[Glenn Dorsey]

I have a question for you about drinking and driving laws in my home state of California.

I was convicted of a wet reckless in September of 2004 (approx. sep 27th) in the county of Riverside. I obtained a restricted license at the time and proceeded to complete my alcohol education classes. These were delayed a bit due to holiday circumstances, but were completed in Feb of 2006. As far as I am aware, my probation period began following my conviction. I do not know the exact terms of the probation but my defense atty has informed me that it is most likely a 3 year term.

On September 1st of 2007 I was arrested for DUI in the county of Riverside again. At the time I was parked legally in a residential street, and was sitting in my car making a phone call. I had just left on foot from a friends house who lives very near by. I explained this to the officers, who were attempting to coerce me into addmitting guilt. I was asked to get out of my car and proceeded to sit on the curb. A second patrol car then arrived on the scene, and a dui officer began to itterogate me and ask questions. I stated to them that I had driven earlier from my mothers house, and that I hadn't had a drink for some time, that I was merely at my friends house and at the time just making a phone call in my truck.

The DUI officer proceeded to give me the FSTs, including a one footed stance while counting backwards from 1,037 to 1,000. I swayed a bit (seeing as how I am 6'6" and have existing problems with my feet), but never put my elevated foot down on the ground. I counted from 1,037 to 1,000 without missing a number. The next test was the tilt the head back and state the alphabet, which I thought I performed well. Anywho, it turns out that the DUI officer had me do the FST on the curb, out of sight from his dash-mounted incar video camera. This being the case, all that is on the video is the sound of my counting, which itself is a bit muffled.

Now all the while that this is happening, the original officer is chatting with a rookie, as he is training him. Several words are exchanged, including something to the extent of "no, i better do this one. he wasn't driving, so you know he'll fight it, he wasn't driving, we cant prove that... and i don't want you put in that situation yet... plus it will mean more OTIS for me.... (referring to over-time in court)." He then proceeds to state, "oh and you can have the next one. we will get you a little more action." This is all very clear on tape, and quite honestly makes me sick.

Terrible experience aside, I was taken in to the station and written up, etc. I sustained representation from a very reputable dui defense atty, and won my DMV hearing (the dmv could not prove i was driving, and the arresting officer had stated on his sworn statement that he saw the vehicle move). So I won this battle. Next was the 1538.5 motion to supress evidence. My atty was a bit aggresive for this hearing, and I believe that this was why I lost. BUT, during this hearing, the arresting officer stated that he drove by my car and flashed his light into my cab. He stated that I did not respond and that I appeared to be "looking downward." Not slumped over the wheel or in any kind of distress, just, "looking downward." Now the arresting officer also proceeded to state that his dash-mounted cam turns on automatically when he shines his light, or when he illuminates his overhead red & blues, however, on the tape, you can clearly tell that he prepares himself in position (out of my view), and turns the camera on. My defense atty was trying to illustrate that this was a fishing expedition and that the officer had no right to make contact with me. I lost the motion.

Now following my FST, I was placed in the back of the car and ended up blowing a .18. I asked the officer what I had to do fail the FST and he gave me the run-around, stating that I swayed and counted wrong, etc. He proceeded to tell me that if I even tried to fight it that I would lose because it was all on tape.

I have now been offered a plea bargain of a wet reckless. I am not sure what the advantages of taking this would even be, aside from reduced fines and no jail time. My questions surround my pre-existing probation period, and whether or not that will be an issue at trial. My atty is stating to me that they could try the probation violation first, before even getting to the DUI.

I don't want to have made it this far, to have paid all of the money and wasted the time, just to take a plea bargain wet reckless because my atty doesn't want to go to trial. I have already paid the cost to go to trial, and would be no additional expense to me. My atty has stated that most likely if it is a hung jury that they will just keep re-trying me. If this is the case, I would rather take the plea bargain now and not worry about jail time.

Any suggestions / information / support is greatly appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Even if you just want to give me an opinion that may not be right, that would be great. I just need anything at this point!