Rant....

[rwsmith]

I have an old friend who has polio and epilepsy. He bashed a car in a parking lot, then went out on the road where he hit a few people and rolled down the road a ways. He blew a zero on the breathalyzer. He agreed that they could take blood, they tried twice and failed. He didn't remember anything about the accident, which is typical for a seizure. They charged him with several 'crimes' (and leaving the scene of the accident because his car rolled down the street) and one of the officers said, "He looked like he was on something." and kept him overnight.

He had to have a court appointed lawyer (he lives on a disability check) and went to court today. In spite of his history of epilepsy (he had lost his license before) the judge charged him with driving under the influence and fined him $900. This because an officer said he 'looked like he was on something." He had to use the insurance money he got from his car to pay the fine. There's no telling how this will affect his insurance. Needless to say, he can't afford to get a car and won't be driving for a long time. He lives by himself and has no one else to rely on to get him around. I feel like they found him guilty and fined him just to pay for the lawyer and court cost. I'll stop the rant but finish with saying he lives in a 'good ole boy' mountain town in NC.

 

[Jessie]

Sounds like he needs to seek a re trial based on incompetent representation. How did they get a conviction of being under the influence with no evidence?

 

[Jinglebob]

The DUI charge has to be trumped up. If a citizen can be found guilty only on the word of a LEO, without any substantiating evidence, then we’re all in trouble. Unfortunately it’s going to take a good lawyer to set this right and good lawyers cost money.

 

[2hawk]

A history of seizures is an automatic "lose your license, don't ever drive again" in every state as far as I know. While the state may not have made a good case for the presence of intoxicants in his system, the law may allow a lot of weight for the arresting officers' professional observation as to whether or not the driver is impaired.



I feel sorry for your friend, but it sounds to me like he should not be on the road at all. Nor should he be in the future.

ETA IANAL, just my take. But someone who is danger to themselves and others when operating a vehicle should not be driving.
Period.

 

[Fishslayer]

A history of seizures is an automatic "lose your license, don't ever drive again" in every state as far as I know.

License can be reinstated if a doctor will sign off on it in Kalifornistan.

Not a good idea IMO. There are a number of different types of seizures. Some of them can easily go unnoticed. Meds for seizure disorders can stop working and can need occasional changes. The patient can have absolutely no recollection of a seizure and will usually deny vehemently that anything at all happened even when told of it by several people.

 

[GaryS]

A history of seizures is an automatic "lose your license, don't ever drive again" in every state as far as I know.

Incorrect. At least in MA, you have to be seizure free for a specified period of time before you can have your license reinstated. A niece in TX had a seizure several years ago, but has her license.

So that's two states where is is not a life time prohibitor.

 

[LVSteve]

Depending on the law in SC, the judge may have been doing him a favour. If the repeated seizures means "licence withdrawn until seizure free for 2 years" like other places I know, then the DUI may actually be his only way of staying on the road if he has the money. JMHO.

 

[2hawk]

I stand corrected. I should have said "an ongoing medical problem resulting in seizures." I have known a couple of people that started getting seizures in their mid-30s, and weren't able to get a clear diagnosis of the problem. After the second time each of them was told by their doctors that driving was no longer an option, until they had a handle on the issue and they were seizure free for at least a year.

So, ongoing seizures = no DL.

Sorry for the thread drift.

 

[rwsmith]

I see your point but....

A history of seizures is an automatic "lose your license, don't ever drive again" in every state as far as I know. While the state may not have made a good case for the presence of intoxicants in his system, the law may allow a lot of weight for the arresting officers' professional observation as to whether or not the driver is impaired.



I feel sorry for your friend, but it sounds to me like he should not be on the road at all. Nor should he be in the future.

ETA IANAL, just my take. But someone who is danger to themselves and others when operating a vehicle should not be driving.
Period.

Around here people lose their licenses 6 months to a year IF they don't have a seizure. We KNEW that he was going to lose his license as a result of this and he had accepted that, but had no idea about being guilty of DUI for 'looking like he was under the influence' thing and the $900 fine.

It just seems that in this country now you are guilty until proven innocent. It doesn't seem right that a disabled person that is on the edge of poverty gets punished extensively for having a seizure. He's 59 years old and has no history of substance abuse at all and has no record of any kind. Like I said before, I think they were planning on making him pay for the lawyer and trial costs.

 

[cussedemgun]

Just goes to show -

The DUI charge has to be trumped up. If a citizen can be found guilty only on the word of a LEO, without any substantiating evidence, then we’re all in trouble. Unfortunately it’s going to take a good lawyer to set this right and good lawyers cost money.

We have the best legal system 'money can buy',

& you are ALWAYS innocent 'till proven broke.

 

[rojodiablo]

Drunk, high, or mentally defective, he should not be on the road if he had not got control of his faculties.

If he has had seizures previously, and does not understand them and does not have a clear control over them, then he is asking for trouble operating a 3000lb+ machine.

As to the DUI charge; there are enough intoxicants out there that leave very little to no trace that an officer can only go by what he has. If a person crashes a car, remembers nothing about it, and shows symptoms of being erratic, and likely unable to pass a field sobriety test, has the crazy eyes going, etc...... maybe they were roofied, or ate mushrooms, or were on LSD. None of these shows up easily in a test. LSD can be found, but it's usually well after the fact if the body is metabolizing it; ie you find it in hair and fat cells. Pulling fat is not as simple as a breathalyzer test unfortunately.
Mushrooms take advanced toxicology to find. Very difficult in some cases to ever find. Rohipnol tends to be impossible to find unless you are actively under the influence; then at that moment they can use some tests to trace it out. If you were drugged 3-4 hrs previous? They can tell that you were drugged, but can not pin the drug itself..... it's gone.

Maybe talk to him about taking better care to keep himself and others safe from his medical condition. It's not his fault...... but it's still his responsibility to get it under control, or avoid that kind of situation. I wish you both luck!

 

[rog8732]

rw, you are right to stand by your friend. (old friend)

May I point out another direction?.... I have an old friend, near penniless at the time, that let his visiting, college nephew borrow his old auto to meet up with some home town buddies at their local hangout. The nephew parked correctly with all the other cars, but just happened to be eight feet of grass and a six inch high curb away from a 35 mph street.

Later that evening with a crash and boom the old friend's car was badly wrecked. The person who ran out of the street and wrecked the car, said he "blacked out", and did not know what happened.
In court he said the black out had never happened before, and was found not guilty.

My friends insurer told him the person that caused the wreck was "not guilty", so, did not pay any of the $1400.00 body shop charges.

My friend contacted the black-out fellow, was told "sorry for your loss",and was left to pay the body shop, could not afford to pay a lawyer to help out, ( who were they to bring suit against) and aside from changing insurers he had no other recourse.

My friend, not the grumbling type, said he just felt lucky his nephew was not at the car when it happened. Far as I know, black-out is driving where ever he wants to, when he wants to.

 

[Beemerguy53]

RWSmith, I feel sorry for your friend. I hope he appeals what was probably an unjust conviction.

I feel sorrier for the people he hit. (And I thank the Lord he didn't kill anybody.) What a shame they can't "appeal" the accident he caused and the damage he did to their vehicles...

 

[O2Guy]

Sounds like he shouldn't be driving at all. Those people that hit would most likely agree.

 

[quneur]

I thought polio died out in the Western hemisphere. Anyway, he could have meant 'he hit a few other cars...'

He should have contested the ticket and bring along a lawyer with him. It may be moot but I wouldn't recommend driving until he gets a handle on those seizures. There are resources for the disabled unable to drive. A state part-time nurse to check in on him every couple of days and to make sure there's groceries. Here in WA, there's a program called medical taxi which will drive you to doctor's appointments and is paid by the state.Other resources he may look into are at his local church.

Is there a general store withing biking distance? Biking is a good way to get around and get exercise. Or a small moped which in some states don't require a motorcycle endorsement.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Sounds like your friend affected a lot of people that day.

Maybe he needs to join a church or other organization and make some friends who will help him get around rather than continue to endanger the lives of others. Since he has no car now, he has no choice but to make such arrangements anyway.

 

[Boox]

Sorry, no sympathy from me, your friend has a history of seizures, prior loss of driving privilege as a result, "hit a few cars, injured a few people" but lives in a "good ole boy" town...So what? Is he exempt from laws? Is he so wonderful that he should be excused for violating the law? Don't think so...he probably pulls his pants on one leg at a time, just like you and I do, as do most of us and he rates NO special privilege from me, or from society. He should have his license to drive REVOKED and be barred from owning a motor vehicle. Plus he should be held liable for all the injuries and damages incurred. Just my humble opinion

 

[Brian41]

It would be nice if people gave up their keys when they could no longer safely drive as my Dad and sister-in-law did. When that doesn't happen it takes the family, friends or law to get involved. Maybe it's time you sat down with your friend and talk with him about giving up his driving before the law needs to do so. You may just be saving his or other's lives to do so.
Maybe a DUI wasn't the correct charge and not having your vehicle under control or similar would have been more correct. Still your friend was at fault and should have had to pay the consequences for his actions especially with his past history.
My brother-in-law has lost his license and is handicapped. He gets around with his father's help and the Your Ride here. Yes it makes life more difficult but one needs to do what is right.

 

[gdnagle]

Drunk, drugs, medical condition, reckless driving or just falling asleep is no reason to possibly kill someone. "In spite of his history of epilepsy (he had lost his license before)" maybe he should reconsider his driving ability until it is controlled before he kills himself or some innocent person or persons. The majority of epileptic seizures can be controlled by medication, is he taking them or maybe he forgot to take them that day. A " 'good ole boy' mountain town in NC" is usually small and everyone knows everyone so maybe he has a problem with local LE. If facts are correct it does sound like he got a bum rap because he blew a zero and it wasn't his fault they couldn't get his blood even though he allowed them to take it for just a accident without PI.

Personally I'm old and like to drive but if it gets to the point I'm a danger to myself or someone else I will stop driving.

We have the best legal system 'money can buy',

& you are ALWAYS innocent 'till proven broke.

I thought that was "We have the best legal system 'money can buy',

& you are ALWAYS GUILTY 'till proven broke

I thought polio died out in the Western hemisphere.

I've read where Polio is making a comeback along with Diphtheria. Measles. Whooping cough.

Sounds like your friend affected a lot of people that day.

Maybe he needs to join a church or other organization and make some friends who will help him get around rather than continue to endanger the lives of others. Since he has no car now, he has no choice but to make such arrangements anyway.

Sound advice Phil, our church helps their member all the time and if you need transportation there is always someone there to help. It's small not many members, but most all are willing to help each other in any way they need help.

 

[sqhead]

maybe a bicycle/tricycle would work for him.

 

[wbraswell]

I think some of you need to go back and read the OP and #9. I don't see anything saying he had a history of having a bad driving record or having a seizure while behind the wheel. I personally know a man with epilepsy, who has been driving for 45 years with no episodes of seizures while driving. Yes, it's sad for all those involved in this situation, hopefully those injured are not seriously. But, for this man, without a record, to be charged with crimes and convicted, is a miscarriage of justice, and a travesty. How well do you think a person, almost 60, with polio, can handle a bike or a scooter?

 

[williamlayton]

Most of us don't have any excuse for how poorly we drive sometimes.
I might want to be on the road with him rather than someone who is eating and driveing---at least he was trying to drive.
Blessings

 

[dougb1946]

I don't know your friend or you, so I have no dog in this fight.

You may want to see a transcript of what actually happened in court. There are generally 3 versions of every event. In this case, it would be 1)your friends, 2) the cops, 3) what actually happened. People see things differently and recollections vary depending on who they are, where they are, and how involved they are.

If your friend has uncontrolled epilepsy, he is dangerous with a car and could easily kill a few people.

 

[cussedemgun]

I wonder if we have'nt missed the OP's whole point

Seems to me as a layman of the whole legal process:

In the case outlined by the OP, justice was NOT just. The driver was charged & convicted of a criminal offense he did NOT commit!

YAH, BUT - many are quick to point out that he must of been guilty of something to have crashed. Did they come to the conclusion of guilt by decision of a jury, or by jumping to a conclusion of their own?

End result is in the court's hurry to see their fine chest (more unlevied taxes) is well funded, the man is out hard cash that would benefit the general public more if spent on that individual's proper diagnosis & care.

If the day ever comes when a person is automatically guilty as charged without due process just because of a physical limit or handicap, or such condition as light on funds, that will be the day this country won't be worth living in any longer.

 

[snubbyfan]

My wife's a home health care aid. She has a client with MS. His wife takes care of him and their spina bifida child. They live in a trailer and live off his disability check. They can't afford a car.
Part of a home health care aids duty is to drive them to the store, doctors visits and other places along with taking care of the client and doing stuff around the house that needs doin'.
If your friend's on Medicaid or Medicare he may just qualify for a home health care aid himself.
I agree with the others, if he's having seizures he shouldn't be driving.
With my neuropathy, I don't like driving my wife's dinky little Yaris more than 10 miles by myself. I get leg cramps and fatigue. I choose to have my wife take over.
My truck has room for me to stretch out so it's easier and more comfortable for me to drive and get in and out of.
However, the Yaris gets 40mpg and on a good day I can get maybe 25mpg out of the truck and since most everyplace out here's a road trip, it's more economical to take the Yaris.
One of my fears is that if I'm pulled over and accused of driving under the influence there's no way I can pass a field sobriety test. According to my neurolgist I'm not supposed to be able to walk but I spent most of last year relearning to walk with the muscles that still work. I still kinda sway and stumble a bit. There's no way I could walk a heel-toe straight line.

 

[Rick Bowles]

Sounds like he shouldn't be driving at all. Those people that hit would most likely agree.

+1 Sorry for your friend but we play the hand we're dealt.

 

[timn8er]

You know, I've wondered kind of the same thing myself. I have a cane, but generally don't need it except for "bad" days, but walk normally? No way. If I were given a field sobriety test, they would probably leap to the same conclusion with me because of my iffy balance at times. Just a little scary!

 

[Autococker07]

I don't have an opinion on the crash or whether the gentleman should continue driving. That is his business.

I do however find it bothersome that a evidence free DUI conviction can be levied to a citizen with no prior drug/alcohol record who has a condition that causes side effects that can look like being high. It seems the judge (or better yet the officer) should have reaserched seizures and the aftermath of them.... its not hard to find out that they typically make the people that suffer them extremely tired and woozy.... hence looking "under the influence".

Now understand.... I am full on behind a careless/reckless citation depending on the FACTS in the case.... that is a given.... but saddling a man with DUI when he did not commit the crime is simply unjust.

How many of you would stand getting a DUI if you did not do the crime??

I wonder if a personal injury type lawyer may be interested in a suit pro bono? Either way, I wish the gentleman the best.... I sure hope something can be done to clear his name of the DUI.

 

[CO_Kid]

You know, I've wondered kind of the same thing myself. I have a cane, but generally don't need it except for "bad" days, but walk normally? No way. If I were given a field sobriety test, they would probably leap to the same conclusion with me because of my iffy balance at times. Just a little scary!

Only if the officer is extremely bad at observing signs of impairment. The initial contact determines whether or not field sobriety tests are even needed. The odor of an alcoholic beverage, bloodshot watery eyes (for alcohol) or dialated/constricted pupils, the "look" of the eyes (vacant, unable to focus, etc), slurred and/or slow speech, slow movements, handing the officer a shopping card instead of your license, inability to judge time, inability to remember details, inability to stand under their own power or staggering when they walk. These are the behaviors that lead to field sobriety tests. And in NHTSA's standardized field sobriety test tests for HGN in the eyes, then the walk and turn, then the one leg stand.

So in determining DUI, your balance in walking a straight line or standing on one foot is literally the last thing an officer would try to observe. And without displaying a number of the behaviors I listed above, you would never get to the field sobriety portion of the meeting.

 

[2hawk]

RW, I didn't mean to sound harsh about your friend's situation. I agree it was wrong that he was convicted of DUI. My fear for him is that if he re-opens this issue with the court, he may find himself in just as much trouble for driving with an unmanaged medical condition.

There was a case here recently where a man had a seizure while driving, ran off the road and killed a little girl playing in her yard. He was not charged or held responsible until it came to light that he had previously had a serious accident due to a seizure, and was very careless in the management of his condition. When this became known he was charged with manslaughter, and has since pleaded guilty to criminal negligence homicide.
Story here: Case re-opened: Man faces manslaughter for crash that killed girl | kgw.com Portland

Just wouldn't want to see your friend go from the frying pan to the fire.