• RalphFurley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Reminds me of someone I knew that would keep a pint of Jack in his trunk. He drove drunk constantly and it was there for when if he ever got into an accident he was prepared to run out of the car, pop the trunk, and pound the bottle in front of all the witnesses.

    Can’t prove he was drunk at the time of the accident.

      • chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s a low chance of that working…but it’s not zero with the right legal team.

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          With the right legal team you can kick the police in the balls and piss on their car and get away with it.

      • WarmSoda
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        “I wasn’t drinking and driving, officer. And I’ll prove it by drinking out of this open container!”.

      • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know I’ve read of at least one successful case where the person fled the scene and went home, then claimed he was drinking at home. Honestly, though, there’s so many things that factor into whether an individual gets arrested or released that we’d need more examples to differentiate between just letting someone go and This One Simple Trick Judges Hate.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        With a half competent lawyer it could.

        It’s up to the police to show you were driving while intoxicated. You have witnesses corroborating that you were drinking after the accident. Any field sobriety, or blood test they give you would be worthless because it would be after that.

        I’m sure someone has tried this before somewhere.

    • WarmSoda
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This kind of thing has been repeated amd handed down for like a century. But I’ve never ever heard of anyone actually doing it, much less having it work.

        • Saganastic@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That sounds like a terrible legal defense. Yes - I had alcohol in my car, and I was pounding it at the time of the accident. But trust me, I was totally sober when I actually hit that person.

          • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s up to the police to prove you were drunk while driving. Normally that’s not hard since they can show that between them getting to you, field so riery testing, and taking you in there’s no way for you to have had a drink before they take a blood test for instance. But if you break that chain, there isn’t a good way to prove that it wasn’t from after the incident.

            Ah but you didn’t just have alcohol in your car. That’s totally legal, otherwise you would never be able to drive home from a store with alcohol. You even have witnesses stating you got it from your trunk, so even if it was already open, it could not have been within reach while driving. Which is a component of most open container laws.

            • Unaware7013@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s up to the police to prove you were drunk while driving.

              Actually, its up to the prosecution to prove you were drunk while driving. And that standard is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, which I’m pretty sure ‘pounding liquor after an accident to have plausible deniability on your insobriety’ would make an easy argument to meet that threshold.

              The cops will take you either way and let a judge decide what to do with you.

    • Unaware7013@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You might not be able to prove it, but anyone willing to chug alcohol in front of witnesses to have that kind of plausible deniability can easily be assumed to have already been drunk to start with. That just doesn’t seem like it would hold up to the ‘reasonable doubt’ standard…