OHTA.ca

I'm helping out an acquaintance her story goes like this.

She was intoxicated and insisted to drive, her bf prevented her and used his car to block her off. She then reversed in to his car and caused some damages. Her bf called the cops but by the time the cops came, she's already inside the house. She answered the door and the officers tried to make her admit if she was in the car, she said no but the officer arrested her as they believe she's lying. She spend a night in jail and impounded her car.

Please not all this incident happened on their private driveway. Its an actual detached house, not a condo or townhouse.

My question is how can they charge her a DUI, they have no proof that she was in the car and she didnt admit to it as she's already inside the house when the cops came. Although her bf's story seems to be more in favor as they can see the damages on both cars but that could have happened before or some time ago.

Any suggestion or opinion will be appreciate.

I''ve read the following Criminal Code:

253. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,

(a) while the persons ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or

(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the persons blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.

** "Care or control on a motor vehicle.. whether in motion or not.".. doesnt really apply to her as she was in side the house when the cops came. ** right?

BC280 wrote:...they have no proof that she was in the car...

They have her boyfriend's statement/testimony.

CliffClaven wrote:

BC280 wrote:...they have no proof that she was in the car...

They have her boyfriend's statement/testimony.

Indeed. But she didn't admit to it which means its words vs words. The damages could have happened before. The story can be twisted like they got into a fight earlier on the day and she was leaving she didnt notice his car and reversed into it. They kissed and make up and agreed to settle the damages on their own. Later on the day they started drinking and got into a heated argument and he decided to called the cops and twist the story that she caused the damages while trying to drive her car out of the driveway intoxicated.

This could be a story she can use to explain what really happened that night. It will be words vs words as the cops didnt catch her inside the car.

Im wondering as well, her trial date is set for next month. But i read some blog that they got 10days to appeal from the date they got arrested. is that true?

Criminal matters are generally not dealt with on this forum. I would strongly suggest that your friend contact legal counsel.

Decatur wrote:Criminal matters are generally not dealt with on this forum. I would strongly suggest that your friend contact legal counsel.

obviously.. i'm just trying to get an idea and people's opinion that might have experienced similar issue. im not expecting to get the issue resolved here as its obviously not a court room...

its always good to have somewhat knowledge before going to a lawyer blind folded and just accept whatever they say and look dumb.

As long as someone can place her behind the wheel is all that's needed and the do not have to catch her in the car.

It does not matter that it was on private property.

OPS

OPS Copper wrote:As long as someone can place her behind the wheel is all that's needed and the do not have to catch her in the car.

It does not matter that it was on private property.

OPS

what do you mean 'as long as someone can place her behind the wheel'? She was inside the house when they cops came and her car in the drive way. She didnt drive nor left her house.

BC280 wrote:

OPS Copper wrote:As long as someone can place her behind the wheel is all that's needed and the do not have to catch her in the car.

It does not matter that it was on private property.

OPS

what do you mean 'as long as someone can place her behind the wheel'? She was inside the house when they cops came and her car in the drive way. She didnt drive nor left her house.

As an example: If the person is not driving (when the cop shows) but the person is in an enclosed space, how

could the cop prove when the drinks were taken?

As to vehicle not usable:

If it is disabled / charge will not stick either/

In her case unless there is a wittiness that can attest that she was over .08 /legal council will be a great help.

Cheers

Viper1

Well how is the crown going to prove that She didn't start drinking afterwards? For all they know she was not drunk at the time, but had a bitter bf who wouldn't let her Leave and then she went back into the house and started drinking then?

OPS Copper wrote:As long as someone can place her behind the wheel is all that's needed and the do not have to catch her in the car.

It does not matter that it was on private property.

OPS

Also, don't you need to have the keys on you, not necessarily in the ignition AND provide or refuse a breath sample to be charged with a DUI? I don't see how someones word can charge someone with a DUI, if so a half decent Lawyer will probably get it off. The Crown needs to Prove that someone is actually under the influence while driving at the time don't they?

Considering how the OP is just an "acquaintance" and was probably not there, it doesn't appear we have enough details to be of any help. As I posted earlier, the charged person should be seeking legal counsel right away.

Decatur wrote:Considering how the OP is just an "acquaintance" and was probably not there, it doesn't appear we have enough details to be of any help. As I posted earlier, the charged person should be seeking legal counsel right away.

You are correct.

I was in court when a defendant told the court that the spark plug wires had been removed.

The judge told him to not plead guilty.(after doing so)

The case was withdrawn.

Cheers

Viper1

BC280 wrote:My question is how can they charge her a DUI, they have no proof that she was in the car and she didnt admit to it as she's already inside the house when the cops came. Although her bf's story seems to be more in favor as they can see the damages on both cars but that could have happened before or some time ago.

The damage is consistent with her boyfriend's statement. The officers don't have to witness it themselves, nor do they actually have to catch the driver in the car in order to charge her with impaired driving. The officers don't require proof beyond a shadow of a doubt to lay a charge. They likely looked at the vehicles and concluded that her bf was telling the truth.

The police don't have to catch you "in the act."

admin wrote: Also, don't you need to have the keys on you, not necessarily in the ignition AND provide or refuse a breath sample to be charged with a DUI? I don't see how someones word can charge someone with a DUI, if so a half decent Lawyer will probably get it off.

No. There only needs to be reasonable grounds that the person drove a vehicle while impaired, which, in this case, there was. It wasn't just the guy's word; there was also damage to both vehicles.

viper1 wrote:In her case unless there is a wittiness that can attest that she was over .08

Witnesses do not need to know the specific BAC of the driver. They only need to know that the driver appeared to be impaired, which, her bf said she was. Driving with a BAC in excess of .08 and Impaired Driving are two different charges.

This case is not going to be easily withdrawn.