Nader arrested for OWI?

As someone who has practiced criminal defense, I wish that were true, but it isn't. It is a common misconception of the public. A driver could blow a .05 in the pre-breathalzyer test (PBT), administered on the side of the road, and a .04 in the Datamaster at the station, and the County Attorney could still prosecute for OWI. Certainly, producing such a low blood alcohol content reading seems to have a positive effect on a jury's perception of the defendant (if admitted into evidence), but the State may still attempt to prove OWI with the Officer's (or other witnesses') testimony. Nader could have blown under .08 (or refused to take both tests altogether) and still be prosecuted and convicted of OWI.

The investigating officer's report will likely state the common things officer's usually state to attempt to show probable cause: bloodshot, watery eyes, breath smelled of alcohol, slurred speech, etc. It will be interesting to see the alleged facts.

Disclaimer: this information is not legal advice, but for educational purposes only in response to Chuck's post. There is no attorney-client relationship formed with anyone in this thread or on the basis of my post. I don't know why the other lawyers on this board are so free-wheeling in providing advice (I have seen it a few times), and I want to be clear this isn't such a case. Just thought I would clear up the misconception regarding OWIs. It doesn't pay to drink and drive.

Interesting. I was not aware of that. Regardless, I was just trying to point out the difference between an OWI and a Zero Tolerance, which I'm assuming I got right if you didn't comment about it.
 
You may have missed the fact that things have changed somewhat under the current administration. Right or wrong, the decisions made are very unpredictable. I'm saying we can't assume what punishment was levied in the past will be the punishment levied under this administration.

Yes we can. Punishment for OWI has not changed. We usually have a few of these each year.

This is way different than something controversial like Bubu or getting involved in the Veishea riots. This is normal stuff that we deal with every year.
 
I will project a five game suspension after he was suspended indefinitely today. We need him for the Iowa game. Too bad we did not have five games in Italy this year.

What is your basis for predicting five? That is greater length than typical OWI suspensions. Three at most, none or just the exhibition game at the least.
 
Good information .... But had to chuckle about the lawyeresque disclaimer ... As if someone might sue you!

It reminds me about a vintage Saturday Night Live lawyer character (1980s) ... Who was exceptionally nervous and always used denial arguments to "cover down" what he had just stated.

Good advice though .,, nevertheless.

Thanks, and I now need to look up the SNL character for reference! Sounds funny.
 
Yes we can. Punishment for OWI has not changed. We usually have a few of these each year.

This is way different than something controversial like Bubu or getting involved in the Veishea riots. This is normal stuff that we deal with every year.

As unfortunate as the situation is, why do I take relief in this statement?!? Remember when Chris Babb had to sit the first couple games his senior year? We'll be reminding ourselves why Nader is sitting in November.
 
As unfortunate as the situation is, why do I take relief in this statement?!? Remember when Chris Babb had to sit the first couple games his senior year? We'll be reminding ourselves why Nader is sitting in November.

Yep, this is small potatoes. We'll be having a hard time remembering why he is sitting out the first scrimmage. Thats why I don't understand why some of our posters are trying to make this into a bigger issue than it is, and talk themselves into thinking Nader will be out for a long time.
 
Interesting. Let's compare the average DUI rate to the occurrences of cars getting flipped over.
Gee, if only we had a free bus system. Or maybe a couple of friends that would be so kind to drive every once in a while. Darn looks like I will just have to drive to west ames next time I'm drunk because I dont have access to buses or a DD. Too far to walk so I'll just have to drive.

My original comment was meant to be a joke...
 
I'll ask why people live so far from campus? I lived on Hyland for the sole purpose of never having to drink and drive.

Probably because some people would rather not live in a run down dump of a house/apartment if they are shelling out a ton for rent anyway. I lived on Campus Ave. so I'm not saying I am in their camp but the areas closer to campus do seem a little more run down. Plus you have the drunk bus to get you out from Welch.
 
As someone who has practiced criminal defense, I wish that were true, but it isn't. It is a common misconception of the public. A driver could blow a .05 in the pre-breathalzyer test (PBT), administered on the side of the road, and a .04 in the Datamaster at the station, and the County Attorney could still prosecute for OWI. Certainly, producing such a low blood alcohol content reading seems to have a positive effect on a jury's perception of the defendant (if admitted into evidence), but the State may still attempt to prove OWI with the Officer's (or other witnesses') testimony. Nader could have blown under .08 (or refused to take both tests altogether) and still be prosecuted and convicted of OWI.

The investigating officer's report will likely state the common things officer's usually state to attempt to show probable cause: bloodshot, watery eyes, breath smelled of alcohol, slurred speech, etc. It will be interesting to see the alleged facts.

Disclaimer: this information is not legal advice, but for educational purposes only in response to Chuck's post. There is no attorney-client relationship formed with anyone in this thread or on the basis of my post. I don't know why the other lawyers on this board are so free-wheeling in providing advice (I have seen it a few times), and I want to be clear this isn't such a case. Just thought I would clear up the misconception regarding OWIs. It doesn't pay to drink and drive.

I still have you on retainer, correct?
 
As unfortunate as the situation is, why do I take relief in this statement?!? Remember when Chris Babb had to sit the first couple games his senior year? We'll be reminding ourselves why Nader is sitting in November.

I am guessing that quite a few people here have an issue with that attitude regarding drinking and driving.
 
What I asked about was this weekend's offense, not the one at NIU. Maybe it was just a simple misunderstanding, as he was answering questions I wasn't asking. You don't have to be a **** about it.

Uh no I was talking about how you said that Nader was a high risk transfer because he had a prior OWI charge at Northern Illinois. I said that his citation at NIU was for underage consumption, not OWI and therefore Nader wasn't even close to a "high risk" transfer.
 
As someone who has practiced criminal defense, I wish that were true, but it isn't. It is a common misconception of the public. A driver could blow a .05 in the pre-breathalzyer test (PBT), administered on the side of the road, and a .04 in the Datamaster at the station, and the County Attorney could still prosecute for OWI. Certainly, producing such a low blood alcohol content reading seems to have a positive effect on a jury's perception of the defendant (if admitted into evidence), but the State may still attempt to prove OWI with the Officer's (or other witnesses') testimony. Nader could have blown under .08 (or refused to take both tests altogether) and still be prosecuted and convicted of OWI.

The investigating officer's report will likely state the common things officer's usually state to attempt to show probable cause: bloodshot, watery eyes, breath smelled of alcohol, slurred speech, etc. It will be interesting to see the alleged facts.

Disclaimer: this information is not legal advice, but for educational purposes only in response to Chuck's post. There is no attorney-client relationship formed with anyone in this thread or on the basis of my post. I don't know why the other lawyers on this board are so free-wheeling in providing advice (I have seen it a few times), and I want to be clear this isn't such a case. Just thought I would clear up the misconception regarding OWIs. It doesn't pay to drink and drive.

I am not a lawyer but I did blow a .03 on my 19th B-day, and it was never really clear to me if it was considered an OWI. Let me tell you the real difference between a zero tolerance and an OWI charge. One costs you 10 grand, the other costs you about $650....
 
What attitude is that? I don't see anything stated or implied in that post regarding his attitude on that issue.

By attitude, I think he feels the punishment should be more severe. That we are saying it's "no biggie, it happens".

The fact of the matter is that this will always be on his record. It's not like he'd be getting away with anything (if he's found guilty). It's going to be something he has to explain for a long time.

We are saying you don't end a kid's basketball career because of it.
 
So many people drink and drive, and everyone wants to crack down on it, but it will never end. People's attitudes towards alcohol is too disjointed. You can thank all the happy go lucky big boob beer commercials for that. It has come a long way compared to the 70's, people drank and drive all the time back then. Hell they even have open container laws in Texas that say its A-OK to this day.
 
I am not a lawyer but I did blow a .03 on my 19th B-day, and it was never really clear to me if it was considered an OWI. Let me tell you the real difference between a zero tolerance and an OWI charge. One costs you 10 grand, the other costs you about $650....
I know a person that received a zero tolerance charge and then a few years later an OWI, the OWI was charged as a 2nd offense.
 
Last edited:

Help Support Us

Become a patron