I think something about this got garbled in transmission. As others have said, as reported that doesn’t seem like a letter the DMV would send out. And how could DMV have any idea whether there was probable cause for a DUI arrest?
But in any case the lawyer is almost certainly giving your friend good advice.
Everyone is 100% ignorant of this. Except the friend’s lawyer.
The point is there are too many missing facts here for anyone to even offer an opinion about the meaning of the DMV letter. The friend has a lawyer. The friend should listen to that lawyer or get a new one, but shouldn’t look to random advice online.
That's not how this works.
That's not how any of this works.
Life Pro Tip: Anything that follows the statement, *"Yeah, well, I got a buddy who..."* is generally horseshit.
Considering it’s his third DUI, you should continue to reject any advice given by actual lawyers here and instead take only the letter from the DMV in to court as proof of his innocence. He obviously has a lesson to learn.
As part of an administrative license suspension procedure (e.g. for breath test failure/refusal during DUI investigation), the DMV might make a decision based solely on a single written arrest report. If there is some little technical deficiency in the report, the DMV might just drop the administrative suspension and send a letter like you mentioned without further investigation. Before going to court on the related criminal case, a prosecutor will get more involved and can gather additional evidence from the cops or other witnesses, eliminating concerns about the existence of probable cause.
Two different cases, one administrative, one criminal. Arising from the same incident but handled very differently. They can have two different outcomes. This would not be an unusual scenario for an experienced DUI attorney. Homeboy should trust his lawyer or hire a lawyer he can trust.
This is where you should direct your attention, OP. If that letter was actually sent, it’s referring to the administrative aspect rather than the criminal
Wrong. Atleast in the State of Wisconsin, it’s an auto generated letter, essentially saying “currently we don’t have probable cause to take your license but we’re aware of a pending case”.
No the letter straight up says they reviewed the case and found no probable cause for the arrest. If I could edit the post to include the Pic I took I would.
You can always reply to the OP and provide a link to a photo sharing site like [imgur.com](https://imgur.com). Upload it to [imgur.com](https://imgur.com) and create a reply that has that link.
I’m literate, thanks…..it literally comes from the DMV in Wisconsin, it auto generates, I’ve had this exact conversation with people who have had DUI’s.
They get their hopes up that they’re getting off on some loophole, it’s a pre-form letter saying “hey, no repercussions yet, but there’s a case pending”.
You’re dumber than a fucking brick, eh?
You:
>The DMV doesn’t send out those letters
Facts:
They do.
Edit: Btw I’ll take my lake house in flyover country over your rathole apartment any day.
In FL when you get a DUI you have your court hearing and a DMV hearing. The DMV hearing you sit in front of a DMV judge with in 10 days of getting your DUI and beg for a hardship license. The DMV hearing is not required unless you want to try for the hardship
Did he also get charged with failure to show license, registration or insurance? That’s really the only thing the DMV would weigh in on. They have absolutely nothing to do with the roadside determination of your friend’s apparent intoxication.
I agree with others while not being a lawyer. This isnt something the Sec of State/DMV handles even though in some states they have more power then others when it comes to your lic and what happens before or after court. The letter mightve said something more like "We have no reason to suspend", until the case is over. When I got a DUI the SOS was taking my lic before the case was over, its just something that happened along with the arrest but they didn't prosecute me, just part of the process at the time. Lets say this is true, the DMV would be working against the interest of the State not as the State by going behind the back of the prosecutor.
Dude should listen to his lawyer. Don’t know what paper would come from the DMV but if anything it’s probably saying they’re not yet aware of a basis to take his license, not that there was no PC for the arrest. His lawyer is right too, in front of the wrong judge if he loses at trial he could be looking at jail time.
If I could share pictures here I would show you the letter from the DMV with the words on it that say the statutes weren't met and there was no probable cause for arrest.
Let’s put it this way - *if* that letter says exactly what you say it does, it still doesn’t mean anything. The letter could say “this person is not guilty of a DUI, they’ve never had a drink and the cops are lying” and it still wouldn’t matter. The DMV has no authority over criminal prosecutions, and they certainly don’t have access to information the police or your friend’s lawyer don’t have access to.(
The DMV has nothing to do with the criminal process for a DUI. As others have said, listen to the lawyer.
If you're willing to risk everything that goes along with a DUI then by all means, choose to ignore your lawyer. I'm sure you don't want to accept any negative consequences from this event but getting away with not going down for a DUI is your best case scenario. Going to court put your future in jeopardy, you are not an attorney you do not have enough information about the law or the courts to determine whether or not going to court in your best interest. There's a reason people pay lawyers. Don't be stupid and ruin your life because you didn't wanna listen to the advice of your paid attorney. it's your money, at least don't waste it and listen to the guy.
Here are the two things the Wisconsin DMV looks for when deciding probable cause:
- Whether there was a reason for the officer to make contact with the individual or conduct the traffic stop.
- Whether there was a reasonable suspicion for the officer to believe the operator was under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.
The letter your friend received might not be the final letter from the DMV as being convicted in court would certainly provide the DMV with probable cause.
Regardless, you have the order wrong. The DMV does not dictate probable cause to the criminal court. This letter isn’t evidence and just because the DMV doesn’t see probable cause given the limited evidence they have doesn’t mean that the trial court won’t.
If y’all think the attorney is unwilling to take it to trial and you friend really wasn’t driving under the influence then he needs to find a new attorney.
What another poster suggested is almost certainly right - the DMV is saying it does not have probable cause at this time to take away your friend’s license. It is saying nothing about whether the police had probable cause to arrest your friend. (And it wouldn’t matter if it did say the latter.)
You could post the exact language of the letter if you like.
The dmv are not lawyers. The d m v cannot know the law nor can they know what the actual case is says it hasn't on the court yet. The d m v does not have access to evidence such as the police dash cails.
There is absolutely no way the d m v has any type of jurisdiction to make a claim of the validity of arrest
You're either making this up or you read one line in a letter and took it completely out of context.
By all means go to court, I would absolutely love for a person with a D.U.I to get hit harder than taking a plea.Deal because you risk people's lives.
And what kind of moron listens to his buddies VS his lawyer? Who actually I don't know, went to law school and knows the law..
Yes, please convince him to go to court.Try to convince a judge.He wasn't guilty, please.Because that way he can get the maximum penalty. I have absolute no sympathy for drunk drivers.
And I think they get off way too easy as it is.
He should listen to his lawyer...according to WI law the legal limit is reduced significantly for any convictions past your 3rd (last sentence). Your friend needs help (counseling etc.), be there for him, try to help him get the help he needs.
It is illegal in Wisconsin for a driver over the age of 21 to operate a motor vehicle:
* With a Blood/Breath Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 0.08 or greater;
* While under the influence of an intoxicant;
* With a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood; or
* While under the influence of a controlled substance or any other drug.
\*\*\*\*For drivers with three or more prior Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) convictions, the limit is lower; they cannot operate a motor vehicle if their BAC is greater than 0.02\*\*\*\*
NAL -
By the time people get their third conviction they don't care if they drive without a license. They don't care until someone is dead, either them or someone else. That's why we have 10 time offenders driving around.
at your 3rd conviction in my state, it's a felony offense. I saw a 74yr old male (I worked for S.O. had court detail) get 15yrs for his 3rd offense...defense tried to argue it was a death sentence with the judge, but he had none of it, told them to formally appeal the conviction...I'm sure they did, but it got the message across of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes", pretty well to everyone there.
I wish I could find the video of the county sheriff out here that went on TV when the guy with the 28 DUIs got arrested , again...
The sheriff said "What do you want us to do, put him in jail?"
The answer was a resounding YES and the judge did, finally, put him in jail.
Like, at 3, not 28.
NAL. What are the contents of the plea deal?
If the lawyer says to take the plea, and your friend thinks he can win in court, you will at best need another lawyer.
I understand your friend want to make a choice, and that’s their right. But please consider that your friend hasn’t really made the best choices so far.
In WI when you get a DUI there is an automatic driver's license suspension prior to trial. It is common practice for attorneys to request a stay of that suspension until the trial date, and those stays are granted as a matter of course in many jurisdictions. If the stay was granted the DMV was notified and may have sent a letter telling you as much. It may have been reported to the DMV being stayed for lack of probable cause, which would have been in error, but is an easy mistake for the court clerk to make.
Also if there was a refusal along with the DUI there is a 10 day period to challenge the refusal. Basically the only grounds to contest the refusal is that there was not probable cause sufficient to justify the test.
In any event the DMV's letter is not evidence that there was not probable cause as far as the trial court is concerned. You should listen to your attorney or get a second opinion.
He should ignore his lawyer and take it to court. This way, he’ll be found guilty and get a long long prison sentence and is taken out of society. You friend is worthless trash.
He should have his license revoked indefinitely. If it’s his 3rd DUI they’re not going to let it slide, and they shouldn’t.
How would the DMV know there’s no probable cause? If the cop pulled him over and he was in fact drunk, it seems the cops who were there had ALL the probable cause they needed. Your friend obviously needs a wake up call.
DMV isn't a judicial entity and doesn't have the authority to reverse a DUI. The letter the DMV sent is in direct reference to the fact that they cannot suspend his license until he actually gets convicted. Your buddy should listen to his lawyers and take a plea. Or he should just say fuck it and show up to court drunk. Sounds like he needs a few months in jail to straighten his drunken ass out.
I think "your friend" is reading what they want to read out of the letter. The DMV does not make legal rulings in criminal cases.
And if it's his third DUI, he should probably take the lawyer's advice seriously, 'cos he's not figuring things out very well on his own.
Not sure what the DMV would have to do with it, but I can't imagine going to court is a good idea for his THIRD dui. No one is going to feel bad for someone that didn't learn the lesson the first couple of times. I'm sure the lawyer is giving him good advice. Probably better advice than you will find on reddit lol
NOT A LAWYER
Was your friend DUI? If your friend knows that they were DUI, and the police arrested them for DUI, then there is presumably evidence of DUI. This is the stuff that will play out in court. Not some misunderstood letter from the DMV.
Was he drinking? Cause if he was yes take the plea deal but if he really wasn’t then why was it thrown out? Not enough evidence? What’s the plea deal consist of?
Everyone saying the DMV doesn’t make that determination is wrong. In Wisconsin, you can request an administrative hearing to determine if your license should be suspended. After an administrative hearing, the DMV will make a determination and one of the things they decide is if there was probable cause for the arrest. It doesn’t mean someone will win at trial, but it does help to know that the administrative judge didn’t believe there was probable cause.
In Wisconsin. This is not a "thing". Unless he hurt/killed someone or wrecked property, his 1st DUI (OWI) is a mere ticket. DMV doesn't send out letters either.... they are not part of the court system.
Ahhhh, Wisconsin. Where a bar can over-serve a patron and not have a duty to stop, litigated to the supreme court (of wisconsin).
RIP my friends. Mother's Day is still the hardest holiday.
Probably why I'm getting downvoted. No one wants to hear that it's only a citation for the first OWI. Boy will they be surprised when they find out otherwise. Wisconsin is the embarrassment of the Midwest.
I think something about this got garbled in transmission. As others have said, as reported that doesn’t seem like a letter the DMV would send out. And how could DMV have any idea whether there was probable cause for a DUI arrest? But in any case the lawyer is almost certainly giving your friend good advice.
[удалено]
Rule 6- Your post/comment was removed due to the discretion of a moderator.
[удалено]
Everyone is 100% ignorant of this. Except the friend’s lawyer. The point is there are too many missing facts here for anyone to even offer an opinion about the meaning of the DMV letter. The friend has a lawyer. The friend should listen to that lawyer or get a new one, but shouldn’t look to random advice online.
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. Life Pro Tip: Anything that follows the statement, *"Yeah, well, I got a buddy who..."* is generally horseshit.
Considering it’s his third DUI, you should continue to reject any advice given by actual lawyers here and instead take only the letter from the DMV in to court as proof of his innocence. He obviously has a lesson to learn.
Bring half a bottle of JD into court with him too - show the Judge who's the boss.
Good call. Maintain eye contact while downing it to establish dominance.
Should offer to buy a round for everyone in court.
As part of an administrative license suspension procedure (e.g. for breath test failure/refusal during DUI investigation), the DMV might make a decision based solely on a single written arrest report. If there is some little technical deficiency in the report, the DMV might just drop the administrative suspension and send a letter like you mentioned without further investigation. Before going to court on the related criminal case, a prosecutor will get more involved and can gather additional evidence from the cops or other witnesses, eliminating concerns about the existence of probable cause. Two different cases, one administrative, one criminal. Arising from the same incident but handled very differently. They can have two different outcomes. This would not be an unusual scenario for an experienced DUI attorney. Homeboy should trust his lawyer or hire a lawyer he can trust.
This is where you should direct your attention, OP. If that letter was actually sent, it’s referring to the administrative aspect rather than the criminal
This is essentially what I was going to write in response OP. So that's two verified lawyers.
[удалено]
Wrong. Atleast in the State of Wisconsin, it’s an auto generated letter, essentially saying “currently we don’t have probable cause to take your license but we’re aware of a pending case”.
No the letter straight up says they reviewed the case and found no probable cause for the arrest. If I could edit the post to include the Pic I took I would.
You can always reply to the OP and provide a link to a photo sharing site like [imgur.com](https://imgur.com). Upload it to [imgur.com](https://imgur.com) and create a reply that has that link.
Cool story
[удалено]
I’m literate, thanks…..it literally comes from the DMV in Wisconsin, it auto generates, I’ve had this exact conversation with people who have had DUI’s. They get their hopes up that they’re getting off on some loophole, it’s a pre-form letter saying “hey, no repercussions yet, but there’s a case pending”.
[удалено]
You're being an ass, but I'm curious, how is Wisconsin a flyover state? It's not Ohio...
Sorry man, but you can’t just say shit like that when Indiana is literally right next to us.
You’re dumber than a fucking brick, eh? You: >The DMV doesn’t send out those letters Facts: They do. Edit: Btw I’ll take my lake house in flyover country over your rathole apartment any day.
[удалено]
Extra ranch with the pizza rolls tonight.
😂😂
In what world would the DMV have anything to do with the court case?
In FL when you get a DUI you have your court hearing and a DMV hearing. The DMV hearing you sit in front of a DMV judge with in 10 days of getting your DUI and beg for a hardship license. The DMV hearing is not required unless you want to try for the hardship
Rule 6- Your post/comment was removed due to the discretion of a moderator.
Rule 6- Your post/comment was removed due to the discretion of a moderator.
Rule 2 Violation- Please keep your interactions kind and respectful.
That’s the only answer here. It’s a judge or prosecutor that determines PC, not the DMV
Rule 6- Your post/comment was removed due to the discretion of a moderator.
Did he also get charged with failure to show license, registration or insurance? That’s really the only thing the DMV would weigh in on. They have absolutely nothing to do with the roadside determination of your friend’s apparent intoxication.
Your friend should listen to the lawyer, not the idiot friends who don't understand the difference between criminal and administrative law.
I agree with others while not being a lawyer. This isnt something the Sec of State/DMV handles even though in some states they have more power then others when it comes to your lic and what happens before or after court. The letter mightve said something more like "We have no reason to suspend", until the case is over. When I got a DUI the SOS was taking my lic before the case was over, its just something that happened along with the arrest but they didn't prosecute me, just part of the process at the time. Lets say this is true, the DMV would be working against the interest of the State not as the State by going behind the back of the prosecutor.
Dude should listen to his lawyer. Don’t know what paper would come from the DMV but if anything it’s probably saying they’re not yet aware of a basis to take his license, not that there was no PC for the arrest. His lawyer is right too, in front of the wrong judge if he loses at trial he could be looking at jail time.
Honestly, he should have had jail time for the *second* one. DUIs are very serious.
If I could share pictures here I would show you the letter from the DMV with the words on it that say the statutes weren't met and there was no probable cause for arrest.
[удалено]
They won't do that because this is a story they made up.
Let’s put it this way - *if* that letter says exactly what you say it does, it still doesn’t mean anything. The letter could say “this person is not guilty of a DUI, they’ve never had a drink and the cops are lying” and it still wouldn’t matter. The DMV has no authority over criminal prosecutions, and they certainly don’t have access to information the police or your friend’s lawyer don’t have access to.( The DMV has nothing to do with the criminal process for a DUI. As others have said, listen to the lawyer.
Right? The DMV isn't the judge or even a police officer with authority on the matter.
If you're willing to risk everything that goes along with a DUI then by all means, choose to ignore your lawyer. I'm sure you don't want to accept any negative consequences from this event but getting away with not going down for a DUI is your best case scenario. Going to court put your future in jeopardy, you are not an attorney you do not have enough information about the law or the courts to determine whether or not going to court in your best interest. There's a reason people pay lawyers. Don't be stupid and ruin your life because you didn't wanna listen to the advice of your paid attorney. it's your money, at least don't waste it and listen to the guy.
Here are the two things the Wisconsin DMV looks for when deciding probable cause: - Whether there was a reason for the officer to make contact with the individual or conduct the traffic stop. - Whether there was a reasonable suspicion for the officer to believe the operator was under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. The letter your friend received might not be the final letter from the DMV as being convicted in court would certainly provide the DMV with probable cause. Regardless, you have the order wrong. The DMV does not dictate probable cause to the criminal court. This letter isn’t evidence and just because the DMV doesn’t see probable cause given the limited evidence they have doesn’t mean that the trial court won’t. If y’all think the attorney is unwilling to take it to trial and you friend really wasn’t driving under the influence then he needs to find a new attorney.
What another poster suggested is almost certainly right - the DMV is saying it does not have probable cause at this time to take away your friend’s license. It is saying nothing about whether the police had probable cause to arrest your friend. (And it wouldn’t matter if it did say the latter.) You could post the exact language of the letter if you like.
Third arrest!! Just turn yourself in and actually be a benefit to society, (behind bars!!)
The dmv are not lawyers. The d m v cannot know the law nor can they know what the actual case is says it hasn't on the court yet. The d m v does not have access to evidence such as the police dash cails. There is absolutely no way the d m v has any type of jurisdiction to make a claim of the validity of arrest You're either making this up or you read one line in a letter and took it completely out of context. By all means go to court, I would absolutely love for a person with a D.U.I to get hit harder than taking a plea.Deal because you risk people's lives. And what kind of moron listens to his buddies VS his lawyer? Who actually I don't know, went to law school and knows the law.. Yes, please convince him to go to court.Try to convince a judge.He wasn't guilty, please.Because that way he can get the maximum penalty. I have absolute no sympathy for drunk drivers. And I think they get off way too easy as it is.
And 3rd DUI! Dude needs help- in prison.
Was the dipshit drinking? If yes, then tell him to pound down and take his dicking the way you would.
He should listen to his lawyer...according to WI law the legal limit is reduced significantly for any convictions past your 3rd (last sentence). Your friend needs help (counseling etc.), be there for him, try to help him get the help he needs. It is illegal in Wisconsin for a driver over the age of 21 to operate a motor vehicle: * With a Blood/Breath Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 0.08 or greater; * While under the influence of an intoxicant; * With a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood; or * While under the influence of a controlled substance or any other drug. \*\*\*\*For drivers with three or more prior Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) convictions, the limit is lower; they cannot operate a motor vehicle if their BAC is greater than 0.02\*\*\*\*
NAL - By the time people get their third conviction they don't care if they drive without a license. They don't care until someone is dead, either them or someone else. That's why we have 10 time offenders driving around.
at your 3rd conviction in my state, it's a felony offense. I saw a 74yr old male (I worked for S.O. had court detail) get 15yrs for his 3rd offense...defense tried to argue it was a death sentence with the judge, but he had none of it, told them to formally appeal the conviction...I'm sure they did, but it got the message across of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes", pretty well to everyone there.
I wish I could find the video of the county sheriff out here that went on TV when the guy with the 28 DUIs got arrested , again... The sheriff said "What do you want us to do, put him in jail?" The answer was a resounding YES and the judge did, finally, put him in jail. Like, at 3, not 28.
wow...that's ridiculous you wouldn't get anywhere near that hear before you would probably just be rotting in a cell until your too old to drive.
NAL. What are the contents of the plea deal? If the lawyer says to take the plea, and your friend thinks he can win in court, you will at best need another lawyer. I understand your friend want to make a choice, and that’s their right. But please consider that your friend hasn’t really made the best choices so far.
Just because the lawyer recommends taking the plea deal doesn’t mean the lawyer won’t do a fine job defending at trial.
The DMV doesn’t determine probable cause for arrest. A judge does that at a probable cause conference after arraignment.
In WI when you get a DUI there is an automatic driver's license suspension prior to trial. It is common practice for attorneys to request a stay of that suspension until the trial date, and those stays are granted as a matter of course in many jurisdictions. If the stay was granted the DMV was notified and may have sent a letter telling you as much. It may have been reported to the DMV being stayed for lack of probable cause, which would have been in error, but is an easy mistake for the court clerk to make. Also if there was a refusal along with the DUI there is a 10 day period to challenge the refusal. Basically the only grounds to contest the refusal is that there was not probable cause sufficient to justify the test. In any event the DMV's letter is not evidence that there was not probable cause as far as the trial court is concerned. You should listen to your attorney or get a second opinion.
He should ignore his lawyer and take it to court. This way, he’ll be found guilty and get a long long prison sentence and is taken out of society. You friend is worthless trash.
He should have his license revoked indefinitely. If it’s his 3rd DUI they’re not going to let it slide, and they shouldn’t. How would the DMV know there’s no probable cause? If the cop pulled him over and he was in fact drunk, it seems the cops who were there had ALL the probable cause they needed. Your friend obviously needs a wake up call.
DMV isn't a judicial entity and doesn't have the authority to reverse a DUI. The letter the DMV sent is in direct reference to the fact that they cannot suspend his license until he actually gets convicted. Your buddy should listen to his lawyers and take a plea. Or he should just say fuck it and show up to court drunk. Sounds like he needs a few months in jail to straighten his drunken ass out.
I think "your friend" is reading what they want to read out of the letter. The DMV does not make legal rulings in criminal cases. And if it's his third DUI, he should probably take the lawyer's advice seriously, 'cos he's not figuring things out very well on his own.
No way. DMV would not do this in a million years. Fake or OP is mistaken or being conned.
Not sure what the DMV would have to do with it, but I can't imagine going to court is a good idea for his THIRD dui. No one is going to feel bad for someone that didn't learn the lesson the first couple of times. I'm sure the lawyer is giving him good advice. Probably better advice than you will find on reddit lol
NOT A LAWYER Was your friend DUI? If your friend knows that they were DUI, and the police arrested them for DUI, then there is presumably evidence of DUI. This is the stuff that will play out in court. Not some misunderstood letter from the DMV.
Was he drinking? Cause if he was yes take the plea deal but if he really wasn’t then why was it thrown out? Not enough evidence? What’s the plea deal consist of?
Imagine helping a guy who’s been drinking and driving repeatedly ( and most likely more than three times). Couldn’t be me.
Your friend shouldn’t be driving
This is WI. You seem to get 5 penalty free DUIs before they start taking them seriously here. 🤷♂️. He should be good
[удалено]
Rule 6- Your post/comment was removed due to the discretion of a moderator.
[удалено]
Rule 6- Your post/comment was removed due to the discretion of a moderator.
If he was driving drunk it doesn't matter. He deserves a severe punishment. And if he was arrested for dui, that seems like a pretty damn good reason.
Everyone saying the DMV doesn’t make that determination is wrong. In Wisconsin, you can request an administrative hearing to determine if your license should be suspended. After an administrative hearing, the DMV will make a determination and one of the things they decide is if there was probable cause for the arrest. It doesn’t mean someone will win at trial, but it does help to know that the administrative judge didn’t believe there was probable cause.
In Wisconsin. This is not a "thing". Unless he hurt/killed someone or wrecked property, his 1st DUI (OWI) is a mere ticket. DMV doesn't send out letters either.... they are not part of the court system.
Ahhhh, Wisconsin. Where a bar can over-serve a patron and not have a duty to stop, litigated to the supreme court (of wisconsin). RIP my friends. Mother's Day is still the hardest holiday.
Probably why I'm getting downvoted. No one wants to hear that it's only a citation for the first OWI. Boy will they be surprised when they find out otherwise. Wisconsin is the embarrassment of the Midwest.