DUI/Traffic question

[tutt101]

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!

[madchiken]

If they are hitting the line, chances are they are weaving back and forth. You can make the arguement, that while the vehicle did not go left of center you recognized the driving pattern as being consistent with past DUI's you have encountered.

No reason to wait for them to cross into oncoming traffic...

[tutt101]

No reason to wait for them to cross into oncoming traffic...

You obviously don't work in St. Clair County!

[NARC01]

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 would have to say that sounds like improper lane usage...Indicative of someone who is DUI...I used that argument in court based on my training and experience.

[Jail Guard7160]

Do you have a video camera in your car?

If not then the vehicle did cross the line and almost caused an accident.

[ISPCAPT]

You don't have to have a rebuttal. That's the ASA's job to provide rebuttal to the defense. You just testify to what you saw and did. Leave the rebuttal to the attorneys.

[Jiggets]

Remember, p/c does not have to be met when your doing an investigative stop. Weaving without crossing the line can mean the driver or the vehicle is doing a number of things, including driving under the influence. I usually wait for an IVC violation, if he is weaving, he'll eventually cross it. If I can't get one, I'll use weaving, and write a w/w for it. Thats bs if your county will not take that...its called doing your damn job and keeping the roads safe.

[tutt101]

Thats bs if your county will not take that...its called doing your damn job and keeping the roads safe.

It is BS! This county is notorious for doing whatever it can to not prosecute someone. It’s really annoying.

And I kind of do need a rebuttal, the S.A. won’t! They don’t even know that it’s a felony now for a DUI to not have a valid license and/or insurance. I just sent one up that was combative to the point I could not even finish the Warning to Motorist, and it was on tape. They declined saying that there was “not enough evidence to show he was suspended for DUI. In this state” Well, he wasn’t. He was suspended out of state for other reasons, and he had no insurance, but that’s how they got out of it. “Issue the NTC’s.”

[509mm]

wow after reading this im glad in work in FL, where they pretty tough with DUI and traffic offenses. your prosecutors need to grow a set and step up to the plate. the legal system there sounds F***ed up like a football bat.