I have a previous post about my arrest for "Posession of Firearm While Intoxicated"

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/criminal-law/no-sobriety-test-yet-charged-w-intox-332373-3.html

What I am wondering now is, do I really need a lawyer? The penalty for this crime is a $50 to $500 fine, or 10 days to 6 months in jail.

Since I've never been arrested before, and was completely cooperative with the arresting officer and the jail personnel, I am thinking I would get the minimum punishment-if any punishment at all (since I wasn't intoxicated.)

I just can't see paying a lawyer $750 to defend me, when the max fine is $500 or a few days in jail. Plus the fact that I might beat the thing altogether. I'm pretty good at legal research.

My only concern is failing in my defense and getting a record. How much effect does a single misdemeanor conviction have on a persons record?

I also do not know the criminal court process and I'm not sure if that would be detrimental. But this is a SMALL town and that might make a big difference.

Any advice from someone who's been there?

Oh, P.S. How do I obtain a copy of my (non-existant) criminal record, or is this something that the court would look into before my trial?

Do I really need a lawyer

Hello again, pass.

Yes, you do.

excon

Is $750 worth getting 6 months in jail? If so... feel free to represent yourself.

Hello again, pass:

I don't know where your post went, so I thought I would answer here.
--------------------------
We've talked before, and I'm sure I advised you to get a lawyer. I see that you're not going to do that, but I don't understand what you're looking for from us now.

I can tell you how to dress, but that's not what this forum is about. What I can't tell you is how to lawyer. There is a skill to it. It's like ping pong. It doesn't matter how good a person you are or how well you dress, the professional ping pong player is going to wipe the floor with you.

Court is NOT about fair. It's about WINNING. If you're looking for the judge to be your advocate, forget it. He's the umpire. If you strike out, too bad. Lot's of people in jail struck out.

You THINK it's about the facts and fairness and justice and stuff... That's why you keep laying out what happened, as though you think it makes a difference about what's going to happen in court.

Oh, it COULD make a difference, if you knew how to get it in. But, if you don't know how, it's not getting in. That's not cause it SHOULDN'T get in. It's because you'll be up against a professional who knows how to STOP it from getting in.

I've heard your story. I don't think you're guilty. I think they screwed you. But, NONE of that matters if you can't get it in the record. Let me say this again. The judge will NOT let you just start talking.

AFTER you've been found guilty, and you're about to be sentenced, THEN you'll have an opportunity to speak whatever is on your mind. But, you cannot do that during your trial.

I don't know how to explain it any better to you. If you're willing to get it done to you all over again, go to court WITHOUT any defense at all.

excon

Thanks excon. You're right-I do have an expectation that I would be in court and be able to tell my story, but as you said, I have a good chance of not getting a word in edgewise. I honestly don't know what to do, I don't have the money to waste on a lawyer. Is this really as big of a deal as I'm making it in my head? I'm thinking that no judge really wants to put the average law-abiding citizen in jail, I am thinking at the most I would get a rather minimal fine if found guilty whether I had a lawyer or not...

I'm thinking that no judge really wants to put the average law-abiding citizen in jail, I am thinking at the most I would get a rather minimal fine if found guilty whether I had a lawyer or not.....Hello again, little miss lawyer:

You want to lawyer?? I'll tell you what to do. You're right. No judge wants to send you to jail, and most prosecutors don't either. If you're representing yourself, and you are, call up the DA and tell him you want to discuss a plea bargain. Don't do it on the phone. Get a meeting. Then let the lawyering begin. Actually, that part isn't about lawyering. It's about negotiating. But it's where you'll be able to tell your story, and if it's compelling enough, you'll be able to get a favorable a deal worked out. Be careful though. Don't admit to wrondoing. If a deal ISN'T worked out, he can use what you tell him against you.

That's how to lawyer.

excon

You use the word "waste" when referring to paying a lawyer.

If you want to know what the word waste means, sit in jail for a few months. That's a waste.

It doesn't matter if the judge wants to put "average law-abiding " citizen in jail. If you were law abiding, there wouldn't be a case against you in the first place.

I have read all of the relevant posts and comprehend completely. YOU believe you have been wrongly accused. YOU believe everyone is out to get you. I do not. That is my opinion and an opinion does not warrant a reddie, even if you don't like my opinion.

I hope you choose to not get a lawyer and I suspect you will be railroaded. Enjoy your sentence.

Incidentally... your probation and fees will probably cost you more than "wasting money on a lawyer". Good luck with that.

Everyone in jail is innocent and wrongly accused. You are not special. You are just too arrogant to get it.

Very mature! I didn't want an opinion on my guilt or innocence, I already know the answer to that. I want help on my case. If you think I'm guilty, then why are you responding at all?

If you truly believe that I was intoxicated about 30-45 minutes after leaving work, then I don't know what to say. As I said, after I had received the reports, the police based the accusation on an open beer can (still practically full... but whatever... ) in my vicinity.

I sat at the police station where they hemmed and hawed over what to charge me with. I think it's obvious (though it really doesn't matter in the long run) that the police weren't going to let me go without some kind of charge, so they came up with the best they could do. If they TRULY believed I was intoxicated from the get-go, wouldn't it make sense for them to give me a sobriety test? If they had, and if I was really intoxicated, they would have SOLID proof and I wouldn't have a chance in the world to beat the case in the least. But, I WASN"T intoxicated, and they knew it, so they made ZERO attempt to solidy prove it and instead just charged me with it and had their fingers crossed that I'd get stuck with the charge. Wht else could they charge me with?? NOTHING. But if you know ANYTHING about small-town police in general, not to mention small-town cops at 2 AM, you'd know what I'm talking about.

As I was sitting at the police station, I witnessed the police scrambling to find SOMETHING on me. First, of course, they checked out the legality of the weapon. Oh, NO!! It's totally legal!! What now?? Check my background. Crap, only 3 minor traffic tickets....no rap sheet, no warrants. Hmmm, what to do?? Just make something up!!

I don't know for sure what proper procedure is, but to add to my assumptions above, I'd like to say that I was arrested and taken away WITHOUT being charged with anything. The charges came later, approx 2-3 hours later. Absolutely NOTHING was mentioned about intoxication untill they finally said "Well, we decided you're going to be charged with <THIS>" They asked me a million questions, where I lived for practically the past 20 years, a veritable who/what where of my ENTIRE life. But I cooperated the entire time. I know none of that really matters, but I think maybe it does matter slightly that I was arrested without being charged for all that time, whether it matters because it's not proper procedure or whether it just fortifies my case more.

I don't care if you were drunk or not. I don't care if the weapon was legal or not. These are the facts: you had a loaded firearm in your possession in the vicinity of open alcohol on someone else's property... who were the ones that called the cops. You have stated time and again that you can't drink at work. No... you can't *legally* drink at work.

Whether you are found guilty of the current crime or not, you WILL be tried for something if you don't know how to get out of it. You have asked time and again what to do and have been told time and again what to do. Hire a lawyer. You don't want to hire a lawyer. You want to BE a lawyer. You want advice on what to do? Go to law school.

Police arrest you on charges. Those charges are not what you finally get prosecuted for. Police do not prosecute... the district attorney does. If HE didn't feel that there was a strong enough case against you, he wouldn't be wasting his time. A good lawyer will be able to convince him he is wasting his time. You will not.

And I am sorry... but you do not get to decide what people can give you here. You opened the door posting here. I am entitled to my opinion, as are you.

No, I can't *legally* drink at work, and I DON'T drink at work and I take offense that you would take a stab at my character like that since you do not know me in the slightest, I see no need nor reasoning for that. I don't even drink at home. I can't say that I NEVER drink, I do on occasion, generally at a special occasion like a holiday party. I can most certainly say that I NEVER drink beer because I DON'T, if I drink, I drink liquor, I cannot stand beer it makes me sick and it's gross. My work is videotaped and the owners (one or both) are always there watching the place. I have a professional license that is mandated by the State in order to serve alcoholic beverages (liquor, not beer), and part of holding that license is the LAW that I cannot drink while in charge of alcohol and is STRICTLY enforced. The bar owners can and will lose their liquor license if an employee is found to be drinking on the job and they take NO chances regarding this matter, as the liquor licences for businesses in this state are EXTREMELY costly and are VERY strictly enforced by undercover officers and extensive investigations. The state is Oklahoma if that gives you a clue. Total Bible freaks! Bars here cannot serve liquor without a separate and extremely costly and red-tape process license. Many bars in this state only serve beer because of the Alcoholic Beverage laws.

I was invited as a guest (begged, to be more specific) to come to this persons house. They called me while I was working, on the business telephone, to see if I was there working. They came in as patrons, this is how I got to know them in the first place. THEY were drinking, not me. One was only drinking a small amount as he was the driver but the other guy was drinking pretty heavily. I know for a fact that HE was drunk because I served him drinks. This is the guy who called the police, the drunk one. I have no way of knowing what he said on the phone to the police, but I'm sure it wasn't good judging by the way they responded. It was his beer that was on the coffee table, he and the other guy both had beers. There was 2 on the coffee table, one belonging to each guy, but as we all know, the one guy had vanished so the beer was just sitting there. Me and the guy who didn't vanish were left there sitting on the couch together wondering where he went, waiting for him to show up so we could leave back to my car.

I left work with the 2 guys who waited on me to close up, we then went approximately 20-30 minutes to their house in their truck. We then picked out a movie to watch, I went to the bathroom and foolishly left my purse behind because I trusted them as friends, and from there everyone knows what happened.

Again, I'm not asking for opinions on my guilt or innocence nor am I asking for unwarranted snarky remarks. That helps no one and is very immature. Perhaps saying WHY you might think I am guilty might help so I could either explain further if there is a misunderstanding or question or perhaps there is a valid reason that I might be seen as guilty that I cannot explain. You mention the open alcohol, all I can say is that there was 2 beers and 3 people so SOMEBODY wasn't drinking just by simple math, and the FACT of the time frame pretty much makes it impossible to become intoxicated even if I was drinking.

As the law reads, the charge against me COMPLETELY hinges on the accusation of intoxication. I am NOT in trouble for ANYTHING other than the accusation of being intoxicated while possessing a firearm. I'm not in trouble for possessing it, I had every right to possess it and being at so-and so's house has no bearing on that.

excon, I have been thinking about your post regrding talking to the DA all day. If I tried this route, I assume this means that I would end up being "guilty" of something, right? What do you suppose I would end up being guilty of? I really have no clue what the DA might try to get me to accept, perhaps something along the lines of disorderly conduct or something?

I'm a tad concerned about my record, since I have never been arrested before, how is a misdemeanor charge going to affect me?

I think you might have a really good idea here, as apparently I would avoid the whole court process and not have to worry about whether to get a lawyer or not. And I just have this sinking feeling that I am going to be guilty of SOMETHING if I end up in court whether I have a lawyer or not anyway.

I am going to really think this through over this weekend, if there is any more information or "heads-up" you can give me it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for bringing this up, I didn't even know this was an option and I really appreciate it.

I am not being snarky and I am not taking a stab at your character. I am telling you how someone who doesn't know you, i.e. the DA, might view things. All the things you continue to post are circumstantial and absolutely meaningless if you don't get them entered into the court proceeding.

I want to reiterate this point again: I do not care if you are innocent, guilty of this crime or found guilty of something else. You might not see it but I am trying to help you. I actually HAVE been where you are.

About 5 years ago I was arrested and arraigned for carrying a concealed firearm (18 month mandatory minimum in Mass.). I was ordered to have bail set at a hundred grand. Now, keep in mind, the gun was unloaded, locked and in the nightstand in my bedroom. I was not even in the bedroom at the time of my arrest. The gun was legally purchased and registered.

No one cared and no one would listen to me.

Until I hired a lawyer.

But like I said... if you want to do it alone, more power to you. I think it's a bad idea. And apparently you don't want to hear any opinions that are contrary to what you want to be told, so I'm done with you. Best of luck.

excon, I have been thinking about your post regrding talking to the DA all day. If I tried this route, I assume this means that I would end up being "guilty" of something, right? Hello again, pass:

Yes, plea agreements usually wind up with a guilty plea for something. But, talking to him doesn't mean that you have to accept the deal. Maybe, after he hears your story, he'll drop the charges. Or, maybe you'll reveal stuff that will make convicting you even easier. I don't know. It's risky.

But, you're not looking for an easy solution. You want to be found NOT GUILTY. I understand. I don't blame you. I don't think you're guilty either.. I'd want it too, if I were you. But, you simply don't have the chops to beat a seasoned prosecutor. Guilt or innocence has NOTHING to do with it.

Do you want me to tell you how wrong they are?? Ok, they suck!

excon

Thanks again, excon. I will take all that into consideration. I want you to know that you have helped me immensely by making me aware of this option.

I will keep you posted as to what ends up happening in this case. And no doubt I'll come up with another question or 2! :)

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!!

Steve, thanks for the last post. As a person who comes here to ask questions, I got to tell you perhaps you need to change your style and approach if you truly want to help people who come here with questions. It's really off-putting (and aggrivating) to be essentially treated like a liar or some kind of career criminal when asking for help in a place that SHOULD be non-judgemental, this is the law section and it isn't about opinions. I totally realize that my posts are FULL of information that probably doesn't matter. The reason for this is simply because I have learned from experience in asking questions here that most people don't thoroughly read posts before responding or if you leave out the slightest detail you are treated like you are lying by omission.

If you feel a person is hiding information to make themselves look better, then simply say "You didn't explain what happened after X, Y or Z, could you explain further?" or something along those lines. Give the person a chance to answer anything in question before essentially condemning them. If they don't have a sufficient answer or it seems to be a lie, THEN say something. But jeez, give people a chance first. I read tons of posts on here, and absolutely I come across many that are full of holes or the person is seemingly hiding something. It's not necessary to attack them over it though, if you think about it the person is not going to benefit from any help if they are lying about their situation anyway, so it will come around to bite them on it's own, it's not necessary to "one-up" people all the time.

Try saying from the beginning that you are looking at things with the point of view that a judge might have, otherwise your comments come across as personal attacks and it makes you look less like a helper and more like someone who's just sitting behind the computer screen playing judge.

When I ask a qustion here, I absolutely do want all kinds of responses, I don't just want people to agree with me. It's fine to challenge my post with a valid question. But it's really not OK to make bold assumptions about a person's character or to immediately imply that they are lying or hiding info just because a small detail is left out. People aren't generally looking for character judgements, they just want help.

You were arrested and the da decided not to just drop the case,they haven' t realized that your innocent.Maybe w. a lawyer you can get a dismal or a good plea bargain with in 2 court session.With out one you might be going there 10 times.

Imagine being in a debate competition,like excon said they know the rules and are master in arguing. A lawyer going to get you a better outcome regardless.You got to count on luck,which is a dangerous thing when going to court. Many times the Da and police don't care.

You might not like the way steve answers the question,cops and the Da treat people who get arrested like liars. You could go to court and try and explain your side and tell them you want to avoid a criminal record.If that doesn't seem possible hire a lawyer.

I been charged with stuff that's nothing extremely serious,but once I hired a lawyer it made a world of difference. If that lawyer for 750 can get you a dismal I would consider it worth it.

Thanks. I see what you are saying about how people are going to perceive me because I have been arrested, I've just never been in this position before and I don't like it one bit! It's tough! I am going to take excon's suggestion of going to the DA on my own and see what happens there. As he said, apparently I will have more of a chance to explain my story and show that I have no previous record and maybe, just maybe things will work out. According to excon, if I don't get anywhere favorable with the DA then I don't necessarily have to accept his offer, and perhaps I will end up getting a lawyer after all depending on the feeling I get from the DA. I just don't know right now! It's all very overwhelming and I'm probably making a bigger deal of it than it really is. At this point, I am concerned about my record because I imagine nobody wants an arrest record, but at the same time it's not like I have grand aspirations to be the President or something so I am weighing the cost of the lawyer vs the cost of a fine to just be done with it. I keep thinking, what if I pay the lawyer and STILL end up paying a fine and getting something on my record? I know that they most likely have zero desire to put me in jail for this, they'd probably love to just get money from me for a fine. I'm not scared at all of going to jail to be honest.

I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing, but I don't live in the county where this is taking place, and so I don't know anyone there nor do I have any idea how stern the judge might be.

I'm going to call the DA's office tomorrow (Monday) and see what I can do to get an appointment to speak with him.

@excon-if I can in fact get an appointment with the DA, I'll post back tomorrow about it and I'll have to ask you some more questions probably! I can't give you another greenie yet, but I want you to know that I really, really appreciate your help, you've been great, I can't even put into words how much you have helped me!

If your goal is to be found not guilty then when you go to the DA and tell your story you will not achieve your goal. The DA will not listen to your story and then say "Oh, the police made a mistake. Sorry. All charges dropped." That will not happen. The DA will offer to let you plead guilty to a lesser charge. If you accept the offer that means you will be guilty of something, there will probably be a fine to pay and you will have a record. If you choose not to accept the DA's offer then you have to go to trial and, guess what? You have already told the DA what your defense will be.

You don't have the experience or knowledge to fight this without help.

It's really a simple decision... is it worth paying $750 to avoid spending 6 months in jail and having a record? If 6 months of your life is not worth $750 to you then represent yourself. Ever hear the saying that the attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client? It's completely true.

Hi, Lisa. Don't worry, I'm not expecting the DA to drop the charges, though that would be nice! I'm going in there with the lowest expectations. Depending on what he offers (if anything) I will consider it based on fine amount and impact on my record, if what he offers is not something I am willing to accept then I just might end up getting a lawyer after all. It just depends on the outcome of this and perhaps the "feel" I get from him (maybe he's lenient and open to discussion or maybe he's a harda$$, I have no idea yet). If I go in there and it seems like it's not going to work out reasonably, then I'll go from there, as of now the plan is to at least try it.

I'm not going to say anything negative about the police, regardless of what I think about them they were just doing what they thought was best I guess. Anything that might be perceived as an insult to the police would not get me far, I know!

Ideally, of course I'd like to be found not guilty. excon has been patient enough with me to make me realize that basically all my ideas about the courts are TV-induced disillusions. Here I was, thinking that it really was all about justice but I know now that it is more like a game. No, I don't know how to play this game (thankfully! ). Now that this has been pointed out to me, I am more willing at this point to accept guilt for a lesser crime just to get this over with. I doubt that it will be that big of a deal for me to have one misdemeanor crime on my record, like I said I'm not shooting for the stars career-wise, not planning on running for Mayor or anything. I don't think having something minor on my record will impact any job opportunity that I would ever come across, I already have a college education and a few professional licences that I am almost certain this would not affect.

Honestly, the biggest concern I have for my record being tarnished is if I was to ever be pulled over for a traffic ticket... I have a feeling the police might treat me more harshly in that situation once they checked my background. I haven't even been pulled over (knock on wood) since the early 1990's right after I had got my license, typical dumb kid stuff! I got 2 speeding tickets two days apart back then, and I learned my lesson. The other ticket I got was a few years ago, but I wasn't pulled over, I had been in an accident and the officer was nice enough to deliver it to the hospital for me ;) I got ticketed after the fact for something along the lines of not adjusting my speed properly for inclement weather.

OK, well here's what happened when I called the DA's office-I can't see him, I was not able to make an appointment. I was informed by the receptionist that I HAD to have an attorney.

This is exactly what I said on the phone "Good morning, I am calling to make an appointment to discuss a plea arrangement with the DA, I have an upcoming court case for a misdemeanor charge" She asked me what the charge was and asked me if I was a lawyer, then responded that I cannot see the DA and that I must just go to court as ordered and have an attorney-I asked basically if the DA ever sees people about a plea (in case it was just my particular charge that was preventing it), she said no, no one sees the DA except lawyers. I said that I was under the impression that in the US you were allowed to represent yourself if you wanted and she said "Well, here in Caddo County you need a lawyer" I got a little LOL over that! :)

I guess that settles that then. Even though it didn't work out the easy way, I still thank everyone who helped. I still welcome any advice if anyone has anything to add from here.

OK, well here's what happened when I called the DA's office-I can't see him, I was not able to make an appointment. I was informed by the receptionist that I HAD to have an attorney.

This is exactly what I said on the phone "Good morning, I am calling to make an appointment to discuss a plea arrangement with the DA, I have an upcoming court case for a misdemeanor charge" She asked me what the charge was and asked me if I was a lawyer, then responded that I cannot see the DA and that I must just go to court as ordered and have an attorney-I asked basically if the DA ever sees people about a plea (in case it was just my particular charge that was preventing it), she said no, no one sees the DA except lawyers. I said that I was under the impression that in the US you were allowed to represent yourself if you wanted and she said "Well, here in Caddo County you need a lawyer" I got a little LOL over that!!:)

I guess that settles that then. Even though it didn't work out the easy way, I still thank everyone who helped. I still welcome any advice if anyone has anything to add from here.


Was she saying the DA only meets with Attorneys in the DA's office OR that the DA only meets with Attorneys. There is a difference.

In my area of NY the DA does NOT meet with anyone who is not an Attorney in the DA's office. The DA - actually the Assistant DA - DOES meet with people who do not have a legal representative at the Courthouse prior to the schedule appearance (that same day). If you call for an appointment you are told you will be seen at the Courthouse, "arrive X minutes early for the conference."

Judy, the receptionist simply said that the DA meets with lawyers only. I would assume that if I had a lawyer, he would tell me whether I should just go to court and fight this or whether he could make me a deal with the DA beforehand and if that would be in my best interest. I told the woman that I didn't have a lawyer at this time and that this was why I was wanting an appointment with the DA. I was very clear that I had no representation and that I was looking to make a deal. She gave me no instructions on how to make a plea before court, or if that was even possible. She told me to come to court as ordered, not to come early or anything. She did not say I would have any opportunity to make any kind of deal out of court either with a DA or an assistant.

I have never been through this before so I did not think or know to ask any of this stuff. I know NOTHING about court processes.

[QUOTE=stevetcg agrees: I was going to tell her that already, but she decided that she gets to dictate how I can respond to her postings, so I didnt bother.."[/QUOTE]


Unfortunately I can't give a greenie to a comment so here's a pretend greenie.

And, again - these are the problems you face when the charges are somewhat serious and you represent yourself.

Hello again, pass:

Then go to court and see what happens. There's LOTS of possibilities. Of course, I don't know what particular procedure is next in line for you or whether you've even started yet. This HAS been going of for quite some time.

If it's for the preliminary hearing, the cop might not show up, they might drop the charges, they might offer you a deal, or they might offer you a free lawyer if the case continues onward toward a trial.

Look, if you're not a bad guy, and they don't absolutely know that you did wrong, they don't want a trial any more than you do. They could offer a minor offense just to clear their calendar and record a victory. But, of course, they KNOW you're defenseless so I don't think THEY'RE going to cave. I don't know. Depends on how good you are, or how good/bad the case is against you.

Let us know. Yes, you should get a lawyer... But, because you're not, that doesn't mean I can't help some.

excon

Yeah, this has been going on for a long time! I was arrested sometime in April (or was it March, I'd have to check) and according to the papaers I was given upon release from jail, I am to be in court at 9 AM on August 14th. That seems like an awful long time, especially considering the place where this is happening is basically a ghost town, I can't imagine their calendar is too full! I have not been to court or anything at all yet.

Since the idea of going to the DA flopped, and since you have opened my eyes to the truth about the court system, maybe I will get a lawyer after all. Since I have no idea what the procedure is here, I'd hate to have to wait until the actual court date to find out. That would be foolish and I'd look like an idiot in front of everyone.

I got to see what I can scrape together towards a lawyer, I guess if I can manage to come up with the money I'll just hire one. This is not anything like I thought it would be. Since it doesn't seem possile to get this crap behind me on my own, then after everything that has been pointed out to me has shown me that perhaps a lawyer is worth the money...

Allright, this idea popped into my head lastnight... now, don't laugh at me, I'm just throwing it out there... What if I went to a drug/alcohol testing service and submitted a hair sample? It would clearly prove without a doubt my sobriety.

I contacted a couple companies to ask what the cost of the test is, I'm waiting for responses...

If you can get the Court to order follicle testing, yes, it could be helpful to you. Things may have changed but this test was NOT admissible in US Courts in 2008 (I believe that's when I was at the seminar).

Make sure it's admissible and the Lab is acceptable to the Court before you spend the money - like DNA testing, the Lab has to be recognized.

I made sure to ask if the test was admissible in court. I wasn't going to wait for the court to order it, I was just going to do it on my own if that was possible. I contacted a few companies in my state via email, but I assume due to the long weekend I won't get a response till Monday at the earliest. If I don't hear from them via email by Monday, I will just call them.

The charge I have is "Posession of Firearm while Intoxicated", it completely relies on me being intoxicated, so I figured the hair test would remove all doubt about that. Couldn't really convict me when they find no alcohol use, right?

It just depends on the cost and whether it's admissible.

I made sure to ask if the test was admissable in court. I wasn't going to wait for the court to order it, I was just going to do it on my own if that was possible. I contacted a few companies in my state via email, but I assume due to the long weekend I won't get a response till Monday at the earliest. If I don't hear from them via email by Monday, I will just call them.

The charge I have is "Posession of Firearm while Intoxicated", it completely relies on me being intoxicated, so I figured the hair test would remove all doubt about that. Couldn't really convict me when they find no alcohol use, right?

It just depends on the cost and whether or not it's admissable.



The question isn't only whether "the test" is admissible. The question is also whether "the test" by that particular company is admissible.

I read that hair follicle tests will report alcohol consumption within the past year - is that your understanding? The class I took indicated that the testing is less than 100% - and, therefore, not admissible in places - because any hair product containing any alcohol will cause the test to be incorrect.

Well, of course I would make certain that the test is admissible and that the company itself is recognized before paying to have it done. Otherwise what's the point? I was under the assumption that companies generally test for the past 3 months as a standard, but that they CAN go back even further. I would have to go back to the beginning of April, so if I was to get it done soon I'm pretty sure I'd be within 3 months (I'd have to dig up my paperwork to know the exact day I was arrested, I don't recall off the top of my head)... but I have no problem with them going back however far, I don't drink but on RARE occasion, so it makes no difference to me. Even when I do drink, I doubt I consume enough to even register...

I made contact with all the companies within a reasonable distance from me via email, so hopefully I will have an answer tomorrow (Monday), if not I will call around.

I had never thought about hair dye/hair products affecting the test. Mostly all you hear about hair tests is regarding drugs, and as we all know, there's no covering up drug use. From what I read, it did seem like alcohol testing was relatively new, so you may very well be right, it might not be admissible and it might be inaccurate due to products containing alcohol. I do dye my hair, so I surely wouldn't want to get a false positive, although I did not dye my hair anytime near when this arrest happened (I don't think so anyway... )...

Oh well, I'll find out for sure tomorrow, and I'll be sure to ask about how hair products might affect the results. If it's possible to get a false positive from products, then I'm not going to do the test, no sense in wasting the money if it's not 100&#37;.

Thanks for bringing that point up, I really never would've thought of that!

So you want to get a test that will cost several hundred dollars to take to a court that may or may not allow you to enter it into evidence or even hear the results rather than just get a laywer and stop pretending you have a clue what you are doing?

Here is a news flash for you, Mattlock... if you try to enter this evidence, they can just change the charge. And if you don't think they can find SOMETHING, well, you obviously HAVE been drinking.

Seriously - stop trying to be a lawyer and stick to bartending.

Steve, I thought you were done "helping" me, yet I see you continue to follow the thread. Not only follow the thread, but insert any insult you can come up with. If you noticed, I stated twice that it would depend on the cost and whether it was admissible. This is borderline stalking. By all means, post all you want on any thread, my suggestion is to do so with integrity to avoid looking like a fool.

>Thread Closed<
As OP clearly already has ALL the answers, so doesn't need any further input.