Use of defense and 'gotten' lead me to ask if OP is in UK or US.

Either way police will have process to deal. In UK he'd be looking at fine, points and a lengthy ban probably with requirement for extended re-test. Possibly jail too.

My understanding is that he didn’t state this was his defense until the following morning when he’d sobered up.

He would have to show (i) he consumed alcohol after and (ii) it was alcohol consumed after driving that put him over limit. Burden of proof is on driver and will require expert evidence.

www.drinkdrivingsolicitor.co.uk/resource/the-hip-f.../

If was as plastered as he appeared and there was only a short period in which he had opportunity to consume alcohol then he's got little chance of success.

As I understand it the 'hip flask defence' was more of a runner in days of old fashioned single use breathalyser that simply showed presence of alcohol in breath and evidence for conviction was alcohol measured in urine. With modern breath analysis, tighter legislation and authority from Superior Courts on use of 'back calculation' it's MUCH more difficult to run this defence successfully.

He can maintain that stance even in Court and it will not go down well for him, if he two and a half times over the limit he will face a 3 year ban, ordered to take an extended test and a heavier fine imposed by the Court if found Guilty after all evidence has been offered

That isn’t quite correct. Notwithstanding the fact that this individual has allegedly blown four times the limit (for which the guideline disqualification is indeed three years), the sentencing guideline for 2.5 times the limit (87.5 in breath) is a disqualification of between 17 and 22 months. However, those convicted on a level greater than are considered “high risk offenders. They will need to satisfy the DVLA doctors that they are medically fit to drive again. A defendant will have to complete, and pay for, a medical assessment including blood tests before their licence is reinstated.

There is no mandatory re-test requirement for excess alcohol offences. However the court has discretion to disqualify until a test is passed where an offender is convicted of any endorsable offence. Where disqualification is obligatory (as with driving with excess alcohol), the extended test applies. In other cases, it will be the ordinary test. The discretion to order a re-test is likely to be exercised where there is evidence of inexperience, incompetence or infirmity, or the disqualification period is lengthy (that is, the offender is going to be ‘off the road’ for a considerable time).

If convicted at 2.5 times the limit a fine would be the probable outcome (though a low level Community Order may be considered). At four times the limit custody would be the immediate consideration with the a high level Community Order a possible alternative.

gotta go ou it is incredible, yes I would have thought that in these days where they claim to be able to prove almost anything it would be a smal dunk, but here is the problem ..

First let me say I hate with a passion drink drivers, I think th elaw is far too lenient and all caught should be banned for life, and I mean life, but that is for another time.

• The defence can be used if they caught him indoors ( the law is an ass folks, sorry ) and it would be difficult to prove he had actually drunk it behind the wheel.
• If you had dashcam footage of him with a bottle in his hand then the video would have to be pretty clear.
• Bad driving, even terrible dangerious driving is not in itself proof unless you can say you def saw him with an alcoholic drink in his hand and it can be backed up by someone else not in your car.
• the fact he ran away is in itself a crime as you are not allowed to leave the scene of an accident but the polce rarely prosecute that on its own.

got to go out of time.