Another drinking violation for JD Quinn?

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Fri May 23, 2008 1:00 pm

GrizinWashington wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
GrizinWashington wrote:I did see that, Re. For the life of me I cannot understand why a blood draw or Breathalyzer wasn't administered. Perhaps there was not enough field evidence to support one? I have not idea.
He refused the breathalyzer. It's pretty rare for cops to haul someone to the hospital to draw blood (in the ER, presumably?) and pay for that test when a person is legally guilty of a DUI per se the instant they refuse to blow (I believe that is the law, anyway).
Wait. Are they guilty or can they simply be charged with it immediately if they refuse to blow?? I can't believe the law is written that they're immediately guilty (seems as though that would be grounds for a constitutional challenge). If it's the latter, than the lack of a blood draw is going to make a guilty verdict more difficult, I would think.

The law allows the presumption of guilt be implied, but allows for the defendant the opportunity to refute the charges. Kind of like if you refuse you are guilty until proven innocent

griz8791 · Post by **griz8791** » Fri May 23, 2008 1:08 pm

For what it's worth, no, you are not automatically guilty when you refuse the test. The prosecutor still has to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but the judge or jury is entitled to infer from your refusal that you were over the limit:

"If the person under arrest refused to submit to one or more tests as provided in this section, proof of refusal is admissible in any criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle upon the ways of this state open to the public, while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs. The trier of fact may infer from the refusal that the person was under the influence. The inference is rebuttable."

Mont. Code Ann. § 61-8-404(2).

tampa_griz · Post by **tampa_griz** » Fri May 23, 2008 1:19 pm

griz8791 wrote:For what it's worth, no, you are not automatically guilty when you refuse the test. The prosecutor still has to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but the judge or jury is entitled to infer from your refusal that you were over the limit:

"If the person under arrest refused to submit to one or more tests as provided in this section, proof of refusal is admissible in any criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle upon the ways of this state open to the public, while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs. The trier of fact may infer from the refusal that the person was under the influence. The inference is rebuttable."

Mont. Code Ann. § 61-8-404(2).

Isn't it generally the case that if a person refuses a BAC test, that they're pinning their hopes on getting a plea option from the prosecutor ecause they don't have as much evidence?

griz8791 · Post by **griz8791** » Fri May 23, 2008 1:44 pm

That may be what the accused person is thinking. It is almost certainly NOT what the prosecutor is thinking.

tampa_griz · Post by **tampa_griz** » Fri May 23, 2008 1:45 pm

griz8791 wrote:That may be what the accused person is thinking. It is almost certainly NOT what the prosecutor is thinking.

But common conversations have divulged that, if you're pulled over and you think you're drunk, DO NOT give consent to a BAC test.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Fri May 23, 2008 1:47 pm

And, since he requested a blood test, and was "refused", he could argue that he knew he had "a" beer and wanted the blood test rather than risk a high breath result, because he thought the blood test would be more accurate.

Sounds like he doesn't get charged and probably won't be convicted of anything but making a bad left-hand turn.

griz8791 · Post by **griz8791** » Fri May 23, 2008 1:57 pm

tampa_griz wrote:
griz8791 wrote:That may be what the accused person is thinking. It is almost certainly NOT what the prosecutor is thinking.
But common conversations have divulged that, if you're pulled over and you think you're drunk, DO NOT give consent to a BAC test.

I have heard the same thing in multiple conversations but just don't see how it works to the accused guy's advantage. I think what really happens is the prosecutor and the investigating officer know they don't have a BAC test to use as a crutch so they work extra hard during the investigating officer's direct examination to bring out all the gory details about how bizarre the guy's driving was before being pulled over. Then his refusal to take the test is like icing on the cake instead of the whole case.

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Fri May 23, 2008 2:03 pm

The other reason to ask for a blood test be administered, is that it can not be done right then and there and by delaying the test you could get the alcohol content in your blood to drop as time passes. The risk is that you just left the bar /tailgate and you still have alcohol in your tummy that could make you more drunk

kcatz · Post by **kcatz** » Fri May 23, 2008 6:00 pm

bigger question and maybe this needs its own thread....but how will this affect UM's football APR? If truly dismissed from the team he would be at least the 3rd guy in less than a year to leave the team (and not graduate).

How much cusion does UM have in their APR standings?

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Fri May 23, 2008 6:52 pm

kcatz wrote:bigger question and maybe this needs its own thread....but how will this affect UM's football APR? If truly dismissed from the team he would be at least the 3rd guy in less than a year to leave the team (and not graduate).

How much cusion does UM have in their APR standings?

I don't know the answer, and I spend very little time on egriz, but I was checking their thread on this incident earlier and a poster raised that concern- I think with their off field problems if Quinn is gone it's 4 or 5 players which will definitely weigh in somehow. They haven't had any prior APR issues, so I doubt if it'll have any long term impact.

GrizinWashington · Post by **GrizinWashington** » Fri May 23, 2008 7:01 pm

The APR is always a concern. But because it's measured over 4 years and because a program only needs to average about 60% graduation to stay above the line, I don't think it's a major issue yet. Montana always does a very good job graduating their players.

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Fri May 23, 2008 7:20 pm

GrizinWashington wrote:The APR is always a concern. But because it's measured over 4 years and because a program only needs to average about 60% graduation to stay above the line, I don't think it's a major issue yet. Montana always does a very good job graduating their players.

60% graduation is the goal (roughly), but doesn't play into the 'magic' 925 APR. As I said earlier, I don't see any problem for griz FB at this time.

AlphaGriz1 · Post by **AlphaGriz1** » Sat May 24, 2008 12:19 am

Like I said before, I don't care if he gets a DUI or not, the fact he found himself in yet another situation like this speaks volumes and he should be gone from the team.

Seeing the idiots like GF10/PlayaRape/Grizzle/Green26/ support this kind of behavior with unlimited excuses, just proves the kind of fans the Griz have and many are very pompous and ignorant. They are willing to sweep this stuff under the rug to feed their inner "never cut it at sports" child.

There isn't any excuse and one chance is more than enough when it comes to the kind of problems we have had under the sterling Bobbie Hauck.

grizatwork · Post by **grizatwork** » Sat May 24, 2008 10:50 pm

AlphaGriz1 wrote:Like I said before, I don't care if he gets a DUI or not, the fact he found himself in yet another situation like this speaks volumes and he should be gone from the team.

Seeing the idiots like GF10/PlayaRape/Grizzle/Green26/ support this kind of behavior with unlimited excuses, just proves the kind of fans the Griz have and many are very pompous and ignorant. They are willing to sweep this stuff under the rug to feed their inner "never cut it at sports" child.

There isn't any excuse and one chance is more than enough when it comes to the kind of problems we have had under the sterling Bobbie Hauck.

I usually find a grain of truth in your posts and a grain of BS in your posts, but I find this post right on. This is similar to having a restraining order out on you, but waiting for her on her couch when she comes home. If the cops have your number, either change your number or get an unlisted number.

GoCats18 · Post by **GoCats18** » Sun May 25, 2008 9:52 am

Jumping in late on this and it might have been said already, but when is SI going to go to UM and destroy their program for all of it mishaps that have happened over the past year?

AlphaGriz1 · Post by **AlphaGriz1** » Sun May 25, 2008 12:30 pm

Hauck won't let that happen our team gets a free pass on many things with him at the helm. This is just what happens when Hauck is on board, Colorado, Washington, Montana and where ever his next job is. It's just how he rolls and it's evident in all the programs he coaches at.

AlphaGriz1 · Post by **AlphaGriz1** » Sun May 25, 2008 3:02 pm

So it seems like the multiple offender is going to get off again without a mark. It is amazing how most athletes wander through life with nothing sticking to them.

This is 1st hand info from deep inside the Msla judicial system.

cats2506 · Post by **cats2506** » Sun May 25, 2008 3:19 pm

So now we are suppose to believe that this guy who is known to have alcohol issues, was just being a good guy and driving some friends home and only had one beer, and the judge bought it too.

Hmmmmm,

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Sun May 25, 2008 3:50 pm

Sorry, I'm a bit skeptical. His court appearance was scheduled for last Thurs. at 10:30 am and a griz fan (Peems) makes a post on Sun. afternoon saying it was one beer, the judge determined that the arrest was improper and gave Quinn his bond back. I'd think that this would be enough of a high profile issue in Missoula that the Missoulian or some media outlet would've picked up and reported info like that. I just want to see something substantial- if in fact it's true that's great news for the griz FB program.

grizatwork · Post by **grizatwork** » Sun May 25, 2008 5:43 pm

GOKATS wrote:Sorry, I'm a bit skeptical. His court appearance was scheduled for last Thurs. at 10:30 am and a griz fan (Peems) makes a post on Sun. afternoon saying it was one beer, the judge determined that the arrest was improper and gave Quinn his bond back. I'd think that this would be enough of a high profile issue in Missoula that the Missoulian or some media outlet would've picked up and reported info like that. I just want to see something substantial- if in fact it's true that's great news for the griz FB program.

I don't know if this is good news for the griz program or not. Sometimes just ripping the band aid off is the easiest thing to do. If he does get off, there is that festering wound just sitting there throughout the season that comes up at every game on the road.

The other thing that needs to be mentioned if he does get off and only had one beer is the fact that he had one beer. If he did get some sort of treatment last year, I am sure he knows that an alcoholic cannot have even one beer. How can he possibly be put on a shorter leash?