West Virginia Supreme Court: DUI Does Not Require Proof Of Driving

[StlouisX50]

West Virginia Supreme Court: DUI Does Not Require Proof Of Driving

[StlouisX50]

West Virginia Supreme Court: DUI Does Not Require Proof Of Driving

The state of WV can suck it too!

[SpeedUp]

Wow that is absurd. Real dumb law in WV.

[lugnuts]

what crap.

DUI -- Driving Under the Influence.

its is not a complex rule the word is in the name "DRIVING" which means to have to be DRIVING to be charged with it.

now WV says you don't actually have to be DRIVING to be convicted of DRIVING Under the Influence?

"All that is required to seek a license revocation under West Virginia Code Section 17C-5A-2 is that the arresting officer have 'reasonable grounds to believe' that the defendant committed the offense of DUI,"

do we not have trials with facts and evidence anymore in the USA?

"reasonable grounds to believe"? so does that mean they can charge you with speeding too? I mean its reasonable to believe that at some point in everybody's daily commute that they exceeded the speed limit. so will they just stop at everyone's house each day and hand out tickets?

The supreme court ruled that the burden was properly on Cain to prove his innocence.

is WV still part of the USA???? do they not follow the US constitution there?

isn't our justice system set up that you are innocent until proven guilty???

let me get this straight, so in WV they can try and convict you of a crime without evidence and its your responsibility to provide facts to support you innocence?

[Maestro]

Guys we seeing more and more of these, even the guy who decided to sleep it off in his car can be charge with DUI and the argument they use the potential exist for the person to drive. The police are having a harder and harder time catching actual DUIs since people are doing the Designated Driver thing or just not drinking so now they are running around looking for people who are trying to do the right thing.

[lugnuts]

Guys we seeing more and more of these, even the guy who decided to sleep it off in his car can be charge with DUI and the argument they use if they the potential exist for the person to drive.

not much of an argument if you ask me. that's basically saying if you own a gun you should be arrested for murder because the potential exists for you to shoot and kill someone. you should be fined for speeding because you own a car and the potential exists for a person to speed.

The police are having a hard and hard time catching actual DUIs since people are doing the Designated Driver thing or just not drink so now they are running around looking for people who are trying to do the right thing.

so they can collect the revenue and get the recognition? if the main goal is to keep drunks from driving why do they need to come up with these "creative" ways of find people they can charge with DUI? in my mind its about the revenue loss from the reduction of DUI's and they are hunting for money. DUI's are big money makers lets face it.

I would guess to say that within the next 10 years the BAC level drops again to below .05 because as they look at the arrest levels drop they will want to bring that # back up (thus bringing the revenue up)

I am not a fan of drunk drivers but I am also not a fan of the tactics the police use to catch so called DUI suspects.

[rcboarder76]

that is disgusting, i will never live there... i dont drink and drive but that law is rude

[Lucky225]

that is disgusting, i will never live there... i dont drink and drive but that law is rude

Yea me neither, I drink then drive

But in all seriousness, this is complete and utter BS.

[Z1NONLY]

Mind-boggling.

[JCM]

I am not a fan of drunk drivers but I am also not a fan of the tactics the police use to catch so called DUI suspects.

while drunk drivers are dangerous, and it is safe to keep them off the roads, the tactics used and some of the laws are solely based on revenue.