[The police] identified an 18-year-old as the car’s owner. He was arrested on a warrant connected to a prior DUI charge from Denver.
What they didn’t get from the car’s owner was a confession…
“The story that was relayed to me was that the three people who were in the vehicle, all three claimed to have been too intoxicated to know who was driving,” said Johnson.
The 3 year statue of limitations was allowed to expire because the 18 year old car owner with a prior DUI claimed to be too drunk to remember if he was driving and his two friends said the same thing.
It doesn’t work like that. You can’t just punish people without probable cause. America isn’t hasn’t turned that Fascist yet. You need to prove who was driving first before you can punish them. Without probable cause, there is no justice.
Lol, America has a long proud history of punishing a lot of people with much less probable causes than ‘the drunk DUI having car owner in his own car confirmed/confessed drunk at the time the car hit the cyclist was probably driving the car’.
Edit: Oh - you were prob replying for the case they would all share the punishment, my bad - I was trying to say that there is a probable cause one of them drove & that the system should have chosen (the most probable) one. It 100% would if it was a high-profile case.
The 3 year statue of limitations was allowed to expire because the 18 year old car owner with a prior DUI claimed to be too drunk to remember if he was driving and his two friends said the same thing.
Then they can all share the same maximum punishment.
It doesn’t work like that. You can’t just punish people without probable cause. America isn’t hasn’t turned that Fascist yet. You need to prove who was driving first before you can punish them. Without probable cause, there is no justice.
Lol, America has a long proud history of punishing a lot of people with much less probable causes than ‘the drunk DUI having car owner in his own car confirmed/confessed drunk at the time the car hit the cyclist was probably driving the car’.
Edit: Oh - you were prob replying for the case they would all share the punishment, my bad - I was trying to say that there is a probable cause one of them drove & that the system should have chosen (the most probable) one. It 100% would if it was a high-profile case.
Time to cancel the concept of the designated driver, the new best way to avoid a DUI is for everyone to be so shitfaced they don’t know who drove!