Confessing to a DUI, in Itself, Isn’t Sufficient Grounds for an Arrest

Being interviewed on suspicion of drunk driving isn't quite the same thing as being interviewed on suspicion of first-degree murder. In the latter case, if you tell the interrogating officer, “I confess! I did it! I killed him in cold blood!”, you'll probably be taken into custody then and there. But if you tell a police officer who has pulled you over on the road, “I admit it! I'm driving drunk!”, he can't simply arrest you for DUI. He first has to administer a series of tests—walking a straight line, blowing into a breathalyzer, etc. – before he can take you back to the police station.

What this means is that your confession, if you are foolish (or ashamed) enough to make one, doesn't contribute to the weight of the evidence the police need to make a DUI charge stick—and if it doesn't make any difference to the outcome of your case, why confess in the first place? In fact, any good defense lawyer would prefer that you not confess to a DUI, even if you know, in all good conscience, that you were driving while drunk. That's because, if you were intoxicated, there should be enough objective evidence (the results of your sobriety test, your blood-alcohol level, etc.) for the state to secure a conviction; your confession would be totally superfluous.

If you confessed to a DUI, and your blood and breathalyzer tests showed that you were indeed drunk, you need to secure the services of an expert criminal lawyer (who may, at the very least, succeed in having your confession excluded from the case, though that may or may not do you much good, depending on the other evidence). Call the Virginia DUI attorneys at Jarrell Hicks & Waldman (888-783-9701) for a free consultation today!

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*