Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
Channel 9 (WMUR-TV) is reporting this morning that Blizzard's defense team continue to argue to have the results of the blood sampling suppressed. The State is arguing that these tests, when revealed, will show the defendant was impaired at the time of the collision.
...
|
I would hope that the State has a much better argument than that the evidence shows impairment. For this consideration it doesn't matter what the evidence SHOWS, it matters that it was obtained legally. Only if was obtained legally does it matter what the evidence is. Since the State didn't address the LEGALITY of obtaining the blood I would speculate they are in trouble on this issue.
I would also note the specific word used by the State, "impaired". This is a BAC of around .05 - .07 which most women hit after one or two drinks. Since the State didn't use the term intoxicated (or similar) I would speculate that the BAC was under .08 (legal intoxication). If this is the case I would think the more serious charge of negligence while being intoxicated will be very difficult to get a conviction on. This is all based on the State using precise language, which I would expect that they would.
I visited a website that stated that "impairment begins with the first drink" and this is obviously true. However, it is not a practical judgment to say that someone who has had one drink is under the influence. Possibly not even two drinks over a period of a couple of hours. With respect to BI and others I don't know many people who go out to dinner and don't have at least one drink, possibly two and I am NOT a party person nor are most people I know.
If the BAC gets thrown out completely it's going to weaken that aspect of the second negligence charge as well. As I have said before I think it almost impossible to evade a general conviction on boating negligence of some type but I am getting the feel that alcohol will not be a major legal factor in that negligence.