I have recently had a couple of DUI challenges focus on claiming that the defendant only struck the line and did not cross it. According to the defense this means that the defendant stayed within his lane and so I did not have PC
I have so far been unable to find any legal definition saying that the lane in inside the lines and does not include the lines.
Other than the obvious general argument of, “2 cars in opposite directions touching the line = bad deal with no fault,†and the possible new argument that stems from the appellate court saying you don’t actually have to have a violation to stop and investigate a DUI, I can’t find any solid legal rebuttal. Any ideas?
P.S. I’m in St. Clair County so I need a good argument!
I have so far been unable to find any legal definition saying that the lane in inside the lines and does not include the lines.
Other than the obvious general argument of, “2 cars in opposite directions touching the line = bad deal with no fault,†and the possible new argument that stems from the appellate court saying you don’t actually have to have a violation to stop and investigate a DUI, I can’t find any solid legal rebuttal. Any ideas?
P.S. I’m in St. Clair County so I need a good argument!
Comment