[ashlee]

It looks like this is #2 - local news is reporting a DUI in 2003, also.

I hope Matt gets the help he needs.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/storie....c98aa4ba.html

[Mrs.Sawyer]

I was informed about an hour ago about this.

[Right Stuff Roloffs]

[Fizzykitty]

[mattlover87]

Poor Matt. He doesnt deserve for people to be treating him like he is the worst person. A lot of people drive drunk but dont get scrutinized like he has.

[seebert]

I looked into it- the 2003 DUI was dismissed without prejudice- which means the courts think the police made a mistake.

The same thing could have happened this time.

[Mrs.Sawyer]

Originally Posted by seebert

I looked into it- the 2003 DUI was dismissed without prejudice- which means the courts think the police made a mistake.

The same thing could have happened this time.

It was dismissed because he successfully completed 16 weeks of alcohol treatment under what is called a diversion program. He is not eligible for the diversion program this time. So I don't think the courts think the police made a mistake back in '03.

[Fizzykitty]

Originally Posted by seebert

I looked into it- the 2003 DUI was dismissed without prejudice- which means the courts think the police made a mistake.

The same thing could have happened this time.

I'll bet he was just tired, I wonder how often this happens to people with disabilities.Getting accused of what they didnt do.That has to be so frustrating and expensive if they hire a lawyer.

[gracie]

The factor that looks back is Matt not taking the tests on the scence.

[seebert]

I was once stopped for driving tired- the cop asked me if I was on anything, and I said amitryptyline, but that I hadn't taken any within the last 48 hours (true- I had been at work for 32 of those hours). I hadn't realized that was a perscription I should stay off the roads for...