i was recently charged with a dui in the contra costa county, i have not been convicted of a crime yet, however the judge had ordered me to AA/NA 3 times a week.
ive read that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco stated that the constitutional dividing line between church and state is so clear that a parole officer can be sued for damages for ordering a parolee to go through rehabilitation at Alcoholics Anonymous or an affiliated program for drug addicts.
I am curious as to why a convicted person may not be ordered to an AA/NA program, but an individual who has not been convicted of a crime can be.
my BAC was recorded at .17 so its not an outragious amount, and there was no accident involved.
i have been going through DUI classes to obtain a restricted license and majorit of the people are not being ordered to do this, with an exception of 1 person who blew a .39.
The Meetings are causing issues with my job because i am having to leave early to make it to meetings, and my schedule at work is pretty intense (6 days a week, minimum 10 hour shifts) so its extremely difficult to get enough time to attend DUI class for 2 hours and AA for 3 hours.
Do i have a case to sue the state or the judge?
Answer
I disagree. Driving a vehicle with .17 BAC is really irresponsible and you're lucky somebody didn't get killed. The court wants you to find out what is the problem, you can't not drink and drive. If you can come up with what you consider to be a non-religious alcohol program, ask the judge or probation officer to let you participate.
No comments:
Post a Comment