Law Related Question

[LittleGeneral]

Since there seems to be quite a few posters here who are knowledgeable in regards to the law (or are perhaps in the legal profession), I thought I would post regarding a friend of mine who has got himself into a bit of a dilemma.

Essentially, to make a long story short, he had a couple drinks at a friend's apartment and was stopped by a cop on the 5-minute walk back home. After failing to be able to stand on one leg for thirty seconds, he was brought to the station where he was given a public intoxication ticket. According to my friend, he was not staggering around or anything and did not meet the strict definition of being "likely to endanger himself or other persons or property, or that he unreasonably annoys persons in his vicinity," as is the law in Arkansas, the state in which this occurred. Apparently, it happened in a small college town where the cops are very strict, often pulling lone walkers over late at night and regularly busting up house parties.

At any rate, my first question is, is there any way to beat this without hiring a lawyer? Is there a common loophole that might be exploited? If it is not possible to get it thrown out, are there any ways to get it knocked down to a lesser offense? He already tried calling the prosecuting attorney, but the dude apparently does not discuss cases like this prior to the court date.

His primary concern, since he just graduated from college, is how it would affect employment chances. I was under the impression that something this small wouldn't matter much, although I believe it would have be mentioned on most employment applications.

Any takers? FromWayDowntown? Thanks.

[TDMVPDPOY]

I think thats fuckn BS, anyway he be fuckn fine mate, you can fite this case, ur friend wasnt holdin or drinkin alchahol in public or frolickin in public

[FromWayDowntown]

I have no idea about the law in Arkansas or the manner in which offenses like that are prosecuted. If the prosecutor isn't inclined to go through a full-blown trial of the case, he might drop the charge for a lesser offense and a fine. It sounds, however, like the local law enforcement (likely including the prosecutor) is trying to limit things like public intoxication and might not be willing to let him off easy.

I would think that it's unlikely that he could beat it on his. The officer is the one who decided that he met the definition for public intoxication. At a trial, the jury will hear the officer's story and then your friend's story. It will be up to the jury to decide who is telling the truth. The jury will be reminded by the State that your friend was intoxicated or at least impaired at the time and that the accuracy of his account should be weighed against the story of an officer who was stone-cold sober at the time. And that doesn't take into account whether there was a video tape made of the encounter or not. If there's a video and it shows your friend stumbling or slurring words or anything like that, he's going to have a very, very difficult time convincing anyone that he doesn't fit the definition.

With all of that said, I would imagine that he'll have to disclose a conviction to just about any employer; the extent to which that conviction would hurt him in a job search depends on the employer and the job he is searching for. If he's looking to be a desk jockey (like me), I would think that some employers wouldn't care that much -- though some undoubtedly will. If he's looking to be a delivery man or to be in a position that requires driving around, some might be less willing to forgive; but again, it just depends on the employer.

If he is hoping to avoid those things, he probably should hire a lawyer -- someone who deals with the prosecutor on a regular basis and might be able to work out a reduced charge or who, at the very least, will be able to give him some defense in court. There's no guarantee that doing so will keep him from having a conviction for p.i. on his record, but it's the best chance he has, I think.

[Sportcamper]

That is a very harsh story...IMO your friend should be commended for not drinking & driving after having a couple adult beverages...Cut the guy some slack....

I think that this is about revenue ...In which case your friend is fighting an uphill battle....And he will indeed need legal counsel to get this minor offense reduced or dismissed...

[LittleGeneral]

FWD, thanks for the quick reply.

The first thing that surprised me about your post was your mention of a jury. Are there generally juries in cases involving a Class C misdemeanors? For some reason, I thought it was just the judge, the prosecuting attorney, the accused and his lawyer, and any witnesses in an affair that might last half an hour or so.

You also mentioned possible evidence that would be presented, such as a videotape. It is my understaning that there is a discovery period in which both sides may look at each other's evidence and witnesses. Is this the case? If so, who would he contact? The judge or the prosecuting attorney? On a related note, he has several friends who are willing to testify on his behalf that he was not "likely to endanger himself or other persons or property, or that he unreasonably annoys persons in his vicinity." How would he go about registering witnesses? Is there generally a deadline at which time you can no longer add witnesses?

Also, a big question I forgot to ask in the first post is, would it be a reasonable idea to contact the judge, admit to having consumed some alcohol that night, mention his past clean record and strong academic performance, note the fact that some people who saw him 5 minutes before the arrest don't feel he met the definition of PI, resolve never to repeat the mistake, and then ask if there is any chance to lower the offense or be put on probation for a certain amount of time? I didn't know if it was advisable to contact the judge in a situation like this. From what my friend's heard, the judge is a fairly reasonable person.

You mentioned getting a lawyer. The issue related to that was the fee for a decent lawyer for a case like this is $700-$1000. In Arkansas, the maximum fee for a Class C misdemeanor is $100 (although for some reason, the clerk at the municipal court told him that he would need to pay $350 if he wanted to get it taken care of before the court date). So there is always the risk, which seems quite hard to determine, that getting a lawyer might not even make much of a difference.

Thanks again for the help.

[ShoogarBear]

I am in no way, shape, or form a lawyer, but doesn't there have to be some probable cause for the cop to have stopped him in the first place?

[King]

That was my thinking. If the guy is just walking down the street, a cop generally won't just stop somebody unless there he has a reason. Whether or not it was just a roll of the dice for the cop, who knows?

But, I guess your friend was either a little more obviously drunk than he let on - or the cop just stopped at random.

Either way, he fit the definition of public intoxication.

[ShoogarBear]

note the fact that some people who saw him 5 minutes before the arrest don't feel he met the definition of PI

This seems to me to be a big point. If a bunch of people who saw him less than five minutes before are willing to testify that he wasn't intoxicated, shouldn't that be taken into account?

[LittleGeneral]

Well, it was 1:30 in the morning. But the cops are known in that town for actively pulling up to people late at night, especially those who are walking alone. The cop said that he was suspicious because he said my friend went into a gas station when the cop was driving by. My friend's story is that he was stopping to use the restroom. I advised him to try to find out who was working that night at the station and ask him if he remembered anything unusual at around 1:30. I'm not sure if that would help or not.

[mookie2001]

ehhhhh....
if either of yall are worried this much about a PI

FWD "a conviction for PI"

ROFLROFLROFLROFLFORLFORLFOFL


yall are a bunch of twats
i mean, I'm not neither a boyscout or outlaw but come on

[Clandestino]

give him the chair!

[MannyIsGod]

I would think these are some things to take into consideration:

Was he ever given a breathalyzer test of any sorts?

Was he released after being given the ticket or was he forced to stay in a drunk tank?



Beating small towns in situations such as this are usually pretty difficult. It is a lot like a traffic situation where the municipalities try to generate income at the expense of a certain group; in this case college students.

Oh, and you can request a jury trial for any given situation. One thing to keep in mind is that if this municipality is trying to use this as a money making scheme, you can deter them from prosecution by taking it to trial and asking for a full jury and a stenographer to make it as cost prohibitive as possible.

[PM5K]

I believe job applications ask if you've ever been convicted of a felony, nobody gives a shot about a class c misdemeanor...

[MannyIsGod]

I've applied at several places in the past few years that were interested in misdemeanors as well.

[FromWayDowntown]

I've applied at several places in the past few years that were interested in misdemeanors as well.

And particularly misdemeanors that involve things like intoxication if the job is one that would expose the employer to liability if the employee had some record of excessive drinking. Again, it depends on the employer.

As for another question that was raised before, the officer didn't need to have probable cause to effectuate what is known as a Terry stop; if the cop has a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring or will occur, he can stop and detain someone to investigate. In the course of that investigation, the cop can develop probable cause to arrest. It sounds like that's pretty much what happened here. The cop stopped a pedestrian on a suspicion that he might be intoxicated (likely from observation, but perhaps not) and investigated by administering field sobriety tests. When the pedestrian could not complete the tests, the officer developed probable cause and could arrest.

I wouldn't put much stock in what friends would say as being somehow indicative of a wrongful arrest. If all of the friends were stone cold sober and could say that this guy hadn't had a drink, it might be one thing. But their assessments of his sobriety, at best, will ultimately be weighed against the cop's by whoever the fact finder is (whether a judge or a jury). In most instances, the fact finder sides with the cop, but that's not always true.

If the friend really thinks that he was wrongfully arrested, he could pursue a claim for civil relief under federal law (a section 1983 claim) but he'd have some pretty significant hurdles to overcome, not the least of which is proving that he was, in fact, wrongfully arrested. Again, that is for a jury to decide and juries that are asked to decide between a cop's version of events and the version put forward by someone who was admittedly drinking are most likely to side with the cop.

As for the availability of a jury trial, I would think that the constitutional right to trial by jury (6th Amendment) would ensure that someone could get a jury trial for any crime, regardless of how petty the crime might seem.

And mookie -- I was just answering the man's questions, not professing to have an opinion about the nature of the charge.