Morality of DUI-specialty lawyers

[Darth Wong]

Yes, there are lawyers who specialize in helping drunk drivers get off. Here's an example of one such institution:

http://www.impaireddriving.ca/

Among their other specialties is helping guys get off if they've blown over .08 blood alcohol on a breathalyzer. Let's look at an example of some of the tactics they'll use:

The charge of over .08 refers to the charge of operating a motor vehicle when your blood alcohol level exceeds 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. The police prove this charge by taking a breath or blood test (most commonly breath).

Most breath tests are taken sometime after the person has been stopped driving, and has been taken to the police station. The legal question is; what was your blood alcohol level at the time you were operating the vehicle, not what was your blood alcohol reading at the police station when you provided your breath sample? Your blood alcohol level could have been under .08 when you were driving, but over .08 by the time you took the breath test at the station.

Here’s how:

Alcohol takes time to be absorbed by the human body. If you had drinks just before you got in your car to drive, the alcohol that is in your body may not have been absorbed into your blood stream yet (it could still be in your stomach or your intestine). By the time you provide the breath test, your blood alcohol level might be over .08. This is sometimes called “the last drink defence”.

Now here's the question: isn't this kind of bullshit unethical? I know you're supposed to do whatever is necessary to help your client, but the fact is that this kind of defense certainly undermines the spirit of any such law (0.08 blood alcohol requires four fucking drinks for the average adult male) because anybody who blows over 0.08 is obviously an impaired driver even if the alcohol from his last drink hadn't quite been absorbed into his bloodstream yet; the alcohol is in his system regardless.

Where exactly does a lawyer's responsibility to his client end and his responsibility to society begin?

[Faram]

Well I sorta hope that a DUI lawyer gets killed buy a drunk driver that also dies in the crash.

But then again I absolutly hate drunk drivers.

[SCRawl]

Now here's the question: isn't this kind of bullshit unethical? I know you're supposed to do whatever is necessary to help your client, but the fact is that this kind of defense certainly undermines the spirit of any such law (0.08 blood alcohol requires four fucking drinks for the average adult male) because anybody who blows over 0.08 is obviously an impaired driver even if the alcohol from his last drink hadn't quite been absorbed into his bloodstream yet; the alcohol is in his system regardless.

I'm going to make an argument I don't believe in, but illustrates the extreme end of the logical spectrum.

Let's say that I chug 5 ounces of whiskey -- all in one go. This is the equivalent of four drinks. I then get right into my car and start driving home before it gets absorbed into my blood, knowing that it will take me only ten minutes to get there and enjoy my buzz in private. Five minutes later I get pulled over by a police officer (for, say, a broken tail light), who smells my breath and decides that I'm impaired. An hour later he gets around to giving me the test, and I blow over.

In this (admittedly ridiculous) circumstance, have I done anything illegal? I was fully in control while driving, and am guilty of only stupidly bad judgement in the practice of enjoying my booze.

My point is that the lawyer could argue something between "left the party drunk" and the scenario I just mentioned as being the facts of the case, and leave his client in the clear. The standard is, after all, operating the vehicle while impaired, not while having alcohol in one's system.

Where exactly does a lawyer's responsibility to his client end and his responsibility to society begin?

I'm not a lawyer (and I don't even play one on TV) but it seems to me that the lawyer's job as an officer of the court is to see that only truthful evidence is presented and that his client's interests are looked after within that stricture. Anything past that is someone else's problem.

I don't like it any better than you do, but it's how our justice system works.

[Edi]

I'm going to make an argument I don't believe in, but illustrates the extreme end of the logical spectrum.

Let's say that I chug 5 ounces of whiskey -- all in one go. This is the equivalent of four drinks. I then get right into my car and start driving home before it gets absorbed into my blood, knowing that it will take me only ten minutes to get there and enjoy my buzz in private. Five minutes later I get pulled over by a police officer (for, say, a broken tail light), who smells my breath and decides that I'm impaired. An hour later he gets around to giving me the test, and I blow over.

In this (admittedly ridiculous) circumstance, have I done anything illegal? I was fully in control while driving, and am guilty of only stupidly bad judgement in the practice of enjoying my booze.

My point is that the lawyer could argue something between "left the party drunk" and the scenario I just mentioned as being the facts of the case, and leave his client in the clear. The standard is, after all, operating the vehicle while impaired, not while having alcohol in one's system.

Bad example. Chugging four drinks or equivalent in one go means that the alcohol will just hit your system quicker and you might actually be well under the influence in under ten minutes. The only thing that would delay that is if you had consumed a large meal just prior to taking the drinks, and how much that will slow it down varies by person.

And to answer the question, yes, you did commit an illegal act. While your BAC might have been under the .08 threshold, the breathalyzer is considered sufficiently accurate as to be reliable evidence in court. That means that outlier cases and cases like your hypothetical will just get fucked over and tough luck. Frankly, it is deserved punishment for that level of stupidity and 99.99% of the time the fucker is guilty of DUI anyway. As for operating impaired vs. alcohol in your bloodstream, that is meaningless semantics whoring if the breathalyzer burns you. If you get burned by the breathalyzer, it means that you are already impaired enough to be forbidden from operating a vehicle.

Edi

[Durandal]

Where exactly does a lawyer's responsibility to his client end and his responsibility to society begin?

That's a difficult question because part of a defense attorney's responsibility to society is vigorously defending his client using every legal means at his disposal.

EDIT: Also, an officer will usually perform a road-side sobriety test to determine that the driver was impaired at the time he was driving the vehicle. If the driver fails that test, the police get probable cause for compelling a breathalyzer. The breathalyzer simply confirms what the road-side test already told the police.

[theski]

This same question could be asked of Laywers that defend Child molesters. Even if the client told them they did it..

[Alferd Packer]

Do Canadian provinces and other countries have implied consent laws? The IC law in NJ is pretty harsh:

Drivers on New Jersey roadways have agreed, simply by using New Jersey roadways, to submit to a breath test given by law enforce-
ment or hospital staff following an arrest for a drinking and driving
offense. Motorists refusing to take a breath test will be detained and
brought to a hospital, where hospital staff may draw blood.

Motorists refusing to take a breath test in New Jersey are subject
to an MVC insurance surcharge of $1,000 a year for three years.
Failure to pay this surcharge will result in an indefinite driver li-
cense suspension until the fee is paid.

An April 2004 state law made the refusal to submit to a breath test
equivalent to driving with a BAC of .10% or higher for a first of-
fense. The current penalty for both is the loss of driving privileges
for between seven months and one year, to run concurrently or
consecutively based upon a judge’s order.

I wonder if IC laws have given lawyers more ammunition, despite the fact that the law is moral.[/quote]

[SCRawl]

Do Canadian provinces and other countries have implied consent laws? The IC law in NJ is pretty harsh:

Drivers on New Jersey roadways have agreed, simply by using New Jersey roadways, to submit to a breath test given by law enforce-
ment or hospital staff following an arrest for a drinking and driving
offense. Motorists refusing to take a breath test will be detained and
brought to a hospital, where hospital staff may draw blood.

Motorists refusing to take a breath test in New Jersey are subject
to an MVC insurance surcharge of $1,000 a year for three years.
Failure to pay this surcharge will result in an indefinite driver li-
cense suspension until the fee is paid.

An April 2004 state law made the refusal to submit to a breath test
equivalent to driving with a BAC of .10% or higher for a first of-
fense. The current penalty for both is the loss of driving privileges
for between seven months and one year, to run concurrently or
consecutively based upon a judge’s order.

I wonder if IC laws have given lawyers more ammunition, despite the fact that the law is moral.

Here in Canada, the charge for refusing to submit to a breathalyzer is equivalent to driving while impaired. If for some legal reason (say, poor lung capacity) a person is unable to give a breath sample, then a blood sample will be compelled, with the same ramifications.

[SCRawl]

And to answer the question, yes, you did commit an illegal act. While your BAC might have been under the .08 threshold, the breathalyzer is considered sufficiently accurate as to be reliable evidence in court. That means that outlier cases and cases like your hypothetical will just get fucked over and tough luck. Frankly, it is deserved punishment for that level of stupidity and 99.99% of the time the fucker is guilty of DUI anyway. As for operating impaired vs. alcohol in your bloodstream, that is meaningless semantics whoring if the breathalyzer burns you. If you get burned by the breathalyzer, it means that you are already impaired enough to be forbidden from operating a vehicle.

Oh, I'm quite in agreement with you. As I suggested in my post, I was merely playing the devil's advocate. The level of stupidity and irresponsibility shown by well, me (in my example) is more than deserving of being charged. Still, if lawyers can get their clients off using such tactics, we're presented with two options: live with it; or change the law.

Just a clarification: when I said that the standard was operating a vehicle while impaired as opposed to having alcohol in one's system, I should have been more specific. Obviously, having a BAC of .08 is a recognized standard which implies impairment. Having sufficient alcohol in one's stomach to eventually reach that standard is not the same thing, and this is where the lawyers can start splitting the hairs.

[Jalinth]

Do Canadian provinces and other countries have implied consent laws? The IC law in NJ is pretty harsh:

The "implied consent" is only needed because of the US Constitution. To my knowledge, the Canadian courts don't have anywhere near as many problems with police roadblocks for various things. Whether you think these random roadblocks are reasonable depends on how libertarian are you.

But basically the law is that if you refuse to take a breathalyzer, you effectively "fail" the blood test to my knowledge.

[Base Delta Zero]

Well, it may not be the most high-minded job in the world, but I'd say it's moral... someone has to defend them, after all. Drunk drivers and child molesters may be equivalent to pondscum, but not allowing anyone to defend them would be more appropriate for a police state.

[General Zod]

Well, it may not be the most high-minded job in the world, but I'd say it's moral... someone has to defend them, after all. Drunk drivers and child molesters may be equivalent to pondscum, but not allowing anyone to defend them would be more appropriate for a police state.

Defending someone, yes. However looking for technicalities and loopholes to get someone off when they're obviously guilty is at best violating the spirit of the law, at worst dishonest and sleezy.

[Gaidin]

Defending someone, yes. However looking for technicalities and loopholes to get someone off when they're obviously guilty is at best violating the spirit of the law, at worst dishonest and sleezy.

The spirit of the law involves them acting to the best of their ability to aquit the charged.

If the best of their ability involves nothing more than loopholes and they *know* that their client is guilty, aren't they allowed to back out on moral grounds?

[General Zod]

Defending someone, yes. However looking for technicalities and loopholes to get someone off when they're obviously guilty is at best violating the spirit of the law, at worst dishonest and sleezy.

The spirit of the law involves them acting to the best of their ability to aquit the charged.

If the best of their ability involves nothing more than loopholes and they *know* that their client is guilty, aren't they allowed to back out on moral grounds?

We seem to be working on two different definitions of "spirit of the law" here. By going with the spirit of the law someone should be making decisions based on what the law was intended to do, not the exact technicalities of what it says letter per letter, scrimping for any foothold you can find.

[Batman]

Defending someone, yes. However looking for technicalities and loopholes to get someone off when they're obviously guilty is at best violating the spirit of the law, at worst dishonest and sleezy.

The spirit of the law involves them acting to the best of their ability to aquit the charged.

Like hell it does. The spirit of the law would require them to get their clients out of situations loopholes and technicalities of the law got them into, as opposed to using said technicalities to get their clients out of situations the spirit of the law clearly wanted them convicted for.

[Gaidin]

And the million dollar question?

[General Zod]

And the million dollar question?

Care to rephrase in English? Most of us don't speak obtusese.

[Gaidin]

I'd asked whether the lawyer appointed was *required* to defend them or if they could back out certain grounds, moral or otherwise.

[General Zod]

I'd asked whether the lawyer appointed was *required* to defend them or if they could back out certain grounds, moral or otherwise.

A lawyer doesn't have to agree to defend anyone, but once they accept a case they're required to defend to the best of their ability or they risk jeopardizing their career. (Although it might work differently for public defenders). However that doesn't change the fact that someone attempting to exploit loopholes to defend their client is being sleezy at best, and still violates the spirit of the law.

[mr friendly guy]

Ok, this is a stupid question, but can't the police do a breathalyser on the spot. In Australia we have "booze buses" where the police are located at strategic places and do random breath tests. Obviously in this situation, police have the breathalyer on them.

Now if the police had to stop a driver for another reason, and they don't have a breathalyser machine on them, then can't they book said driver for the reason they stopped the driver in the first place?

[General Zod]

Ok, this is a stupid question, but can't the police do a breathalyser on the spot. In Australia we have "booze buses" where the police are located at strategic places and do random breath tests. Obviously in this situation, police have the breathalyer on them.

Now if the police had to stop a driver for another reason, and they don't have a breathalyser machine on them, then can't they book said driver for the reason they stopped the driver in the first place?

As far as I know, breathalysers are a standard part of patrol-car equipment. If someone is driving erratically and the police officer in question has a reason to suspect the person of being drunk, they can breathalyze them on the spot. I may be wrong of course, but someone more familiar with US police procedures than me can correct me.

[RedImperator]

Well, it may not be the most high-minded job in the world, but I'd say it's moral... someone has to defend them, after all. Drunk drivers and child molesters may be equivalent to pondscum, but not allowing anyone to defend them would be more appropriate for a police state.

Defending someone, yes. However looking for technicalities and loopholes to get someone off when they're obviously guilty is at best violating the spirit of the law, at worst dishonest and sleezy.

A defense attorney has a professional obligation to do anything in his power, including exploiting loopholes, to get his client acquitted. Society can't write laws with loopholes and then blame the lawyers for exploiting them.

It's an ugly necessity. You can't open the doors to picking and chosing who gets a lawyer or how far lawyers go to defend "obviously guilty" clients, because sooner or later, one of those obviously guilty clients will turn out to be not guilty after all and in jail anyway. We've made a decision as a society that we're willing to let the guilty occasionally go free to ensure an innocent man can't get convicted (in theory, anyway). That means sometimes some scumfuck will walk.

Now as for the personal morality of a lawyer who starts up a DUI practice, that's tricky. On the one hand, even drunk drivers deserve lawyers, and a lawyer who specializes in DUI can do a better job defending his clients than a more generalist defense attorney. On the other, it's pretty clear these guys realized they could make a lot of money getting sodden fratboys off the hook. The whole thing strikes me as inevitable, but slimy.

[Darth Servo]

The lawyer does need to defend his client but that does not include filling the courtroom with the bullshit quoted from the asshole lawyer in the OP. Alcohol takes MINUTES to get into your system. Even if you drink a mug thats 100 proof (assuming it doesn't kill you) and get in your car immediately, you will be legally over the 0.08 limit before you get anywhere.

Think about this Mr hot shot Lawyer, if the defendent was actually driving safely, the cop wouldn't have pulled him over in the first place.

[Durandal]

Like hell it does. The spirit of the law would require them to get their clients out of situations loopholes and technicalities of the law got them into, as opposed to using said technicalities to get their clients out of situations the spirit of the law clearly wanted them convicted for.

Absolutely, 100% wrong. It's not called an "adversarial system" because both sides are nice to each other. Defense attorneys have a professional obligation to vigorously represent their clients to the best of their ability. If a DUI lawyer didn't exploit a loophole to get his client off the hook, he could be hauled in front of an ethics committee for incompetent practice.

[Spetulhu]

Think about this Mr hot shot Lawyer, if the defendent was actually driving safely, the cop wouldn't have pulled him over in the first place.

I don't know how you do over there, but we have campaigns against DUI here. Police stop a large number of cars and offer breathalyzer tests to a lot of drivers in a short time. Drunk drivers can and do get caught in these raids, even if they didn't look dangerous.