says that the engine was on, then he has to deal with the DWI... though he may still get it tossed out under a probable cause violation or under a Miranda rights violation...

American Patriot · Jul 4, 2009

imported post

A pedestrian doesn't need a licensee to walk, thereforehe/she doesn't stand to loose it ifthey refuse a Breathalyzer test. Refuse a Breathalyzer test when requested and automatic 30 driver license suspension. This is acknowledged by the OP.

The question I would have is why the LEO approached the car in the first place? What initialed the situation?

Mike · Jul 4, 2009

imported post

mekender wrote:

if that says that the engine was on, then he has to deal with the DWI...

Why must the engine be on? Can you cite to any SC authority on this? I had a friend get a DUI for sleeping it off on the side of the road while in his car in California, engine not on.

American Patriot · Jul 4, 2009

imported post

Mike wrote:

mekender wrote:

if that says that the engine was on, then he has to deal with the DWI...

Click to expand...

Why must the engine be on? Can you cite to any SC authority on this? I had a friend get a DUI for sleeping it off on the side of the road while in his car in California, engine not on.

The OP is in NC

bperciful · Jul 4, 2009

imported post

In terms of court records - my case is not going to court until August 14th. That's why you don't see the DWI.

As far as why the cops got there to begin with, your guess is as good as mine. I had others tell me rumors there was another incident on the other side of the parking lot that night. Maybe a mix-up? I know thatthe police have a reputation for patrolling the parking lot at the establishment we were at at closing time (understandable). I live in a resort area, and they have to almost over-patrol in the summer. People literally lose their common sense on vacation, I swear. I wish I at least had some sort of idea as to why this is happening... All I have are tickets and charges. No report or anything. I guess its because they are trying to build a case against me? I am no criminal and am new to all of this.

According to my attorney I will be able to get a work license in a week (well before the 30 day suspension is up) which at this point is the most important thing.Both of my employers have written me letters stating I needed it and have also written character witness letters.

I had to do a "drug and alcohol abuse assessment" with a counselor yesterday. She asked me to bring a copy of my driving record, which I did. When I handed it to her, she thought I had faked it because it was completely clean, not even a ticket. She ran it herself in disbelief.

I also took a voluntary drug test.

I've been told by several people that the DWI will more than likely be reduced to Public Intox. And FYI, I was never given a field sobriety test and was not asked to blow until I got to the station. I didn't know at the time that you could get charged with DWI without driving and told the officer I didn't understand - he never explained the law to me. Just said, well you are going to jail and I'm taking my license. He also acted very agitated when I asked to read the paperwork he was forcing me to sign.

I'll keep everyone posted on the progress of the case.

mekender · Jul 4, 2009

imported post

bperciful wrote:

In terms of court records - my case is not going to court until August 14th. That's why you don't see the DWI.

As far as why the cops got there to begin with, your guess is as good as mine. I had others tell me rumors there was another incident on the other side of the parking lot that night. Maybe a mix-up? I know thatthe police have a reputation for patrolling the parking lot at the establishment we were at at closing time (understandable). I live in a resort area, and they have to almost over-patrol in the summer. People literally lose their common sense on vacation, I swear. I wish I at least had some sort of idea as to why this is happening... All I have are tickets and charges. No report or anything. I guess its because they are trying to build a case against me? I am no criminal and am new to all of this.

According to my attorney I will be able to get a work license in a week (well before the 30 day suspension is up) which at this point is the most important thing.Both of my employers have written me letters stating I needed it and have also written character witness letters.

I had to do a "drug and alcohol abuse assessment" with a counselor yesterday. She asked me to bring a copy of my driving record, which I did. When I handed it to her, she thought I had faked it because it was completely clean, not even a ticket. She ran it herself in disbelief.

I also took a voluntary drug test.

I've been told by several people that the DWI will more than likely be reduced to Public Intox. And FYI, I was never given a field sobriety test and was not asked to blow until I got to the station. I didn't know at the time that you could get charged with DWI without driving and told the officer I didn't understand - he never explained the law to me. Just said, well you are going to jail and I'm taking my license. He also acted very agitated when I asked to read the paperwork he was forcing me to sign.

I'll keep everyone posted on the progress of the case.

so they denied you your right to have your attorney present at any and all points of questioning... and they questioned you while (according to them) you were legally intoxicated and thus incapable of understanding or waiving your rights...

the whole case should get tossed out...

Mike · Jul 4, 2009

imported post

mekender wrote:

so they denied you your right to have your attorney present at any and all points of questioning... and they questioned you while (according to them) you were legally intoxicated and thus incapable of understanding or waiving your rights...

the whole case should get tossed out...

You have a cite to that rule? Never heard of it.

Mike · Jul 4, 2009

imported post

Mike wrote:

and a good lawyer will find a way to argue that the Defendant's permit is not revoked because either (1) he did not move permanently from SC and/or (2) he still has an interest in real property in SC.

And (3), the lawyer should argue that the provision in SC law revoking the license for changing state citizenship is constitutionally void on its face as both (a) an unconstitutional violation of the right to travel under the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and (b) unconstitutional state citizenship discrimination underthe ArticleIV privileges and immunities clause.

mekender · Jul 4, 2009

imported post

Mike wrote:

mekender wrote:

so they denied you your right to have your attorney present at any and all points of questioning... and they questioned you while (according to them) you were legally intoxicated and thus incapable of understanding or waiving your rights...

the whole case should get tossed out...

Click to expand...

You have a cite to that rule? Never heard of it.

Miranda rights state that you have the right to have an attorney present at any and all points of questioning...

as for the "rule" i couldnt cite it, i have seen it argued in a petition for dismissal that was successful for a DWI... this is the same reason that when you go to court to plea, they first ask you if you are under the influence of any drugs or alcohol... if you are intoxicated, you are unable to comprehend the plea you make, and judges will not accept your plea...

same thing with waiving your rights... if you are under the influence, then by the very definition, your facilities are impaired and you are unable to make rational decisions... should any LEOs question you at the time, they have coerced you based on your impaired facilities...

just to be sure, i have emailed a law professor that i have talked with in the past about it... ill post the reply when i get it... here is what i asked:

if an officer questions a suspect that is under the influence, and thus incapable of understanding his miranda rights... are the statements made to the officer generally still admissible in court?

EDIT: to clarify, this is the exact argument that my former roommate's lawyer used in his successful dismissal for a DUI... though in some of my reading, it looks like it wouldn't apply to the breath test or blood test because Miranda only protects against self-incrimination...

Mike · Jul 5, 2009

imported post

mekender wrote:

Mike wrote:

mekender wrote:

so they denied you your right to have your attorney present at any and all points of questioning... and they questioned you while (according to them) you were legally intoxicated and thus incapable of understanding or waiving your rights...

the whole case should get tossed out...

Click to expand...

You have a cite to that rule? Never heard of it.

Click to expand...

Miranda rights state that you have the right to have an attorney present at any and all points of questioning...

Miranda warnings have nothing per se to do with the right to have an attorney present other than warning you that you have the right to be represented by an attorney; in fact, a Miranda warning is not required for pre-arrest non-custodial questioning - the police can talk to people and ask them quesitons generally without having to issue Miranda warnings; even absent a warning which is required, evidence obtained is not always suppressed if it would have been inevitably discovered anyway, e.g., gun in glove box as a result of custodial arrest of person inside vehicle or subsequent inventory of impounded vehicle.

mekender · Jul 5, 2009

imported post

ok, ill concede that i dont have a law degree in Miranda rights as to when a lawyer is required or not... BUT... the argument i saw work in court was that an intoxicated person was incapable of understanding his miranda rights, the same as a spanish speaker would be incapable if the warning was given in english... as my family lawyer has told me many times... dont ever refuse the breath test, we will just get it tossed out of court later anyways...

in the case above, it is a rather academic discussion... he wasnt driving per the legal definition, so he is under no obligation to concent to any sobreity tests...

American Patriot · Jul 5, 2009

imported post

NC DWI Information:

http://www.ncsu.edu/stud_affairs/legal_services/legaldocs/DWI.htm

Citizen · Jul 5, 2009

imported post

Mike wrote:

mekender wrote:

Mike wrote:

mekender wrote:

so they denied you your right to have your attorney present at any and all points of questioning... and they questioned you while (according to them) you were legally intoxicated and thus incapable of understanding or waiving your rights...

the whole case should get tossed out...

Click to expand...

You have a cite to that rule? Never heard of it.

Click to expand...

Miranda rights state that you have the right to have an attorney present at any and all points of questioning...

Click to expand...

Miranda warnings have nothing per se to do with the right to have an attorney present other than warning you that you have the right to be represented by an attorney; in fact, a Miranda warning is not required for pre-arrest non-custodial questioning - the police can talk to people and ask them quesitons generally without having to issue Miranda warnings; even absent a warning which is required, evidence obtained is not always suppressed if it would have been inevitably discovered anyway, e.g., gun in glove box as a result of custodial arrest of person inside vehicle or subsequent inventory of impounded vehicle.

Mike,

I went looking for the court cases when I noticed y'all starting this part of the conversation.

Just the plain language of Miranda,the first part anyway, would seem to also include detentions/seizures short of arrest. I guess the further definition of when the Miranda warnings must be given occur in later cases.

I've heard the gist of your post a number of times, but I've never actually read the cases and would like to read them.

Can you name any of those of the top of your head?

American Patriot · Jul 5, 2009

imported post

NC FIREARMLAWS

http://www.grnc.org/images/wa_2007NCFirearmsLawsPub.pdf

6. Going Armed To The Terror Of The People

[align=left]By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with[/align]
[align=left]any unusual and dangerous weapon, for the purpose of terrifying others, and go about on public[/align]
[align=left]highways in a manner to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun[/align]
[align=left]is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Therefore, persons are[/align]
cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.

PT111 · Jul 5, 2009

imported post

Mike wrote:

Mike wrote:

and a good lawyer will find a way to argue that the Defendant's permit is not revoked because either (1) he did not move permanently from SC and/or (2) he still has an interest in real property in SC.

Click to expand...

And (3), the lawyer should argue that the provision in SC law revoking the license for changing state citizenship is constitutionally void on its face as both (a) an unconstitutional violation of the right to travel under the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and (b) unconstitutional state citizenship discrimination underthe ArticleIV privileges and immunities clause.

Does this include such things as drivers license or license plates where you usually have a time period of 14-30 days after moving to another state to obtain a drivers license in that state. I take it by your ruling that if my SC drivers license does not expire for nine more years and I move to NC I do not have to obtain a NC drivers license until my SC license expires.

Redwolf · Jul 5, 2009

imported post

Doesn’t matter if his permit was valid or not, he was drunk and technically in possession of a concealed firearm. Being drunk voids your permit.

Mike · Jul 5, 2009

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Does this include such things as drivers license or license plates where you usually have a time period of 14-30 days after moving to another state to obtain a drivers license in that state. I take it by your ruling that if my SC drivers license does not expire for nine more years and I move to NC I do not have to obtain a NC drivers license until my SC license expires.

You changed the fact pattern beyond recognition.

To keep it parallel, suppose NC accepted other states DLs/plates even if you resided in SC and became a SC citizen. Now suppose that SC revokes your otherwise validly issued DL or plate merely because you are now a state citizen of NC.

You are then charged by NC police with driving without DL/plate b/c they appear to be revoked by operation of law (not by administrative action of the SC DMV).

Do you see? Then you could make an arguable parallell Art. IV P&E defense.

marshaul · Jul 5, 2009

imported post

bperciful wrote:

As much as I hated to do it because I disagree with alot of what they do, I contacted the NC chapter of the ACLU.

You shouldn't have done that. They're collectivists responsible for the holocaust and Stalin's purges. And they want to take your guns. Leftists are evil, and some other such.

Wait... wrong thread.

PT111 · Jul 5, 2009

imported post

Mike wrote:

PT111 wrote:

Does this include such things as drivers license or license plates where you usually have a time period of 14-30 days after moving to another state to obtain a drivers license in that state. I take it by your ruling that if my SC drivers license does not expire for nine more years and I move to NC I do not have to obtain a NC drivers license until my SC license expires.

Click to expand...

You changed the fact pattern beyond recognition.

To keep it parallel, suppose NC accepted other states DLs/plates even if you resided in SC and became a SC citizen. Now suppose that SC revokes your otherwise validly issued DL or plate merely because you are now a state citizen of NC.

You are then charged by NC police with driving without DL/plate b/c they appear to be revoked by operation of law (not by administrative action of the SC DMV).

Do you see? Then you could make an arguable parallell Art. IV P&E defense.

I am not following you at all on this. As my understanding if I move from SC to NC and extablish permanent residence there is a time limit of 30 days to get a NC crivers license due to NC law. If I do not then I can be charged with driving without a license. When I obtain my NC license then I must turn in my SC license which becomes revoked by SC. If after 30 days I do not obtain a NC license or fail to turn my SC license in I may get by with using it in both SC and other states unless they actually follow up on in. Either way after establishing permanent residence in NC I have 30 day to obtain a NC DL or I can be charged with driving without a license.

NC will accept a valid license and plate from any state as long as you have not extablished permanent residence there. NC will also accept a CWP from SC the same way.

I am not arguing about this at all but trying to understand why I d not need to get a NC license if I move there.

But none of this has anything to do with the original post and personally think that a heck of a lot of details were left out of the OP, infactalmost to the point that I think it was a fabrication.

Who should I call? (other than an attorney)

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Site Co-Founder

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Site Co-Founder

Site Co-Founder

Regular Member

Site Co-Founder

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Site Co-Founder

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member