Board 8 > Awesome - Courts get the last laugh

(+) Yeah! (+)

So, I pled guilty to a general impairment third offense dui. This is 3802A1.

This should be punishable as shown in following link.

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/f53bb1_870a43aafc73463e9ae7fc7338e8cd85.jpg_srz_980_758_85_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz

^ Third box over, Top Row.

As a M2 - Misdemeanor in the 2nd degree.

I get a letter from Penn Dot saying I have an 18 month license suspension. Should have been 12?

I see they penalized me according to 3804E2II. 3804E2II is as states in bold

Suspension of operating privileges upon conviction.--

(2) Suspension under paragraph (1) shall be in accordance with the following:

(i) Except as provided for in subparagraph (iii), 12 months for an ungraded misdemeanor or misdemeanor of the second degree under this chapter.

(ii) 18 months for a misdemeanor of the first degree under this chapter.

So, I look again. And again a 3802A1 should have been 12 months not 18. This was not a Misdemeanor 1. It was a Misdemeanor 2.

It should have been penalized under the italics, 3804E2I not II.

So, I call Penn Dot. They say, yadda yadda nothing we can do it was filed as an M1. What? The crime is not an M1. So, I call the Clerk of Courts. They say well the paperwork says an M1. I try to calmly explain this is not an M1 offense it is an M2. They tell me to contact an attorney.

So, basically, I am going to be swindled into a longer suspension than I agreed to. This is messed up. This is not in accordance with written law.

http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Public/DVSPubsForms/BDL/BDL%20Fact%20Sheets/fs-iillchart.pdf

^ Third box down is where I should have been punished at.
---

I some states you lose your license for good.
---

DUI?

I don't feel sorry for you then
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I some states you lose your license for good.

Tony, the question is how did they file this as a charge that is not in the written code and change it up AFTER I pled guilty to the case?

You can't just punish one person differently then literally every other case out there. This punishment does not fit the written guidelines of the state. It is clearly done in error.

Saying well in some states people lose their licenses for good (which I would be interested in knowing which) has no bearing on this.

It would be like giving you life in prison for stealing an apple when every one else is getting a small fine. And you saying well in some countries they execute you for that. It has no bearing.

Like, how does this even happen? Granted, I know 3rd DUI General Impairment cases are like unicorns in that you never see one, so maybe that caused the confusion. I just do not get how I am even supposed to fix it at this point. Penn Dot blamed the county clerk of courts. The clerk of courts blamed the courts itself. My lawyer (sigh) blamed Penn Dot.

Like, there has to be a way to fix this.

But... How? That isn't what I pled guilty to!
---

Why would you not have an attorney figure this out
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Why would you not have an attorney figure this out

I do have an attorney. I just don't have faith in my attorney to figure it out. (But I did tell him about it. He seemed confused because it shouldn't be possible for this to happen) I shouldn't have to pay an attorney to fix a mistake either
---

Fair, next
---

Corrik posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Why would you not have an attorney figure this out

I do have an attorney. I just don't have faith in my attorney to figure it out. (But I did tell him about it. He seemed confused because it shouldn't be possible for this to happen) I shouldn't have to pay an attorney to fix a mistake either

yes you absolutely should

you should get a new attorney and then sue your previous one for gross incompetence
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Corrik posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Why would you not have an attorney figure this out

I do have an attorney. I just don't have faith in my attorney to figure it out. (But I did tell him about it. He seemed confused because it shouldn't be possible for this to happen) I shouldn't have to pay an attorney to fix a mistake either

yes you absolutely should

you should get a new attorney and then sue your previous one for gross incompetence

If I have to pay anything, I am not going to. I will just eat the 3 additional months of suspension. It is just that a court making a mistake should not be at cost of the person.

Lol at the fair next people. It would be like you pleaing guilty to a speeding ticket on a Summary offense and getting a license suspension because it was marked down as a Misdemeanor.

But trolls gotta troll I guess.
---

I think most people aren't calling this situation in particular fair as far as you not being rules lawyered, just that when someone who has DUIed that many times the longer their license is suspended the better. I would agree with those people btw.
---

Corrik posted...

Like, how does this even happen? Granted, I know 3rd DUI General Impairment cases are like unicorns in that you never see one, so maybe that caused the confusion. I just do not get how I am even supposed to fix it at this point. Penn Dot blamed the county clerk of courts. The clerk of courts blamed the courts itself. My lawyer (sigh) blamed Penn Dot.

very easily. this kind of stuff happens all the time. usually I see it in fines and fees cases. like some guy gets charged a DNA fee even though he's a repeat offender and his DNA is already in the database (and shouldn't be charged a fee); or maybe someone is on a drug offense and gets charged a traffic fee because someone in the clerk's office checked the wrong box.

IDEALLY your attorney should be able to call the state's attorney's office, and together they can present the court an agreed order, requesting to have it changed. (at least in my state, the trial court retains jurisdiction to correct clerical errors at any time - hopefully it works that way in your state too.) but that requires people to cooperate. if they don't cooperate and you aren't spending money then you might be stuck.
---

Lopen posted...

I think most people aren't calling this situation in particular fair as far as you not being rules lawyered, just that when someone who has DUIed that many times the longer their license is suspended the better. I would agree with those people btw.

As someone in the situation, I can tell you without a doubt that is the wrong answer.

Now before you roll your eyes, let me explain why.

People have to get to jobs, stores, doctors, therapy (especially in addiction cases), and so on.

This does not change just because you have no license. The only people this does not affect is the people who have people who can drive them around.

So here is what happens. The driver still drives. You may think this is wrong or silly or whatever you want to think. However, the truth is that if you suspend someone's license and they are not in a situation in which they can be driven freely, they will drive without a license.

It is not even in relation to DUI cases. If you suspend someone's license for say underage drinking or possession or so on, the number of people that will drive on that suspended license instead of adhereing is staggering.

This is the flaw of the system.

Ironically, it is also why PA instituted the ILL recently. The interlock limited license. They recognize that taking licenses for so long is not a good system or working as intended.

How does the ILL work? Well previously a 12 month suspension was 12 months no license, then 12 months ignition interlock. Or 18 months no license, then 12 months ignition interlock. Now the ILL makes it so after you serve half of the license suspension, (6 or 9 months above) that you can get a ignition interlock put on early for the rest of the suspension. The ILL also counts towards the 12 months of ignition interlock time.

So you would serve 6 months License suspension and 12 months ignition interlock now if you apply for it instead of 12/12. Or 9/12 instead of 18/12.

Back on tangent though. Taking licenses away does not stop drinking or driving or the person from driving. If the person is willing to take the chances with a DUI, they are generally willing to take the chances on driving without a license. (More drivers on the roads without licenses also increase odds of a hit and run if an accident occurs, besides the point).

The real answer in DUI cases is that they should remove the license suspension all together (unless a wreck occurred that caused injury(. There is a better option.

(Sure you are rolling your eyes here).

DUIs should be met with Ignition Interlock solely.

Why?

Well the answer is easy. It is the one system that actually works guarranteed. There is only one way around an ignition interlock. That is driving a car other than the one with it on. Which is exactly the same as driving on a suspended license anyways.

You can still drive where you need to drive. You cannot have any traces of alcohol in your system. You still are driving illegally if driving a vehicle without it.

The amount of DUIs you see in ignition interlock vehicles is probably pretty close to zero as you can't start the car with them. And it also sends an alert to the system if you try to. It enabkes a reporting system, it keeps your goal of drunk drivers off the roads. I could easily see a 1st DUI met with a year ignition interlock, a 2nd with 3, a 3rd 5, a 4th lifetime. (I bet a 4th would never happen). The main problem with DUIs is the staggering amount of recidivism. Ignition Interlock is the best option. To fight against that.
---

Gatarix posted...

Corrik posted...

Like, how does this even happen? Granted, I know 3rd DUI General Impairment cases are like unicorns in that you never see one, so maybe that caused the confusion. I just do not get how I am even supposed to fix it at this point. Penn Dot blamed the county clerk of courts. The clerk of courts blamed the courts itself. My lawyer (sigh) blamed Penn Dot.

very easily. this kind of stuff happens all the time. usually I see it in fines and fees cases. like some guy gets charged a DNA fee even though he's a repeat offender and his DNA is already in the database (and shouldn't be charged a fee); or maybe someone is on a drug offense and gets charged a traffic fee because someone in the clerk's office checked the wrong box.

IDEALLY your attorney should be able to call the state's attorney's office, and together they can present the court an agreed order, requesting to have it changed. (at least in my state, the trial court retains jurisdiction to correct clerical errors at any time - hopefully it works that way in your state too.) but that requires people to cooperate. if they don't cooperate and you aren't spending money then you might be stuck.

Thanks for some helpful advice. My attorney is bewildered. The clerk of courts did say I needed to contact my attorney to file a motion. That it can't be changed without doing so.
---

I drive high all the time lmao get gud

Also what's an ignition interlock, they actually put something in your car?
---

Corrik posted...

People have to get to jobs, stores, doctors, therapy (especially in addiction cases), and so on.

So maybe don't put yourself in a situation where your responsibilities might be jeopardized by bad decisions?

The real answer in DUI cases is that they should remove the license suspension all together (unless a wreck occurred that caused injury(. There is a better option.

Yeah the better solution is get put in jail for 18 months so you actually learn to stop drinking and driving.
---

Well, people will keep doing it either way. It's about piling on enough burdens that people decide it's not worth the risk to do it again.

Ignition interlock on the first offense is a good idea though and probably better than license suspension I agree. I'd probably go with Ignition Interlock For a Year -> License Suspension For a Year + Lifetime Ignition Interlock -> Lots of Jail Time + Lifetime License Suspension for the first three strikes.
---

pjbasis posted...

I drive high all the time lmao get gud

Also what's an ignition interlock, they actually put something in your car?

Yes. It is something that you have to blow into to start your car and intermittently while driving. It registers your bac. It locks your car out if you are over the limit and if you fail mid driving, it makes you pull off to the side of the road before your car loses power. (Also automatically calls police to your location)
---

Lopen posted...

Well, people will keep doing it either way. It's about piling on enough burdens that people decide it's not worth the risk to do it again.

Ignition interlock on the first offense is a good idea though and probably better than license suspension I agree. I'd probably go with Ignition Interlock For a Year -> License Suspension For a Year + Lifetime Ignition Interlock -> Lots of Jail Time + Lifetime License Suspension for the first three strikes.

The question is though.

Do you really want lots of jail time + lifetime license suspension for say a stand up citizen who drinks a glass or two of wine per day but weighs so little that the two glasses of wine puts her over the limit barely and she just happened to be pulled over 3 times in which she was doing nothing wrong (say her light burnt out).

I feel there is a major difference between pulled over while over the bac and drunk to the point of being a danger to people or injuring someone.

Like, PJbasis just self admittedly says that he commits a DUI all the time.

A DUI can also be for prescription drugs (most people do not know that and have probably committed a DUI unknowningky before), marijauna and other illegal drugs, as well as Alcohol.

License suspensions have proven to just set up people to commit another crime instead of reduce recidivism.
---

Have you tried being white
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Have you tried being white

I tried. I don't think it is working. Liberals overstated the effect this would have for me, I fear.
---

Corrik posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

Have you tried being white

I tried. I don't think it is working. Liberals overstated the effect this would have for me, I fear.

Well you're still alive so maybe they didn't.
---

Ignition interlock, while nice in theory, is generally too expensive to implement.

And yes, if you are small you shouldn't be able to drink as much before driving, sorry.

If you go over the legal limit and drive you are no longer a stand up citizen

yeah if you are that lightweight, don't drive after two glasses of wine
---

I'm kinda curious how you ended up with 3 DUIs? Not in a judging way. I'm just interested in why you would risk drinking and driving again after already getting 2 DUIs

I know plenty of people who have drink and drive or have a DUI. Just everyone I know who got one never takes the risk again, nevermind after being caught twice.

That's an unfortunate bureaucratic error

But also you are a piece of shit and deserve misfortune

Like you are a really bad person
---

pjbasis posted...

I drive high all the time lmao get gud

Also what's an ignition interlock, they actually put something in your car?

Hey look another piece of shit
---

Corrik posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Why would you not have an attorney figure this out

I do have an attorney. I just don't have faith in my attorney to figure it out. (But I did tell him about it. He seemed confused because it shouldn't be possible for this to happen) I shouldn't have to pay an attorney to fix a mistake either

"i shouldn't have to pay an attorney to fix a mistake"

that's exactly what you pay attorneys for

Do you really want lots of jail time + lifetime license suspension for say a stand up citizen who drinks a glass or two of wine per day but weighs so little that the two glasses of wine puts her over the limit barely and she just happened to be pulled over 3 times in which she was doing nothing wrong

yeah maybe that model citizen should learn that two glasses of wine are putting her over the legal limit. She sounds like a real dummy.
---

Its really hard to feel sorry for someone who, in EVERY other legal situation, no matter how morally wrong, sides with the law absolutely. But in THIS instance, when YOU chose to break the law in a fashion that could have endangered innocent people, suddenly exceptions need to be made because of the law is unfair.
---

Leafeon13N posted...

Ignition interlock, while nice in theory, is generally too expensive to implement.

And yes, if you are small you shouldn't be able to drink as much before driving, sorry.

If you go over the legal limit and drive you are no longer a stand up citizen

Wait what? Ignition interlock is paid by the person who has it. What??? It is like $75 a month. (I've had it before). House Arrest is $15 a day now most places.
---

Espeon posted...

Its really hard to feel sorry for someone who, in EVERY other legal situation, no matter how morally wrong, sides with the law absolutely. But in THIS instance, when YOU chose to break the law in a fashion that could have endangered innocent people, suddenly exceptions need to be made because of the law is unfair.

What? I am siding with the law. What they did is an error that is not legal. What?
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

I'm kinda curious how you ended up with 3 DUIs? Not in a judging way. I'm just interested in why you would risk drinking and driving again after already getting 2 DUIs

I know plenty of people who have drink and drive or have a DUI. Just everyone I know who got one never takes the risk again, nevermind after being caught twice.

First DUI I got when younger 6 years ago now almost. I was really drunk.

So, afterwards I decided I would no longer drink and drive. I would get DDs. So about a year later exactly, after going a whole year with the DD idea working out, I drove up to the bar where my buddy was spose to meet me and drive my vehicle to DD. He texts me that he is going to get a shower real fast and then walk over. No biggie. 10 minutes later he says it is raining can you drive the 7 blocks over to get me so he doesn't get wet. Had 2 shots right before he called because some girl bought them for me. Figured, hell these can't possibly hit me for about an hour and it's just a few blocks. Brrrnt. Try again. Pulled over. Barely over the limit. 2nd DUI.

After that I barely ever drank, and if I did, I got rides or stayed at friends houses. But barely ever just because I had a kid after that.

Flashforward to like 5 months ago. At a wedding. Had 2 rides set up in case I needed them. Was there from 4 to 10. The beer at the wedding ran out at 7pm. When it came to ten a bunch of ppl asked us to stay out and offered to drive us home after. I said nah I haven't drank in 3 hours and should be under the limit to drive now based on the number of beers I had. Brrrnt.

That was a costly decision.

I am pretty sure well over 50% of people who get a DUI will get a second one based on statistics I have seen.

Edit: Only in PA apparently.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811991-DWI_Recidivism_in_USA-tsf-rn.pdf

69% in PA. Looks like 33% nationwideish. Though some states have a lesser look back period or things called wet reckless. PA does not allow lowering of DUI charges to a reckless.
---

Does this apply to golf carts?
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Does this apply to golf carts?

Yes. Any motorized vehicle. Golf carts, go karts, riding lawn mowers, quads, motorbikes, etc. (I am pretty sure at least. May depend on state)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/11/drunk-florida-man-arrested-for-driving-lawn-mower-on-highway.html
---

Corrik posted...

(2) Suspension under paragraph (1) shall be in accordance with the following:

(i) Except as provided for in subparagraph (iii), 12 months for an ungraded misdemeanor or misdemeanor of the second degree under this chapter.

(ii) 18 months for a misdemeanor of the first degree under this chapter.

What does subparagraph (iii) say?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

(2) Suspension under paragraph (1) shall be in accordance with the following:

(i) Except as provided for in subparagraph (iii), 12 months for an ungraded misdemeanor or misdemeanor of the second degree under this chapter.

(ii) 18 months for a misdemeanor of the first degree under this chapter.

What does subparagraph (iii) say?

Iii says this.

(iii) There shall be no suspension for an ungraded misdemeanor under section 3802(a) where the person is subject to the penalties provided in subsection (a) and the person has no prior offense.

It is in regards to 1st time offenders and ungraded misdemeanors
---

I got a $105 fine for going 44 in a 40, and the road had it's speed limit increased to 45 less than a month later.

Sometimes the judge just wants to be a dick.
---

BakusaiTenketsu posted...

I got a $105 fine for going 44 in a 40, and the road had it's speed limit increased to 45 less than a month later.

Sometimes the judge just wants to be a dick.

The judge didn't do it tho. Like all the penalties he gave me at my sentencing were correct for the crime I pled to. He even said it was a 12 month license suspension there. Something happened with filing it.
---

Corrik posted...

scarletspeed7 posted...

Does this apply to golf carts?

Yes. Any motorized vehicle. Golf carts, go karts, riding lawn mowers, quads, motorbikes, etc. (I am pretty sure at least. May depend on state)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/11/drunk-florida-man-arrested-for-driving-lawn-mower-on-highway.html

Christ, that sucks. I thought riding lawnmowers weren't included in the driver's license purview.
---

Corrik posted...

10 minutes later he says it is raining can you drive the 7 blocks over to get me so he doesn't get wet.

I would have literally murdered someone if they did this to me
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Corrik posted...

10 minutes later he says it is raining can you drive the 7 blocks over to get me so he doesn't get wet.

I would have literally murdered someone if they did this to me

Literal literal murder isn't too unreasonable considering this caused him to get a DWI offense

Though showing some backbone and just saying "walk 7 blocks in the rain jackass" is the easier option
---

No, I get the last laugh.

Ha
---

It would be easier to just murder to cop who is about to give you the DWI
---

Lopen posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Corrik posted...

10 minutes later he says it is raining can you drive the 7 blocks over to get me so he doesn't get wet.

I would have literally murdered someone if they did this to me

Literal literal murder isn't too unreasonable considering this caused him to get a DWI offense

Though showing some backbone and just saying "walk 7 blocks in the rain jackass" is the easier option

Calling ur DD a jackass and telling him to walk in the rain when he asks u for assistancs generally isn't a winning strategy in keeping a DD. That said, neither was picking him up obviously. In hindsight, I would have had someone else get him for me. But, that was just a dumb situation all around. That was a bullshit DUI.

That was the only time I had an unpleasant experience with the cops btw.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Have you tried being white

works every time
---

I am apalled at how reckless and shitty other drivers are on the road almost every single day.

Only by being both careful and attentive have i avoided a half dozen accidents caused by people doing illegal and reckless maneuvers in my immediate vicinity. For example some asshat who is currently stopped and waiting in the left turn lane deciding hes going switch to the going straight lane. Only im already in the going straight lane and im going 40 because my light is green and what the fuck this guy pulled out 2 carlengths in front of me while im going 40 and there is literal not enough room to stop in time and only because im spacially aware and had recently checked the next lane over did i know it was clear for me to rapidly move intov allowing me to miss the moron by inches.

Those drivers are presumably sober while they do the things they do.

Even being "around" the legal limit and "not feeling" the alcohol you are still impaired. You are not operating at 100% no matter how much you think that you are. Your reflexes and awareness and decision-making is at the very least fractionally worse than it would be completely sober.

So you can tell yourself that you were 'fine' and you weren't endangering anyone but that is not true. In my example above if i had been just on the legal side of the limit I would have gotten in an accident every single time. Yeah it would have still been their recklessness that precipitated it, but by only driving at my best i kept myself and the asshat out of an accident that day.

Maybe you should consider doing the same or at least being willing to shell out for an uber or cab if all your plans for a DD fall through.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I would have literally murdered someone if they did this to me

Same. I'd have made him pay all my fines under the threat of straight up murder.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

I am apalled at how reckless and shitty other drivers are on the road almost every single day.

Only by being both careful and attentive have i avoided a half dozen accidents caused by people doing illegal and reckless maneuvers in my immediate vicinity. For example some asshat who is currently stopped and waiting in the left turn lane deciding hes going switch to the going straight lane. Only im already in the going straight lane and im going 40 because my light is green and what the fuck this guy pulled out 2 carlengths in front of me while im going 40 and there is literal not enough room to stop in time and only because im spacially aware and had recently checked the next lane over did i know it was clear for me to rapidly move intov allowing me to miss the moron by inches.

Those drivers are presumably sober while they do the things they do.

Even being "around" the legal limit and "not feeling" the alcohol you are still impaired. You are not operating at 100% no matter how much you think that you are. Your reflexes and awareness and decision-making is at the very least fractionally worse than it would be completely sober.

So you can tell yourself that you were 'fine' and you weren't endangering anyone but that is not true. In my example above if i had been just on the legal side of the limit I would have gotten in an accident every single time. Yeah it would have still been their recklessness that precipitated it, but by only driving at my best i kept myself and the asshat out of an accident that day.

Maybe you should consider doing the same or at least being willing to shell out for an uber or cab if all your plans for a DD fall through.

Uber did not exist nor does in my area. Cabs don't operate after a certain time in my area.

Not that it matters. I never once said I was not wrong. I answered someone's question of the circumstances. Also, what's the point of the driving rant? I have never been in a wreck since I was 16. Yeah, people make mistakes or drive poorly. What does that have to do with the topic?
---

Corrik posted...

Not that it matters. I never once said I was not wrong. I answered someone's question of the circumstances. Also, what's the point of the driving rant? I have never been in a wreck since I was 16. Yeah, people make mistakes or drive poorly. What does that have to do with the topic?

In your explanation of your 2nd and 3rd DUI you did the typical "i waited after drinking before driving and only did it because of crazy circumstances and i was technically over the limit but not really".

The driving rant was to say even aside from the fact that your explanation was the same bullshit its also irrelevant. You aren't the only person on the road and you driving impaired not only increases your chance of killing someone but also increases your chance of avoiding being killed by others.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Corrik posted...

Not that it matters. I never once said I was not wrong. I answered someone's question of the circumstances. Also, what's the point of the driving rant? I have never been in a wreck since I was 16. Yeah, people make mistakes or drive poorly. What does that have to do with the topic?

In your explanation of your 2nd and 3rd DUI you did the typical "i waited after drinking before driving and only did it because of crazy circumstances and i was technically over the limit but not really".

The driving rant was to say even aside from the fact that your explanation was the same bullshit its also irrelevant. You aren't the only person on the road and you driving impaired not only increases your chance of killing someone but also increases your chance of avoiding being killed by others.

I never said any of this.

I said I was over the limit both times barely. I didn't say but not really.

So, if you based your entire post off of that, it sounds pretty unwarranted.

That said my 2nd DUI was complete and utter bullshit and should never have happened. So, you can at least now properly say that I said it was!
---