Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A police officer approached Muniz, who was in his car, suspecting him of driving under the influence of alcohol. The officer asked Muniz several questions and directed Muniz to perform sobriety tests, including “a ‘horizontal gaze nystagmus’ test, a ‘walk and turn’ test, and a ‘one leg stand’ test.” [5] After Muniz admitted to drinking, the officer arrested him and took him to ...
The admissibility of character evidence to allow the defendant to prove the character trait of a victim is limited, however, if the lawsuit is for rape or assault with the intent to commit rape. If the reputation or opinion evidence is being offered by the defendant to show the rape victim's past sexual conduct, character evidence is inadmissible.
For example, a person charged with being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle can raise the defense that there was no likelihood of their driving while drunk. [58] The prosecution has the legal burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant exceeded the legal limit of alcohol and was in control of a motor vehicle.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that police officers could administer warrantless Breathalyzer tests to people suspected of driving drunk. The case, Birchfield v.North Dakota, effectively ...
The Supreme Court held that Michigan had a "substantial government interest" in stopping drunk driving, and that this technique was rationally related to achieving that goal (although there was some evidence to the contrary). The Court also held that the impact on drivers, such as in delaying them from reaching their destination, was negligible ...
For example, in a DUI case, the prosecutor may not admit evidence of a prior instance of driving impaired to show that the defendant acted in conformity and drove impaired on the day he is charged with doing so. However such evidence may be admissible if the defense has argued the defendant had no knowledge driving impaired was a crime.
Drunk driving is the act of operating a motor vehicle with the operator's ability to do so impaired as a result of alcohol consumption, or with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit. [1] For drivers 21 years or older, driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08% or higher is illegal.
Case history; Prior: Franks v. State, 373 A.2d 578 (Del. 1977): Subsequent: Franks v. State, 398 A.2d 783 (Del. 1979): Holding; Where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid.