# Drunk Driving (process and technicalities)



## Linda'O (15 Sep 2009)

I was stopped for regular check an a Garda breathilised me, i'm now being done for drunk driving! I know it sounds bad, I was stoped 6pm the next day and I was 35.5ml, so I was .5 over!! The address where the offence took place is wrong on the summons, up until what time can a Garada change the address?? I've already been to court twice


----------



## Guest116 (15 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

Did you do a full breath analysis at the station?


----------



## clonboy (15 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

that must of been some night? the night before


----------



## Linda'O (15 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

Yea did the one in the station came back 35.5, im wonderin can i get it struck out on the location r can the garda change it


----------



## Linda'O (15 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

yea was a good night alright, wedding


----------



## clonboy (15 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

its really hard luck , ur just on the limit, i think the day of looking for a flaw with address being wrong is gone, so iwas told in my case anyhow,

i would get a solicitor to plead your case, time of day, wedding , etc and the fact that you were just borderline, the sooner you face the music the better ,


----------



## Linda'O (15 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

its still 3 years off the road???


----------



## so-crates (15 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

Trying to find a link to it but a person was convicted of drink-driving in Carlow with a reading of 36. I recall a fine, I can't remember if there was a ban, can't find an online link to it though. I think though it is time to face up to it.


----------



## SparkRite (15 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

That is VERY hard luck Linda'O.

And before the "moral police" (who frequent this forum in abundance) berate me for the above statement, I KNOW she was over the limit and I do NOT in any way condone or excuse DD, but nevertheless "let he who is without sin......" and all that.

In the UK generally nobody is charged with a reading coming in under 40mg and I am very surprised that the Guard and especially the DPP (who has the authority NOT to) decided to proceed with the charge and subsequent summons. Did you by any chance give the guard lip/grief?

I assume you are instructing a solicitor. I would suspect the address ,where the alledged offence took place, being wrong,may be amended by the judge or deemed to be non-prejudicial. Either way of no use to you.

If you are convicted,the judge's hands are tied, in that he/she has to give a fine and a ban. For that level of alcohol it is a ONE year ban (assuming this is your first DD offence).

One other thing, what was the reading for the second breath sample on the intoxilyzer?

Good luck, make sure you have a GOOD solicitor.


----------



## peteb (15 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

Once it goes to a breathalyzer machine, they have to proceed with it.  They wont strike it out for the wrong address. And unless you get found not guilty on a technicality, you will be banned.


----------



## chrisboy (15 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

Interesting points there N17..


----------



## mathepac (15 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

a touch of the deja vu all over again though.


----------



## pebbledash (16 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

Why should posters be labelled the moral police for pointing out that it's wrong to be over the limit here? Any time someone asks for info on how to avoid paying a tax here they're told it's a no go. Why should this be allowed?

The OP was caught at 6pm. Did they really not drive their car before 6pm? If they did and they were caught earlier they'd be even more over. Only saying 'IF'. I'd like to see more people get caught for being over the limit the next day, people don't take it seriously enough.


----------



## SparkRite (16 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*



pebbledash said:


> Why should posters be labelled the moral police for pointing out that it's wrong to be over the limit here?


 

Pebbledash, can you *honestly* not see why ??

The OP was not asking the rights and wrongs of her actions, and I can only assume that she knows, only too well, that NOBODY should drive over the limit. Indeed if you read my first post you will see that I neither condone or excuse such behaviour either. However I do NOT sit in judgement of her and tell her "You're a bold girl, you did a bad thing, tut tut,......." etc.




> Any time someone asks for info on how to avoid paying a tax here they're told it's a no go. Why should this be allowed?


 
I'll tell you why it should be allowed.

To seek and receive advice on how to avoid paying tax is perfectly legitimate and indeed is big business in this country.

To seek and receive advice on how to avoid a DD conviction is also perfectly legitimate and is also big business in this country.




> I'd like to see more people get caught for being over the limit the next day


 
Would you REALLY, well I'd like to see LESS people get caught for being over the limit, NOT because they avoided detection but rather that they showed the due respect that the DD laws deserve and drank less the night before !!


----------



## Linda'O (16 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

By no means am I saying I was right, I disagree with dds, however when i drove I did not believe I was over the limit, THANK GOD I didn't hurt somebody, however as a natural reaction I would like to defend myself in the hopes that I may keep my job as without transport it would not be possible, thank you everyone for the advice


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

Folks

Please don't respond to grossly offensive posts such as the ones from nseventeen. 

This only creates additional work for the moderators. 

Ignore the posts or report the posts and they will be deal with.

I have deleted all nseventeen's posts and the posts quoting them.

Thanks

Brendan


----------



## jhegarty (16 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

Back on topic.

Op , I really think you need a solicitor to advise on such a serious matter. If you are convicted the ban is automatic , the judge has no leeway. 

Have you checked if the machine used in the station has a margin of error ?


----------



## SparkRite (16 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*



jhegarty said:


> Back on topic.
> 
> Op , I really think you need a solicitor to advise on such a serious matter. If you are convicted the ban is automatic , the judge has no leeway.
> 
> Have you checked if the machine used in the station has a margin of error ?


 
Absolutly Jhegarty, it is imperative that Linda'o instructs a solicitor to represent her in court, as per my earlier post.

Dependeing on the model of intoxilyzer used they automatically downgrade the level of alcohol detected by between 17 - 20%.

Of the two breath samples taken the one with the lower reading is submitted as evidence.

That is why I was interested to know what the other sample registered, but purely out of interest.


----------



## galway. (16 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

there is no way out , the machines are regulary tested and is gives a humidity test . if the hunidity is above or below a certain level it cant function.
sexondly its only my opinion now so dont slate me, the linit it 35 for breath 107 for urine and 1oo for blood these are the limits, if peolpe are let off for just being over the linits will get higher,
a guard rank once arrested someone can not use discression due to the breathalizer registering the result, same for blood and urine the results are sent for analysis.


----------



## Pique318 (17 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*



Martin Berg said:


> Who else thinks Martin Berg is ridiculous and should be ignored ?



I do !!


----------



## TheBlock (17 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

I thought the breathalizer took two samples but used the lower one minus 20% margin for error. So in effect you blew a result 42 but it's lowered to 35.5. I think the judge will give you a year and a fine commensurate with your means. He may give a two year and 1 day ban which allows you to apply for your license back after 1 year.


----------



## galway. (18 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

new laws came in not so long ago , ill look them up , as far as i know its now 2/3 of the ban off the road and min is 2 or three years ban. ill look them up tho.


----------



## Sylvester3 (18 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

How are people with EU driving licences handled when it comes to drink driving? I believe they still don't have a system to apply points for speeding and other more minor traffic offences to foreign licences so it made me wonder. Its a very serious offence so they must have some cross-border mechanism to remove the motorists licence, surely?


----------



## galway. (18 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

your right, there is no system of points on an non irish licence, they only receive a fine. 
if put off the road for drunk driving tho there are banned, the license may not be endorsed but they are disqualified from drining in ireland. 
if you are disqualified up north it does not effect you here yet.


----------



## Sylvester3 (18 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*



galway. said:


> your right, there is no system of points on an non irish licence, they only receive a fine.
> if put off the road for drunk driving tho there are banned, the license may not be endorsed but they are disqualified from drining in ireland.
> if you are disqualified up north it does not effect you here yet.



This may be going off-topic so I hope I don't get castigated for asking this, but how do they stop you from driving in Ireland if they can't take your foreign licence off you? Is it just a matter of a record on a central computer that stops you getting any insurance or do the courts hope you will abide by their ruling? I'm just curious as it appears that foreign licences are currently in a legal black hole - you can drive in Ireland with one and they can't be taken off you by the Irish authorities.


----------



## galway. (18 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

no they cant be taken off as there not an irish document, they can fool the insurance companies, but when they live local guards know them and check the computer and see they are previously off the road for drunk driving, all though they produce insurance its null and void due to being off the road so hence prosecuted for no insurance too


----------



## sparkeee (24 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

The wrong address is a technicality and it can be struck off for this.


----------



## mercman (24 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

I think you will find that for such a serious matter as Drunk Driving, the technicality route so longer has a role to play.


----------



## SparkRite (24 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*



sparkeee said:


> The wrong address is a technicality and it can be struck off for this.


 

Agree with Mercman, not usual anymore, as per my earlier post.........




			
				Sparkrite said:
			
		

> I would suspect the address ,where the alledged offence took place, being wrong, may be amended by the judge or deemed to be non-prejudicial. Either way of no use to you.


----------



## demoivre (24 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*



mercman said:


> I think you will find that for such a serious matter as Drunk Driving, the technicality route so longer has a role to play.



It does.


----------



## sparkeee (24 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

it is a legal requirement for all the details given under oath by the officer to be absolutely correct,if not it can be struck out.


----------



## SparkRite (24 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*



sparkeee said:


> it is a legal requirement for all the details given under oath by the officer to be absolutely correct,if not it can be struck out.


 
Your absolutly right Sparkee in so far as your above statment goes.
However in the real world such trivial matters as wrong addresses or suchlike no longer hold any substance in a district court.

There are loads of "*technicalities* " that can be put forward but nowadays they have to be valid and I mean VERY valid (in so far as to be *prejudicial*) before a judge will allow them to be taken into consideration.

And a wrong address where the alledged offence took place is NOT one of them.


----------



## demoivre (25 Sep 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*



> Originally Posted by *SparkRite*
> And a wrong address where the alledged offence took place is NOT one of them.



Really?


----------



## sparkeee (4 Oct 2009)

*Re: Drunk Driving*

i recently had a traffic offence struck out in court after the gard gave the wrong street address under oath.


----------

