Dinner with the “One Trick DUI lawyer” Warren Redlich

 

I recently had the opportunity to host the Fair DUI Lawyer, Warren Redlich, featured in several media outlets. He takes the idea of not incriminating yourself to a different level.

fd-header-book-flyer1

The conversation was very revealing. There have been cases of people being charged despite having a 0.0 alcohol reading on the breathalyzer machine, according to Mr. Redlich. The trouble, according to him, is that DUI laws assume a person is guilty until proven innocent; and in a lot of cases, the innocent end up paying the price. A breathalyzer has a margin of error of 15% – that would be considered ridiculous in any other type of crime/scientific purpose, but the public opinion on DUI is so strong that we allow innocents to be prosecuted in the name of safety.

Apparently, having consumed Wonder bread, and no alcohol, can create a positive reading on a breathalyzer test. So imagine of you have a slice of bread with a glass of wine. A conviction under the DUI laws can be damning. And in many cases, the people being charged have no idea how to get out of the mess.

One of his points is this: if the point is to reduce drunk driving, then the more efficient way would be to offer free rides to drunk drivers, not create DUI checkpoints.

A recent video featuring his technique has gone viral; and as of this post has had more than 2.5 million hits.

My own view of all DUI laws are that they are “pre-crime” laws – a la Minority Report. In other words, laws created to “prevent crime” are on morally dubious grounds. Punishment should be for committing a crime, not for creating a possibility of committing a crime. Mr. Redlich did not dismiss my point of view.

In any case, it is good to see some new perspective and some push back on the encroachment of our freedoms. Especially when there is a distinct possibility of the innocent getting incriminated.

What are your thoughts?

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 93 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Is he any relation to Sidney Redlitch?

    • #1
  2. EThompson Member
    EThompson
    @

    The other thing to note is that not all people react to alcohol in a similar manner. I refuse to get behind the wheel after one drink, but my husband who may have imbibed three glasses of wine at dinner is perfectly capable of driving responsibly. One size does not fit all.

    • #2
  3. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    My concern is that I could not pass a field sobriety test even when stone-cold sober.  Why?  I have carpal tunnel, so I cannot hold or manipulate objects (like a pen to sign stuff) without possibly dropping them.  In addition, I have high blood pressure, and my meds lower my BP so much, that I feel faint if I move too quickly – plus, my balance is affected.  Forget walking a line heel-to-toe.  Finally, a friend of mine who is a retired deputy sheriff told me all that other stuff is just to loosen you up for the real test – reciting the alphabet.

    I’ve always felt that if the cops just parked a patrol car outside a bar, all the idiots who stumble out looking for their cars would turn around, go back inside, and call a cab, assuming they were sober enough.  If they weren’t, the police should be the ones to call a cab, and instead of making an arrest, make sure the cab driver gets reimbursed by the lush they took home.

    • #3
  4. user_189393 Inactive
    user_189393
    @BarkhaHerman

    EThompson:The other thing to note is that not all people react to alcohol in a similar manner. I refuse to get behind the wheel after one drink, but my husband who may have imbibed three glasses of wine at dinner is perfectly capable of driving responsibly. One size does not fit all.

    The state laws are unfair at best and abusive at worst.

    There is a lot more material in his book;  I recommend reading it.  While I sympathize with anyone who is a victim of a drunk driving incident; I also sympathize with those who acquire a record for mere carelessness.

    I wish you lived closer, you could visit some of these events, ET.

    • #4
  5. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @MattBalzer

    It feels like I should preface this post with a “full disclosure: I’m from Wisconsin”. With that out of the way, I would say that there are times when a driver should be pulled over because they are potentially endangering others, but they are a small percentage of the total number of DUI arrests. I know of one person who was pulled over because their exhaust was making too much noise and the policeman gave him a breathalyzer and brought him in because of it. If someone is driving dangerously, then go ahead and check them out, but don’t try to come up with excuses for why you’re pulling someone over.

    • #5
  6. user_189393 Inactive
    user_189393
    @BarkhaHerman

    In Florida, there has been not one case where a person was taken to the precinct, given a test, and not charged (including the 0.0 reading one).

    The reason for “bringing someone in” is the officers claim that the person’s speech was slurred or they smelled alcohol.  So, showing the flyer without speaking or lowering the window eliminated the two claims.  All tests at checkpoints in Florida using the technique has “passed”; i.e. no charges.

    I for one is of the mind that the onus of proof is on them, and I am not going to help them incriminate myself – whatever my reasons (blood pressure / accent / carpal tunnel etc.)

    • #6
  7. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @

    It’s a shame that it has come to this. The police are picking on too many innocents and relative innocents while it seems the blatant criminals run amok.

    There’s a difference between the guy driving two miles home from a bar where he’s had one drink over the limit, obeying the speed limit driving carefully and the teenager who has tanked up at a party and is trying to show off for his friends. But not to police, one is as good as the other. Sure the teen might get a reckless driving charge and such but the guy who was not going to have an accident and not going to hurt himself or others gets to have his life ruined.

    Is there never a time where the cop is administering a lengthy sobriety test to the marginal guy, stopped on some pretense because he wasn’t visibly weaving or displaying reckless or drunken-type driving, while he could be patrolling and observing and stopping the drunken teen who is a real threat to other drivers? I’m sure it happens all the time.

    It’s also mission creep and civil liberties violations. We can’t control everything and it’s delusional to expect police to keep us safe from ourselves.

    • #7
  8. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Just finished a discussion about this very topic.

    First, I have schooled all my kids to say over and over: I don’t consent to searches. My daughter spent two nights in jail after the driver of the car she was in consented to a search and pot was found.

    Second, a good friend’s husband spent the night in jail on a DUI charge. He left to get take out, had a couple of beers at the restaurant and was in a car accident (not his fault) on the way home. The cop breathalized him, he blew .03 and he got hauled in. (this guy weighs 400 lbs, at least)

    What the cop didn’t know is that the guy is married to Leslie Abrahmson. The event cost them $2,000 + in bail, lots of time and frustration. Imagine the cost if he had had to pay a lawyer. And the judge eventually threw the whole thing out – being represented by a fairly famous lawyer I am sure helped. Few people have that weapon.

    • #8
  9. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Auto-correct is a curse. One-Trick DUI Lawyer.

    • #9
  10. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @DougWatt

    Just a question, is Mr. Redlich referring to hand held breathalyzers or desktop evidential breath testers?

    • #10
  11. user_189393 Inactive
    user_189393
    @BarkhaHerman

    Barfly:Auto-correct is a curse. One-Trick DUI Lawyer.

    Thanks!  Didn’t even notice it.

    • #11
  12. user_189393 Inactive
    user_189393
    @BarkhaHerman

    Doug Watt:Just a question, is Mr. Redlich referring to hand held breathalyzers or desktop evidential breath testers?

    Go to his site for more info; however I am paraphrasing:  there are two types of breathalyzers, and the field one is even less accurate than the one in the precincts.  The one in the precincts has a 15% margin of error.

    • #12
  13. user_189393 Inactive
    user_189393
    @BarkhaHerman

    Annefy:Just finished a discussion about this very topic.

    First, I have schooled all my kids to say over and over: I don’t consent to searches. My daughter spent two nights in jail after the driver of the car she was in consented to a search and pot was found.

    Second, a good friend’s husband spent the night in jail on a DUI charge. He left to get take out, had a couple of beers at the restaurant and was in a car accident (not his fault) on the way home. The cop breathalized him, he blew .03 and he got hauled in. (this guy weighs 400 lbs, at least)

    What the cop didn’t know is that the guy is married to Leslie Abrahmson. The event cost them $2,000 + in bail, lots of time and frustration. Imagine the cost if he had had to pay a lawyer. And the judge eventually threw the whole thing out – being represented by a fairly famous lawyer I am sure helped. Few people have that weapon.

    Ann – your story is unfortunately not unique at all.  The issue is that there is no public outrage for this kind of stuff, since most people assume guilt.

    • #13
  14. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @

    Annefy.

    So sorry to hear about your daughter. That stuff burns me up.

    I heard a story yesterday. A friend’s son was in his dorm room and some other dorm-mates were making some noise. The campus police came started looking around and saw a small amount of pot on his dresser. They called the police, who came and arrested him. They police told him on the way to the station they thought it ridiculous, but they had to respond and arrest. The kid had to beg to stay in school pay a fine of $750 to the school. Pay a lawyer $3,000 and he also spent the night in jail.

    By now it’s strange because pot is everywhere so kids get a false sense that it’s okay. They need to be trained that cooperating with the police in searches is the first step to being arrested.

    And I don’t understand how a cop can arrest someone for being under the limit and why can’t they sue for false arrest? Too much power no accountability.

    • #14
  15. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @DougWatt

    Barkha Herman:

    Doug Watt:Just a question, is Mr. Redlich referring to hand held breathalyzers or desktop evidential breath testers?

    Go to his site for more info; however I am paraphrasing: there are two types of breathalyzers, and the field one is even less accurate than the one in the precincts. The one in the precincts has a 15% margin of error.

    The results of a field Breathalyzer test is not admissible evidence in most of the states. The desktop evidential breath tester is, with the exception of South Dakota which will only admit blood evidence. More commonly referred to as a “blood draw” by most police officers. When I was on the road in Oregon hand held breathalyzers were not used.

    I made DUII (Oregon law covers all intoxicants under its DUII laws) arrests. None of those I arrested was a “virgin”, or first time offender. The vast majority of DUII arrests involve chronic offenders. The feds provide guidelines but penalties and procedures vary from state to state. Sobriety check points are not allowed in Oregon, at least during the time I was a police officer. States have, like Oregon Implied Consent Laws. Refusal to take a DUII related test will mean the suspension of your drivers license regardless of whether or not you are found guilty of the DUII. Know your state laws.

    In regards to Stad’s comment #3 I always asked a subject if they had a physical impairment that would not allow them to do a physical demonstration of any portion of a field sobriety test. I never asked someone to do something I couldn’t do, like say the alphabet backward.

    In Oregon new laws go into effect on January 1st. Very few laws are dropped, new ones are added. Anyone can order a copy of the state statutes. The book is far less expensive than paying a lawyer hundreds of dollars an hour.

    • #15
  16. user_189393 Inactive
    user_189393
    @BarkhaHerman

    He Doug –

    Warren mentioned that the abuse for DUI in Upstate NY, where is initially practiced was no where near what’s going on in FL.  Here’s an old case, from Tampa:

    http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/22881005/2013/07/18/more-troubles-at-the-lakeland-police-department

    To say Florida has a police corruption problem (and it’s not the entire state, and it’s not all the cops) is an understatement.

    • #16
  17. user_428379 Coolidge
    user_428379
    @AlSparks

    In Alaska, I’ve been stopped a few times for minor infractions but let go with no citation after the cops ensured I wasn’t impaired.  Most of the stops were just a look up and down, and I didn’t have to get out of the car.  My last such stop was because I rolled a stop sign.  I’ve never gone through a DUI checkpoint, and they seem to be non-existent up here.  I have been tested once with a breathalyzer, and in another instance, I was “asked” to get out of the car so a field sobriety test could be performed.  I passed, and was let go.  So I have no horror stories.  It probably helps, by the way, that I no longer am out after midnight.  I just no longer have an interest in doing so.

    Alaska does have some laws on the books that I consider dubious.  First, if you are convicted of underage drinking, but not driving, you will (not can, but will) lose your driver’s license.  Remember, the drinking age in all states, is 21 years old, but you are considered a legal adult at 18 years old.  If you’re under 21, driving, and tested in the field, a blood alcohol content of over 0.0% will result in a DUI conviction, not just an underage citation.

    In Alaska, you can be ordered to undergo drug dependency evaluation, even if a charge is reduced from DUI.  You can then be prohibited from purchasing alcohol.  That order remains in effect as long as the judge likes.  At that point, the DMV in Alaska issues you an ID (if your license is revoked) or license with a red stripe on it.  I’ve read that Alaska is the only state that does this.  If you have a passport, that still counts as a government issued ID, and you can get around that.

    I have had one bartender illegally refuse to serve me until I presented a driver’s license.  In Alaska, like other states, the law does not require you to drive, or be able to legally drive, to drink.  So a passport should be enough.  And by the way, this incident occurred at the international airport in Anchorage.  So if I had been a foreigner with a passport, he probably would have accepted that.

    One other thing that occurred in Alaska, that may have been cleared up by now, but I’m not sure.  I was a volunteer firefighter, and my department, like most, had EMT’s in its ranks.  It turned out that if you were convicted of a DUI (this happened to one of our members), you lost your EMT certification, regardless of whether you were acting as an EMT or not when the incident occurred.  When you consider that there are jobs requiring EMT certification that don’t involve driving, that doesn’t make sense.  Worse, this regulation (it wasn’t a statute, but a regulation surreptitiously passed) did not apply to paramedics, registered nurses, or medical doctors.  This problem may have since been corrected, but when I first heard about it, I was ticked off.

    Alaska has a big alcohol problem, especially amongst the Alaska Native population (often referred to as Eskimos, especially in the lower forty-eight).  This is especially bad in the almost all Native villages which are not accessible by road.  Many of these villages are dry or damp (either alcohol is wholly prohibited, or it simply cannot be sold in that village, but still consumed).

    The urban areas of Alaska are probably comparable to other urban areas of the United States when it comes to alcohol statistics.  But we seem to legislate as if the whole state were like those villages.

    • #17
  18. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @DougWatt

    Barkha Herman:He Doug –

    Warren mentioned that the abuse for DUI in Upstate NY, where is initially practiced was no where near what’s going on in FL. Here’s an old case, from Tampa:

    http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/22881005/2013/07/18/more-troubles-at-the-lakeland-police-department

    To say Florida has a police corruption problem (and it’s not the entire state, and it’s not all the cops) is an understatement.

    Barkha unfortunately not all police departments have the highest of standards when it comes to hiring officers. It is unfortunate for citizens and police agencies that maintain high standards both at the supervisory and street level.

    • #18
  19. Ball Diamond Ball Member
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    So put the shoe on the other foot.  I agree that there are disparities in how alcohol affects different people.  This is why a BAC is used instead of a drink count (that and a drink count is harder to prove one way or another).  Aside from bodyweight, alcohol typically hits men different from ladies.  Shall we have a different law for men and women?

    Does anybody think that state-sponsored free rides for drunk drivers will actually reduce the incidence of drunk driving?  Care to propose a mechanism?

    A “small amount of pot” always seems to be found.  How did it get there?  A small amount of pot comes with a small amount of legal risk, unless of course it is legal in the circumstances, in which case it merely present the usual idiot risks.  To stay out of the pokey, stay away from the smoke-y.  Young people who are capable of sticking to their guns when it comes to search and question time should also be capable of understanding and following the law when it comes to deciding whether or not there will be a small amount of pot to find.

    So that’s the law & order bit.  I myself would not like to get banged up for nonsense, so I try to stay away from the nonsense I can avoid.  Still, it’s not as though every exercise of authority seems to have my best interests at heart (that’s my job), so I have always liked the “Am I being detained?” line of attack for non-incident traffic stops.

    • #19
  20. user_428379 Coolidge
    user_428379
    @AlSparks

    Ball Diamond Ball:

    Does anybody think that state-sponsored free rides for drunk drivers will actually reduce the incidence of drunk driving? Care to propose a mechanism?

    I’m opposed to state sponsored free rides.  I’m a personal responsibility type of guy.

    On the other hand, bars could sponsor something like that, maybe in exchange for a higher cover charge.

    • #20
  21. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @DougWatt

    Ball Diamond Ball:So that’s the law & order bit. I myself would not like to get banged up for nonsense, so I try to stay away from the nonsense I can avoid. Still, it’s not as though every exercise of authority seems to have my best interests at heart (that’s my job), so I have always liked the “Am I being detained?” line of attack for non-incident traffic stops.

    Here is a pretty good explanation of detention pertaining to traffic stops for violations, and yes you are being detained during a traffic stop.

    • #21
  22. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Barkha Herman: What are your thoughts?

    In my state of Connecticut it’s illegal not to cooperate, for instance, if you refuse the breathalyzer test.  I wonder of this approach would work under that scenario.

    And I agree: you should be punished for committing harm.  Most driving under the influence does not result in harm.

    Unfortunately, we live in a State that’s far closer to totalitarian than to liberal.

    • #22
  23. Ball Diamond Ball Member
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    Courts determine harm. Police enforce laws. Legislatures write laws.
    I do not want the police determining harm.

    • #23
  24. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Barkha Herman:

    Doug Watt:Just a question, is Mr. Redlich referring to hand held breathalyzers or desktop evidential breath testers?

    Go to his site for more info; however I am paraphrasing: there are two types of breathalyzers, and the field one is even less accurate than the one in the precincts. The one in the precincts has a 15% margin of error.

    I’ve always heard that if you think you may be borderline, demand a blood test.  They’re more accurate, plus it cannot be said that you’re refusing the test.

    • #24
  25. Ball Diamond Ball Member
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    Doug Watt:

    Ball Diamond Ball:So that’s the law & order bit. I myself would not like to get banged up for nonsense, so I try to stay away from the nonsense I can avoid. Still, it’s not as though every exercise of authority seems to have my best interests at heart (that’s my job), so I have always liked the “Am I being detained?” line of attack for non-incident traffic stops.

    Here is a pretty good explanation of detention pertaining to traffic stops for violations, and yes you are being detained during a traffic stop.

    That is good stuff.  Sorry, by non-incident, I meant stops like the ostensibly random checkpoints set up from time to time.  I agree, that if I am pulled over for something I have done, that’s a good detention, and the investigation is legit, barring other problems.

    • #25
  26. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @DougWatt

    Ball Diamond Ball:

    Doug Watt:

    Ball Diamond Ball:So that’s the law & order bit. I myself would not like to get banged up for nonsense, so I try to stay away from the nonsense I can avoid. Still, it’s not as though every exercise of authority seems to have my best interests at heart (that’s my job), so I have always liked the “Am I being detained?” line of attack for non-incident traffic stops.

    Here is a pretty good explanation of detention pertaining to traffic stops for violations, and yes you are being detained during a traffic stop.

    That is good stuff. Sorry, by non-incident, I meant stops like the ostensibly random checkpoints set up from time to time. I agree, that if I am pulled over for something I have done, that’s a good detention, and the investigation is legit, barring other problems.

    The website I linked to has some pretty good info. I dislike sobriety checkpoints. They tie-up officers who could make more productive use of their time on patrol. DUII’s are easy to spot. There is a hypothetical danger to having a line of vehicles stopped and then some whacko decides to shoot-it-out with multiple officers and civilians stopped and unable to move in one area.

    • #26
  27. user_189393 Inactive
    user_189393
    @BarkhaHerman

    Doug Watt:

    Ball Diamond Ball:So that’s the law & order bit. I myself would not like to get banged up for nonsense, so I try to stay away from the nonsense I can avoid. Still, it’s not as though every exercise of authority seems to have my best interests at heart (that’s my job), so I have always liked the “Am I being detained?” line of attack for non-incident traffic stops.

    Here is a pretty good explanation of detention pertaining to traffic stops for violations, and yes you are being detained during a traffic stop.

    And according to Warren Redlich, once you’ve expressed your desire to remain silent, and asked for a counsel, no more questioning is to be allowed during the said detention.  NOTE that he wants you to comply with the law; i.e. show them license etc.  However one does not have to comply to “request”, only “orders”.

    • #27
  28. Devereaux Inactive
    Devereaux
    @Devereaux

    ?Aren’t we really getting back to one of your other recent posts, Barkha, about rights vs grants.

    You have a right to move about the country. You have that right, by court decision in a number of cases, using an automobile. So the “privilege” of driving is a legal myth that the states simply don’t bother about.

    If you then take that concept and note that you have the legal right to drive yourself without license, then one has to ask just what laws are applicable to your performance, for which an officer can stop you. Erratic driving is certainly an offense for which one could be stopped, as it poses a risk to other drivers. Alcohol by itself is not. I expect that such rules would be easier for the officers and the drivers.

    • #28
  29. user_189393 Inactive
    user_189393
    @BarkhaHerman

    Devereaux:?Aren’t we really getting back to one of your other recent posts, Barkha, about rights vs grants.

    You have a right to move about the country. You have that right, by court decision in a number of cases, using an automobile. So the “privilege” of driving is a legal myth that the states simply don’t bother about.

    If you then take that concept and note that you have the legal right to drive yourself without license, then one has to ask just what laws are applicable to your performance, for which an officer can stop you. Erratic driving is certainly an offense for which one could be stopped, as it poses a risk to other drivers. Alcohol by itself is not. I expect that such rules would be easier for the officers and the drivers.

    While both myself and Mr. Redlich would wholeheartedly agree with this position, his goal is to chip away at the injustice one law at a time.  His biggest opponents are, of course MADD.

    They couldn’t have picked a better moniker.

    • #29
  30. user_189393 Inactive
    user_189393
    @BarkhaHerman

    I have found that the leap to driving without license and under the influence of alcohol is a big one for many; dare I say most.  So, we must meet people where they are, and talk freedom where we can.

    The laws of the land do exist; and the repeal of them will only be possible when people come to the realization that “safety” is an excuse for robbing our freedoms.

    Take the speed limits, for instance.  The federal overreach happened during the oil scare of 1973; when we were being rescued, no doubt, for what ever doom we were headed towards then.  Even though the national highway limits were repealed over time, local roads keep the legacy of the limits – due to omission or mere acceptance.

    So also, generations have grown up with the idea of license for driving privilege and DUI laws.  It is difficult for many to imagine life without either.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.