Gregory DUI

Griz & Big Sky Conference Basketball
PlayerRep
Posts: 28050
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:06 am

MikeyGriz wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:54 am
PlayerRep wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:53 am
EverettGriz wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:54 am
The answer, PR, is don’t drink and drive. If you have to worry about beating a field sobriety test, use your f***[*] Uber app.
How can that be the answer after one has been drinking and is pulled over? Does one ask the policeman for a do-over? If one has to worry about a field test, it's too late to use the Uber app.

I suppose you think that the "answer" for an unmarried woman who is or thinks she is pregnant, is, "You shouldn't have sex before marriage." Is that what the gynecologist should say? Or, you should have had birth control. Or, should current advice be given?
Where in Everett's post does he say anything about after you've been pulled over? He is advocating taking personal responsibility for your condition before you get behind the wheel.
Where in my post did I say Everett's post said anything about after you've been pulled over? See, I can play that game too.

When the question at hand, and the post he commented on, is about what to do when one has been drinking and has been pulled over, then he's answering/responding to that post. If he wants to make a separate post, not over the top of mine, then he should do that. Do you really not understand that?
User avatar
EverettGriz
eGriz Club
Posts: 21501
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: The Shadel, Mill Creek, WA

Okay, well then I guess I can "play that game too" :roll:

My post was not "over" yours. I simply answered your question using exactly as you suggest, a separate post. And the content of my post is still 100% accurate. The way to avoid having to determine whether you should blow or not is to not drink and drive. There literally are NO other correct answers to that question.

Oh sure, there may be a few slimy tricks of the attorney trade used to attempt to beat a DUI charge, but that doesn't really answer the question, does it?
Booze is the duct tape of life.
coyote
eGriz Club
Posts: 2774
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:43 am

EverettGriz wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:29 pm
Okay, well then I guess I can "play that game too" :roll:

My post was not "over" yours. I simply answered your question using exactly as you suggest, a separate post. And the content of my post is still 100% accurate. The way to avoid having to determine whether you should blow or not is to not drink and drive. There literally are NO other correct answers to that question.

Oh sure, there may be a few slimy tricks of the attorney trade used to attempt to beat a DUI charge, but that doesn't really answer the question, does it?
I 100% agree with your point. The problem comes when it is expected that people will make good decisions when drunk.
PlayerRep
Posts: 28050
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:06 am

EverettGriz wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:29 pm
Okay, well then I guess I can "play that game too" :roll:

My post was not "over" yours. I simply answered your question using exactly as you suggest, a separate post. And the content of my post is still 100% accurate. The way to avoid having to determine whether you should blow or not is to not drink and drive. There literally are NO other correct answers to that question.

Oh sure, there may be a few slimy tricks of the attorney trade used to attempt to beat a DUI charge, but that doesn't really answer the question, does it?
Oh, please. Your post was absolutely over mine and directed to me, and you referred to PR. See below:'

"Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:54 am
PlayerRep wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:53 am
EverettGriz wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 1:54 am
The answer, PR, is don’t drink and drive. If you have to worry about beating a field sobriety test, use your f***[*] Uber app."

I can't tell if you are being dishonest or stupid, or both.

You did not answer the question at all. It wasn't my question. I was answering someone else's question, i.e. what should one do if stopped after having been drinking?

You didn't answer that question at all. You provided a moralistic goody two-shoes answer that had no relevance to the question asked.

There are other answers to whether one should blow. Good defense lawyers know those answers. Again, please don't be stupid, especially about something you have no clue about.

No one asked the question of how to avoid being in the situation of being pulled over after drinking.

Do you think anyone doesn't know what you posted? If you think anyone doesn't know, you are stupid.

Nothing about providing advice about this situation is a slimy trick. What is slimy is someone like you using language like that.

Again, I can't wait until I get introduced to you, so I can tell you exactly what I think of you.
User avatar
EverettGriz
eGriz Club
Posts: 21501
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: The Shadel, Mill Creek, WA

Sorry. I don't speak drivel.

Can someone

translate and

perhaps

tab down every

few words

so we can

all be like

pr.


The answer to the question remains the same: Don't drink and drive.
Booze is the duct tape of life.
User avatar
fanofzoo
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:08 am
Location: missoula

And let us get into the times " don't smoke weed and drive", people are a danger at 25 mph although it beats the drunk coming at you doing 95 mph and pissed.

Please wait until you get home.
User avatar
Zirg
Posts: 1323
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 1:48 pm

grizzlygrumpa wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:21 pm
Zirgs reply is the classic non sequitur. First, the only record regarding Taylor is single DUi all the rest is gossip. The fact he may have been a successful coach whereas Gregory is merely a grad assistant militates in favor of more lenient treatment for him as a first offender not less. We are country of second chances, aren't we?
Blaine may have been only caught once, but he had a bad drinking and driving habit and it was well-known and I, personally saw him drive home after a private function completely trashed. No gossip.
Dutch Lane
eGriz Club
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:06 pm

Yes .168 will get you an aggravated. I was talking to an older lawyer who told me when he first started practicing back in the early 70s the legal limit was .15 which is almost twice the current legal limit of .08 across the country except Utah which recently lowered theirs to .06. I think Wyoming was the last state to lower theirs from .10 to .08. They resisted until Clinton’s dept. of transportation threatened to withhold federal highway money. I think there will be a national movement coming to force states to follow Utah’s lead.

Usually the best thing to do when pulled over is nothing. Don’t answer any questions and refuse all field sobriety tests as they are not part of the implied consent law. They are difficult to perform successfully even when straight but especially difficult if you have been drinking. Lol Your rights under Miranda don’t apply to a roadside stop so telling the cop you want to first speak to your lawyer for advice they will just laugh at you and say so are you refusing to take the preliminary breath test. If they ask you to blow and you refuse your are automatically suspended for 6 months which you can challenge by filling an action in district court challenging the probable cause, but because it’s a civil matter rather then criminal the burden of proof is on you rather then the state in most jurisdictions. This started in Colorado and is called the “John Denver defense” I guess because he was the most famous dui suspect to try to challenge the implied consent law. These are very difficult to win. The basic premise is when you were 16 or whatever age you were when you signed up for your drivers license you “implicitly” gave your consent to agree to a test of your blood breath or urine if requested by a cop investigating you for dui. When I got my first drivers license there wasn’t an implied consent law in effect so when did I implicitly give my consent? Well the answer is every time I renewed my drivers license. You might ask well why doesn’t the state make you explicitly give your consent like signing a disclaimer and waiver of your rights. The answer is that too many people would educate themselves on dui law and refuse all testing and immediately lawyer up when they are stopped. That is basically the best thing that you can do for yourself when you are the subject of a dui investigation. Refuse to answer all questions and refuse all field sobriety tests and refuse to exit your vehicle unless the cops tells you that you are under arrest then you are required to get out of your car and surrender your person to the state. Once you are under arrest your Miranda rights do now apply and the cops can’t ask you any question regarding their investigation of you without your slimy dui lawyer present. You are chances of not being prosecuted just went up exponentially because the state has very little evidence to successfully prosecute you with.

If you think you are under or close to the limit do agree to take the handheld preliminary breath test (pbt) that they request at the scene. If you blow over .08 they will automatically arrest you. If you are under .08 they usually let you go unless they think you are under the influence of drugs. By taking the pbt you will at least know what you bac is. If you are .08 or over then always refuse the breathalyzer test that they will request you take at the jail. These are far more accurate then the pbt. Additionally the pbt can’t be used against you as substantive evidence in court because the state would have to lay a foundation to establish the reliability of the device by calling expert witnesses from the manufacture which is too cost prohibitive and is never done except maybe in the case of a fatality.

So if you refuse either the pbt or the breathalyzer your license will be suspended which I said you can challenge. It’s harder for the state to get a conviction if they have no breath test results. So the Hobsian choice is either refuse all breath tests and automatically lose your license for 6 months and at least you won’t have a dui conviction on your record or blow and give the state a bac over .08 to convict you of dui where you will also lose your license for 6 months on top of having a dui on your record for life. Lol

It’s a tough environment out there for anyone suspected of dui. The last loophole that they have tied up is that if you refuse a breath test your refusal under the implied consent law can be used as an inference of your guilt in court. The rationale is because you refused the test the jury can infer that you were under the influence because well only people who are guilty would refuse the test right? Which is kinda like saying why didn’t you answer the cops question about whether you shot the decedent, obviously because you did right? Lol Remember Miranda does not apply to dui investigations.

My jurisdiction has done away with breathalyzers and know requires every dui suspect to submit to a blood draw. Ouch. Some people just hate needles after 2:00 am but if you refuse too bad under the implied consent law you lose your license for 6 months for refusing and whining about being afraid of big needles and seeing two big vials of your blood drained from your sweaty shaking arm. Lol You must also remember that the state can request an instantaneous telephonic search warrant in the wee morning hours for your blood if you refuse and then two or three cops can strap you down and forcibly draw your blood for testing irregardless of your pussy ass whining about the fear of big needles and your strict religious convictions against giving the state your precious bodily fluid. You should see the bruising some of the unsympathetic paramedics leave on some whinny boys little arms. In my opinion the state legislature pulls more slimy shit every session when it comes to chipping away at a defendant’s constitutional rights then any defense attorney’s slimy procedural tactic to defend a client. Attorneys don’t have a choice if they have a reasonable basis then they are ethically bound to zealously advocate on behalf of their client. It is the American way which is saying the rights of a defendant are just as important then the general welfare of the state. That is what is supposed to set us apart from the rest of the world. Unfortunately when it comes to dui jurisprudence because the state wants to make it easier to get convictions the legislatures and the courts have crossed a lot of lines that were once set in stone like your Miranda rights not applying during a dui stop. They apply in every other criminal investigation from murder to jay walking but just not to dui stops for some reason. The real reason is that if Miranda applied at a roadside dui investigation it would make it harder for the state to get a conviction. So by chipping away at your constitutional rights the legislature and the courts have ensured that more suspects will be convicted of dui, which some will argue is better for society. Which begs the question aren’t convictions in all other criminal cases better for society? If the answer is yes then why not just do away with Miranda warning rights and the bill of rights all together it would sure make getting more convictions a lot easier. Somebody who doesn’t like slimy lawyer tactics riddle me that one. Lol

The bottom line is the car manufactures have had the technology for years to render every vehicle inoperable by an intoxicated driver. It’s not about the technology or cost anymore it’s about society’s unwillingness to give up even more control of their lives and day to day decision making to the state. Even if you feel too drunk to drive and make the good choice of pulling into a parking lot to sleep it off you are still subject to a dui prosecution because even though you are safely pulled over and your car is turned off and you are obviously not driving, under the law you are still considered to be in “actual physical control” of the vehicle. Well what if you gave your keys to a friend and decided to still sleep it off in your car? Too bad still actual physical control. What if like a recent case where a fellow was pushing, not riding, his broke down Harley along the side a deserted street late at night two blocks from his garage? He was found to have been in actually physical control of his broke down bike and was rightfully convicted of dui. Cases like these have motivated more people to attempt to drive home rather then risk getting investigated for pulling over and sleeping it off. Cops are trained to look for and investigate vehicles that are pulled over at night under something called the “community caretaker doctrine.” So it’s almost better to try and drive home then to safely pull over and get your vehicle off of the the road.

Obviously the best thing to do is don’t drink and then drive. But if you do an old judge once told me always carry a rack of o’douls prominently displayed on your front seat, so when they cop asks you why he smells alcohol emitting from your vehicle you can say with a straight face must be the o’douls I like to drink when I travel down the road thats just how I roll. Lol

I hope Gregory retained a good slimy dui attorney because sentencing is way enhanced on an aggravated dui and dui convictions even just one will blow your chance for a lot of professional positions and jobs that require a criminal background check.

Thanks for listening children and have a very happy day in your neighborhood.
PlayerRep
Posts: 28050
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:06 am

Nice post. Thx.

If one refuses the breath test, and the dui charge is dropped or won by the defendant in court, does the drivers license come back immediately our easily, or not?

I have never herd of the stay-in-the-car approach.

Are blood tests administered at medical facilities, or can they be done in the field?

To me, some aspects of these dui and consent laws, are un-American and either are or should be unconstitutional.
goatcreekgriz
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:47 pm
Location: Goat Creek, Montana

"To me, some aspects of these dui and consent laws, are un-American and either are or should be unconstitutional."


What aspects?
Dutch Lane
eGriz Club
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:06 pm

PlayerRep wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 9:59 am
Nice post. Thx.

If one refuses the breath test, and the dui charge is dropped or won by the defendant in court, does the drivers license come back immediately our easily, or not?

To me, some aspects of these dui and consent laws, are un-American and either are or should be unconstitutional.
Thanks, unfortunately the answer is no. If your license is suspended for failure to comply with the implied consent law and you lose your probable cause hearing in district court, which most plaintiffs do because the standard is so low only a “probable cause determination” regarding the request by the cop to ask you to blow compared to the reasonable doubt burden of proof in a criminal dui prosecution. We have to wrap our minds around the concept that one is civil the implied consent suspension and the other is a criminal conviction sanction.

So even if the dui is dismissed or you are acquitted at trial the civil suspension still stays in effect. That’s why its almost like pick your poison either a 6 month civil suspension if you refuse to blow which at least usually means no dui conviction or chose to blow and you are over .08 which pretty much ensures a dui conviction and a 6 month suspension and a fine, jail time, alcohol eduction classes and a reinstatement fee and a dui conviction that stays on your record for lifetime. All other misdemeanor offenses other then pmfa go off your record usually after 3-5 years in most states.

Some smart slimy dui lawyers started challenging the probable cause determination for the stop and arrest in the civil proceeding and if they won they would then move to dismiss the dui charge in the criminal case under the doctrine of res judicata. This worked for quite well for sometime then the Supreme Court in the last couple of years held that the doctrine would no longer apply to dui prosecutions.

The other bad thing is you normally have your civil probable cause hearing before your dui trial, so you get hit with the civil suspension for 6 months then if your are convicted at your dui trial you get hit with another 6 months suspension as a criminal sanction. So you lose you license to drive for a year.

Under the implied consent law the statue provides for the petitioner to apply for a stay of the suspension pending the probable cause hearing which would seem to make a lot of sense and be fundamentally fair. Most districts courts use to routinely grant them, because well the state is going ultimately get their suspension either before the hearing for after if he lose. But the state has more and more started to challenge these proforma motions and because of MADD and adverse publicity a lot of the judges now routinely deny them which now means you could wait up to six months for your hearing by which time the suspension has ended and you then even if win the probable cause determination your license was still suspended.

Slimy dui lawyers used to try and negotiate a deal to dismiss the dui charge in exchange for not fighting the civil suspension which also worked well. Now that has gone away because of the no res judicata holding on duis.
goatcreekgriz
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:47 pm
Location: Goat Creek, Montana

goatcreekgriz wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 10:31 am
"To me, some aspects of these dui and consent laws, are un-American and either are or should be unconstitutional."


What aspects?
And which constitution?
PlayerRep
Posts: 28050
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:06 am

goatcreekgriz wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 10:31 am
"To me, some aspects of these dui and consent laws, are un-American and either are or should be unconstitutional."


What aspects?
US and state constitutions. I know the cases have gone the other way.

To me, it is or should be unconstitutional to use the separate civil imputed consent law (to lose license for 6 months) to put a lot of pressure on taking a breath test.

Also, I believe the standard for probable cause out to be higher and a real standard, instead of just calling a judge to get a warrant based often on the "standard" claims of the cops, i.e. that the driver was wearing, had bloodshot eyes and smiled of alcohol. Our firm has rotated several young lawyers at a time through a big city prosecutors office for decades, on a pro bono basis, to give them some early trial experience. They say the police reports often virtually the same, as I described. To me, that's often not accurate, and shouldn't be enough for probable cause. There should be additional "facts" required.

I also don't believe that other things to effectively "force" self-incrimination should be allowed.
PlayerRep
Posts: 28050
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:06 am

Dutch Lane wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 10:42 am
PlayerRep wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 9:59 am
Nice post. Thx.

If one refuses the breath test, and the dui charge is dropped or won by the defendant in court, does the drivers license come back immediately our easily, or not?

To me, some aspects of these dui and consent laws, are un-American and either are or should be unconstitutional.
Thanks, unfortunately the answer is no. If your license is suspended for failure to comply with the implied consent law and you lose your probable cause hearing in district court, which most plaintiffs do because the standard is so low only a “probable cause determination” regarding the request by the cop to ask you to blow compared to the reasonable doubt burden of proof in a criminal dui prosecution. We have to wrap our minds around the concept that one is civil the implied consent suspension and the other is a criminal conviction sanction.

So even if the dui is dismissed or you are acquitted at trial the civil suspension still stays in effect. That’s why its almost like pick your poison either a 6 month civil suspension if you refuse to blow which at least usually means no dui conviction or chose to blow and you are over .08 which pretty much ensures a dui conviction and a 6 month suspension and a fine, jail time, alcohol eduction classes and a reinstatement fee and a dui conviction that stays on your record for lifetime. All other misdemeanor offenses other then pmfa go off your record usually after 3-5 years in most states.

Some smart slimy dui lawyers started challenging the probable cause determination for the stop and arrest in the civil proceeding and if they won they would then move to dismiss the dui charge in the criminal case under the doctrine of res judicata. This worked for quite well for sometime then the Supreme Court in the last couple of years held that the doctrine would no longer apply to dui prosecutions.

The other bad thing is you normally have your civil probable cause hearing before your dui trial, so you get hit with the civil suspension for 6 months then if your are convicted at your dui trial you get hit with another 6 months suspension as a criminal sanction. So you lose you license to drive for a year.

Under the implied consent law the statue provides for the petitioner to apply for a stay of the suspension pending the probable cause hearing which would seem to make a lot of sense and be fundamentally fair. Most districts courts use to routinely grant them, because well the state is going ultimately get their suspension either before the hearing for after if he lose. But the state has more and more started to challenge these proforma motions and because of MADD and adverse publicity a lot of the judges now routinely deny them which now means you could wait up to six months for your hearing by which time the suspension has ended and you then even if win the probable cause determination your license was still suspended.

Slimy dui lawyers used to try and negotiate a deal to dismiss the dui charge in exchange for not fighting the civil suspension which also worked well. Now that has gone away because of the no res judicata holding on duis.
Again, thanks for summary. The best and most thorough I have ever seen or heard.
retiredpopo
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:45 pm

people can refuse to take the breath test but if there is probable cause the Officer will most likely get a telephonic warrant to draw blood. So not only do you still loose your D/L but depending on where you are getting the DUI you get an additional $500 fine (Missoula city ordinance)for refusing to blow in the city limits and no chance of getting an essential driving permit. I would bet that if an Officer has the pc to stop you, he will have the pc to get a blood draw warrant. Remember blood draw bac is always higher then a breath test so might mean the difference between a dui and an aggravated dui.

I doubt cops are the ones drawing the blood it is drawn by nurses or other trained medical people.
User avatar
EverettGriz
eGriz Club
Posts: 21501
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: The Shadel, Mill Creek, WA

So what Dutch said in his two 13,000 words soliloquies is that the best way to determine whether you should blow or not is to call Uber if you’ve been drinking.

Where have I heard that before....
Booze is the duct tape of life.
Dutch Lane
eGriz Club
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:06 pm

EverettGriz wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:34 pm
So what Dutch said in his two 13,000 words soliloquies is that the best way to determine whether you should blow or not is to call Uber if you’ve been drinking.

Where have I heard that before....
Good for you an ethos that you can live by never drink and drive and always use Uber.

Unfortunately life is not so black and white and Uber is not available in most rural areas here in Montana where ranchers and their families have to drive some distance for a steak dinner or a beer. Not all cops are ethical either just like any other profession including slimey lawyers, so to blindly put your own self interest in the hands of the state is crazy. Breath testing equipment is not always maintained properly and out of calibration and sometimes are administered improperly by the arresting officer or breath test specialist.

So you might think well gee I only had two drinks with dinner of course I will blow officer, and you are then tested over the legal limit on an out of calibration machine even though you only had 2 drinks over the course of the evening. This tends to happen in the more rural counties because they might lack the resources for training that you get in the bigger cities. Then what are you to do. Your are truly f****d if you don’t hire a slimey dui lawyer to get you off by challenging the state crime labs maintenance protocols that all police departments are to follow like monthly calibration of the machine on a known sample cell sent out to the various police depts through out the state. I have challenged these sample cells because the manufacture expiration date had passed on them yet they were still used to calibrate the machine that my client blew over the legal limit on that was calibrated by an expired sample cell. It happens more then one would think and it’s a slimey lawyer trick we call “a due process violation “ based up ones right guaranteed under the the slimey 5th and 14th amendments of that slimey United States Constitution.lol

Blood draws are now routinely performed by para medics at jails but more often at hospital ers. The problem with a blood draw is they are highly accurate but usually quite a bit of time elapses between the time of the stop and the time of the blood draw sometimes over an hour which is problematic for a defendant because the statute states the defendant is guilty of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs if his ability to safely operate a motor vehicle has been diminished at the time of the arrest. What does that mean? It means that at the time of the stop a defendant can be under .08 but by the time his blood is drawn, say an hour or two later, because an unethical deputy slow walked him to get the blood draw to ensure that any of the un-metabolized alcohol in my clients stomach will have now have absorbed into his blood which will result in a bac of way over .08. So how fair is that? We slimey attorneys call this trick the “rising defense” and is based on the time delay and other factors and we usually hire a slimey chemist to calculate what is called a retro grade extrapolation trick based upon the science behind the human bodies ability and rate at which it absorbs alcohol in order accurately to determine our clients bac at the exact time of the stop because that is what the statute requires the state has to prove to the jury, the bac at the time of the stop. The Supreme Court has now basically said well it really doesn’t matter how much time has elapsed just a “reasonable amount of time” is okay even though the language of the statute explicitly states at the time of the stop. So if you live in a rural county it may take an hour or two for a trooper or deputy to drive you to a hospital for a blood draw. But that’s ok because it is just a dui and due process isn’t as important in order to get a conviction then say in a theft or assault crime. In my jurisdiction they have stopped using breath tests altogether so every bac result is determined by a blood draw usually taken well after the time of driving which inevitably means a higher bac reading and a more likely conviction which is after all the real intent of the legislature and our courts when it comes to dui. As a proud slimey constitutionalist lawyer in my opinion that is total bullshit, but unfortunately that is the current state of dui jurisprudence.

So in the real world it is important to consult with a slimey dui lawyer in order to make sure that your due process rights under both your state constitution and the us constitution are not infringed which could result in an unjust conviction. I love it when people will talk about a slimey lawyer trick getting someone of the hook on a technicality. Yeah will the technicality or slimey lawyer trick is only like based on something called the bill of rights. Lol.

Sorry for all the long soliloquies but I get triggered by arrogant urbane pricks who think they have it all figured out for everyone else because they have unlimited access to Uber. For the rest of us it is a very complex subject to try and adequately explain to people so that they can make some kind of informed decision if they ever find themselves in the situation of having to make a potentially life altering decision like are friend Mr. Gregory had to make whether to blow or not without the right of counsel, which used to be called the 6th amendment. But because it’s just a roadside stop for a suspicion of a driving infraction, according to the Supreme Court his rights under Miranda did not apply. Thanks again for letting me rant. Lol. Hope this might help some of my mates here on egriz to make a more informed decision if they ever find themselves without Uber access. :thumb: Go Griz right on......:thumb:
Last edited by Dutch Lane on Sat Feb 01, 2020 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
EverettGriz
eGriz Club
Posts: 21501
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: The Shadel, Mill Creek, WA

TL/DNR
Booze is the duct tape of life.
Dutch Lane
eGriz Club
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:06 pm

Wasn’t meant for you because you have Uber access. It was more to inform anyone else who might be interested in better understanding dui law in Montana. :thumb:
User avatar
AZGrizFan
eGriz Club
Posts: 25939
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:34 pm
Location: Texas

Dutch Lane wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 8:33 pm
Wasn’t meant for you because you have Uber access. It was more to inform anyone else who might be interested in better understanding dui law in Montana. :thumb:
If you don’t have Uber access, drink Coca Cola. It’s really that simple.
Guns kill people like spoons make you fat.
Post Reply