Alcohol & Drugs: DUI, DWI ruling: not guilty of impairment to the slightest degree but guilty of .08 or greater

[wardlect]

Two years ago almost to the day, i was pulled over for speeding and was eventually charged with being impared to the slightest degree and having a BAC of .08 or more. My blood was taken while seated in the back seat of a cop car on the side of a highway, which was under construction at the time. Through the long court process, i was eventually found not guilty of the "impared to the slightest degree," charge and guilty of having a BAC of .08 or higher and the speeding ticket was dismissed. Can someone please tell me how i can be guilty of having a BAC of .08 or higher without the imparement charge? Also, dont the need a guilty verdict on the imparement charge as well as the speeding ticket for reasonable search? In other words, why would they have the right to draw my blood if i was found not guilty of imparement and the speeding was dismissed (as if it never happened), dont they need those two to have the third sitck?

Thank you

 

[army judge]

Two years ago almost to the day, i was pulled over for speeding and was eventually charged with being impared to the slightest degree and having a BAC of .08 or more. My blood was taken while seated in the back seat of a cop car on the side of a highway, which was under construction at the time. Through the long court process, i was eventually found not guilty of the "impared to the slightest degree," charge and guilty of having a BAC of .08 or higher and the speeding ticket was dismissed. Can someone please tell me how i can be guilty of having a BAC of .08 or higher without the imparement charge? Also, dont the need a guilty verdict on the imparement charge as well as the speeding ticket for reasonable search? In other words, why would they have the right to draw my blood if i was found not guilty of imparement and the speeding was dismissed (as if it never happened), dont they need those two to have the third sitck?

Thank you

I'm guessing, without having all the facts of your case.

But, impaired is the lesser and included offense of DUI/DWI charges.

Ask your lawyer or the prosecutor.

They are generally happy to explain the legal rulings in a case.

 

[CdwJava]

As you were told, being impaired is the lesser included offense. Plus, if you have a BAC of .08 or above the state has proven - by virtue of the per se law - that you ARE impaired. The legal presumption is that you are impaired with a BAC of .08 or greater. It may well be that they could not convict you on both of those counts, only one.

 

[mightymoose]

Can someone please tell me how i can be guilty of having a BAC of .08 or higher without the imparement charge? Also, dont the need a guilty verdict on the imparement charge as well as the speeding ticket for reasonable search? In other words, why would they have the right to draw my blood if i was found not guilty of imparement and the speeding was dismissed (as if it never happened), dont they need those two to have the third sitck?

Think about what you are saying- court comes long after the search is conducted. At the time you were stopped it appears the officer likely did have probable cause to justify the blood draw. having a charge tossed later does not negate the probable cause at the time of the incident.
You can still be found guilty of having a BAC over .08 because they obviously tested the blood and got hard evidence that proves exactly that.
It is illegal to be driving while over .08. Some people are not effected the same by alcohol, and it is possible that although you were over .08 you were not showing signs of impairment that other people might if at the same BAC level. Though you got around the impairment charge, your BAC is still over the legal limit.
On the same note- it is also possible to be under .08 and be showing obvious signs of impairment and still be arrested. Even if the results come back under .08 a person can still be busted due to the obvious signs of impairment the officer observed at the time of the stop. This applies to other drugs besides alcohol too, which obviously wouldn't raise the BAC, and a DUI charge can still stick.
TO answer your question though, NO they do not need a guilty verdict in order for the search to be justified. The justification of a search/blood draw is entirely based upon the observations of the officer at the time, and possibly by statements made by you at the time. You could have a situation where a judge rules that the officer acted unreasonably and should not have conducted a search/seizure, however that is very different from what you are asking here.