Reply #39: here's why it is relevant [View All]

[sgxnk]

DUI cases need to prove "impairment"

although, in some states, there is a 2prong either/or statute (iow, .08 and over *or* impaired)

but, in DUI cases, a suspect's BEHAVIOR is directly relevant to the charge to be proven - impairment by liquor (or drugs if that is the case)

i have made over 100 dui arrests and have testified as expert witness in FST's (or more properly called Field Sobriety MANEUVERS (not tests))

how a suspect behaves is relevant to a DUI arrest, because alcohol impairs judgment and other personality factors

it CAN be used to help prove the impairment (and./or establish PC) that a suspect was acting inconsistent with their "normal" modes of behavior

that's a form of direct evidence

other examples: slurred speech, bloodshot/glassy eyes, lack of fine motor control, inability to divide attention, etc.

ALL of these "indicia of impairment" can (and are) sometimes present in non-impaired people. but, they are intensified by alcohol and are especially useful when compared to the person's "baseline"

in the case of gibson, almost everybody is familiar with his baseline (nonimpaired state) having seen him in interviews, etc.

the fact that mel made these statements DOES go towards evidence of impairment. they are strongly suggestive that he was impaired. he has never made similar statements (that i am aware of) when sober, and they are exactly the type of statements that sometimes come out when a persons inhibitions are relaxed. relaxation of inhibition is another element of alcohol impairment. as any drunk college student knows