Quoted: Here's the problem with zero tolerance type laws.  Two examples: A driver under the age of 25 from out of state is pulled over for driving recklessly and 30+ MPH over the speed limit.  He or she might register only a fraction over the legal limit but due to other factors, such as inexperience, poor judgement and irresponsibility endangered the lives of many people. #2 - A middle aged man and his wife go to a local restaurant not far from home to celebrate their 30th wedding anniversary.  He chooses to stay close to home because they plan to share a bottle of wine with dinner.  He, the driver, is stopped less than a quarter of a mile from home by a road block.  He has a spotless driving record and is clearly a responsible man who knows his limit.  He registers slightly higher than the young person above. Do you see the inequity in treating these two people with the same zero tolerance law?  The extremist around here would have both scrubbing garbage trucks on weekends, driver's license suspended for one year,  fined in the thousands and picture in the paper.   If you want a third example just think of the knee-walking drunk, chronic drunk driver who actually causes a bad wreck.  And BTW these are drivers that are the real danger.

And it is still example #2's responsibility to know what his limits are and not to go pass them.  If he makes the concious choice to do so; then he runs the risk of going to jail. Sorry, but I don't have sympathy when it comes to drinking and driving.  

One thing that you overlook is the simple fact that not all of us have to make an arrest for someone that blows over the legal limit.  We, atleast around here, do have the option of calling a cab for the person.  In fact, if a person blows a .08 and doesn't appear to be going up; I'll generally call them a cab or have a friend pick them up.  Now if they decide to drive off once I leave, then they'll find me stopping them a second time and taking them to jail.

Burn



What is your solution to DUI situations?

Quoted: Burn What is your solution to DUI situations?

Let there be a crime commited before you punish someone.....that simple......

Quoted: Quoted: Burn What is your solution to DUI situations? Let there be a crime commited before you punish someone.....that simple......

So if having a BAC over .08 is a criminal offense then a DWI suspect that has a BAC of over .08 is commiting a crime correct? If this isn't your point, how about being a bit more detailed in your response.

Honestly, what you are talking about wouldn't be changed by you simply going to your department's training section.  Anyone can see that.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Burn What is your solution to DUI situations? Let there be a crime commited before you punish someone.....that simple...... So if having a BAC over .08 is a criminal offense then a DWI suspect that has a BAC of over .08 is commiting a crime correct? If this isn't your point, how about being a bit more detailed in your response. Honestly, what you are talking about wouldn't be changed by you simply going to your department's training section.  Anyone can see that.

I think he is saying we should wait til someone gets killed before we go after a driver for being drunk behind the wheel. Thats how I read what he said.

There is a judge in New England who is no longer accepting BAC or Breathalyzer tests as Proof of Intoxication; he does allow the results to be entered in as evidence. The laws, as currently written, are putting an arbitrary number on whether someone is drunk or not, when all of the studies which attempted to define drunkenness themselves offer no absolutes about what constitutes impaired. So how then can you use these probabilities as "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

His reasoning is that the laws about BAC and Breathalyzers run afoul of the Presumption of Innocence. He is dismissing cases which rely exclusively on BAC or Breathalyzer tests.

Make no mistake, this judge wants drunks off the roads, but he sees the laws as having constitutional problems. He forces the prosecuting attorneys to rely more on the FST, and the testimony of witnesses, rather than getting a free pass on a BAC or Breathalyzer Test.

There are good points and bad points here: Gutsy Judge for seeing a probem with the law and doing something about it. Bad, because he hasn't waited for any case law on this.

#2 did know his limit.  Unfortunately his limit and the "legal" limit are not the same.  And I realize many LEOs use good judgement in these circumstances.

My problem is with charging someone with a crime who has done nothing more than violate an arbitrary law.  Please, at this point, spare me the horror stories - we all have them.  The fact remains no real sin has been committed.  But even more egregious is the punishment far exceeds the "crime".

Quoted: about ten percent of the Population can not drive at .08 percent the other ninety percent can....

50% of drivers killed in traffic accidents have a BAC of .10% or higher.

60-75% of drivers in single vehicle traffic collisions have a BAC of .10 or above.

If DUI laws are only about revenue, wouldnt it make more sense to spend 4 hours writing speeding tickets at $100/ea, instead of writing 1 DUI ticket?

Quoted: [if a person who is drunk gets in an accident it is always there fault cause they were drunk.....Now im not saying thats how you ivestigate your DUI's but Ive seen many a LEO do it here...Person driving drunk getting hit by someone coming out of a parking lot instead or yielsding...yup hes drunk its his fault....

Yep.  That's the law here.  If a old lady blows a stop sign and hits a car driven by a .08% impaireered driver then the primary collision facter is DUI.

Quoted: I also think its kind of fucked up if someone tries to be responsible and walks home instead of driving that they could get charged with "public intoxication."

"public intox" is falling down drunk making piss angels oin the sidewalk or taking a little nappy in your own vomit in the street.  a .08 BAC is not "public intox"

Quoted: ....in doing crash reports, there isn't a space to note whether or not passengers are under the influence.............................

+1

The CHP TC report that ever agency in Cali uses does not ask about passenger impairment.  Only drivers. That form is what all TC Stats in this state are calculated from.

Quoted: Here's the problem with zero tolerance type laws.  Two examples: A driver under the age of 25 from out of state is pulled over for driving recklessly and 30+ MPH over the speed limit.  He or she might register only a fraction over the legal limit but due to other factors, such as inexperience, poor judgement and irresponsibility endangered the lives of many people. #2 - A middle aged man and his wife go to a local restaurant not far from home to celebrate their 30th wedding anniversary.  He chooses to stay close to home because they plan to share a bottle of wine with dinner.  He, the driver, is stopped less than a quarter of a mile from home by a road block.  He has a spotless driving record and is clearly a responsible man who knows his limit.  He registers slightly higher than the young person above. Do you see the inequity in treating these two people with the same zero tolerance law?

Nope.  the penalty for first offense DUI is only a $370.00 fine and 90 day restricted license. no jail time beyond the 6 or 8 hours it takes for booking.  I dont think that too severe for either of your above driviers. Additionally the court has the option of letting #2 plead down to wet reckless which is only a $50.00, fine.  

Quoted: Quoted: [if a person who is drunk gets in an accident it is always there fault cause they were drunk.....Now im not saying thats how you ivestigate your DUI's but Ive seen many a LEO do it here...Person driving drunk getting hit by someone coming out of a parking lot instead or yielsding...yup hes drunk its his fault.... Yep.  That's the law here.  If a old lady blows a stop sign and hits a car driven by a .08% impaireered driver then the primary collision facter is DUI.

There was a wreak here a few years ago where a sober teenager, going 80 in a 40 at 4am, blew through an intersection and hit a stopped car head-on.  The kid died instantly.  The driver of the other car survived but was arrested for DUI and held equally responsible for the collision  

Quoted: It would be nice if the judicial system would punish people for committing real crimes, you know the kinds that infringe on the rights of others. Instead we are stuck with a fucked up judical system that tries to find a reason to punish anyone,  dabbles in "pre-crime," and violates the rights of individuals.

I expect that anybody who has lost mutiple family members to a drunk driver might consider that a real crime.

If you're impaired enough to drive in such a manner as come to the attention of an LEO, I expect you're impaired enough to kill somebody.  And before you whiney bitch about checkpoints, in CA (since most guys don't (or can't) reference the location of the laws that they discuss), between the flashing lights, and several signs warning you about the checkpoint in time to avoid it, if you miss all that and still mdrive in and then are caught in the random number, you're probably impaired.

As far as quoting statistics, the best numbers would be those that measure the total percentages of  drunkdrivers in the general driver populations of those not involved in accidents and involved in accidents.  But those numbers are not feasible to collect.   So you measure what you can, the sample of those involved in accidents.  Since we can be pretty sure that the total percentage of drivers impaired among all drivers out there is relatively small.  (There isn't anybody here that is going to argue seriously that 50% of drivers all the time are impaired, is there??)  In other words we can measure # of drunk drivers involved in accidents divided by the total numbers of drivers in accidents, we can't measure # of drunk drivers divided by total number of drivers.  

Even better numbers would be to measure by severity of accidents, empirical evidence suggests that drunk drivers would skew to higher percentages in both really minor accidents and really severe accidents.

But also accidents are almost always caused by one or both of the drivers not paying sufficient attention, ignoring lights changing, driving into streets without looking, somehow, until we can get ALL people to pay adequate attention, concentrating on those showing that they can't drive makes sense.  Again, any driver that drives poorly enough to get the attention needs to be checked.

Quoted: There is a judge in New England who is no longer accepting BAC or Breathalyzer tests as Proof of Intoxication; he does allow the results to be entered in as evidence. The laws, as currently written, are putting an arbitrary number on whether someone is drunk or not, when all of the studies which attempted to define drunkenness themselves offer no absolutes about what constitutes impaired. So how then can you use these probabilities as "beyond a reasonable doubt"? His reasoning is that the laws about BAC and Breathalyzers run afoul of the Presumption of Innocence. He is dismissing cases which rely exclusively on BAC or Breathalyzer tests. Make no mistake, this judge wants drunks off the roads, but he sees the laws as having constitutional problems. He forces the prosecuting attorneys to rely more on the FST, and the testimony of witnesses, rather than getting a free pass on a BAC or Breathalyzer Test. There are good points and bad points here: Gutsy Judge for seeing a probem with the law and doing something about it. Bad, because he hasn't waited for any case law on this.

This puts it better than I ever could.....This is what i mean by let a crime take place before your charge someone with a  crime...Look for more than just the BAC.....

Quoted: Quoted: It would be nice if the judicial system would punish people for committing real crimes, you know the kinds that infringe on the rights of others. Instead we are stuck with a fucked up judical system that tries to find a reason to punish anyone,  dabbles in "pre-crime," and violates the rights of individuals. I expect that anybody who has lost mutiple family members to a drunk driver might consider that a real crime. If you're impaired enough to drive in such a manner as come to the attention of an LEO, I expect you're impaired enough to kill somebody.  And before you whiney bitch about checkpoints, in CA (since most guys don't (or can't) reference the location of the laws that they discuss), between the flashing lights, and several signs warning you about the checkpoint in time to avoid it, if you miss all that and still mdrive in and then are caught in the random number, you're probably impaired. As far as quoting statistics, the best numbers would be those that measure the total percentages of  drunkdrivers in the general driver populations of those not involved in accidents and involved in accidents.  But those numbers are not feasible to collect.   So you measure what you can, the sample of those involved in accidents.  Since we can be pretty sure that the total percentage of drivers impaired among all drivers out there is relatively small.  (There isn't anybody here that is going to argue seriously that 50% of drivers all the time are impaired, is there??)  In other words we can measure # of drunk drivers involved in accidents divided by the total numbers of drivers in accidents, we can't measure # of drunk drivers divided by total number of drivers.   Even better numbers would be to measure by severity of accidents, empirical evidence suggests that drunk drivers would skew to higher percentages in both really minor accidents and really severe accidents. But also accidents are almost always caused by one or both of the drivers not paying sufficient attention, ignoring lights changing, driving into streets without looking, somehow, until we can get ALL people to pay adequate attention, concentrating on those showing that they can't drive makes sense.  Again, any driver that drives poorly enough to get the attention needs to be checked.

So because a family member was killed by a person using a gun we should outlaw all guns so it cant happen again??? This does not work.

The biggest problem I have with many of the DUI/DWI laws is that if you are "in control" of the vehicle, you can be charged. this is ture if you have the keys in your pocket and are asleep in the back seat. While I know that police are probably allowed to use their own judgement on this, why are they even put in the situation?

Quite frankly, if someone was out for a night on the town, and started driving home thinking they were fine (everyone has mis-judged their current state before) but realized while driving that they were not fine, I would rather they pull over and sleep than keep on driving and possibly kill someone.

There are too many people in society today who are trying to enact a new prohibition. The fact of the matter is that the dangerous drivers who are intoxicated are usually WAAAAY over the limit. With a limit of .10, a person can still have a couple of drinks with a meal and still drive legally. I would rather see common sense applied, then we wouldn't need to worry about arbitrary numbers.

The point about reastion times being slower is moot if their reaction time is still sufficient to operate a vehicle. If it takes a drunk driver 1 second to react to a situation, and a teenager on the phone with their friends in the car, and the radio blaring 3 seconds, who would you rather be driving behind you. We can't focus on the fact that the person's reaction time is slower than their normal time, but must focus on when their reaction time makes driving unsafe and then apply that to ALL drivers, regardless of BAC.

Don't concentrate on taking drunk drivers off the road, concentrat on taking unsafe drivers off the road. If there's overlap, then so be it.

ETA: fixed my fat fingers typo. Although, if people were at 1.0 BAC, I don't think we'd have much trouble with them driving.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It would be nice if the judicial system would punish people for committing real crimes, you know the kinds that infringe on the rights of others. Instead we are stuck with a fucked up judical system that tries to find a reason to punish anyone,  dabbles in "pre-crime," and violates the rights of individuals. I expect that anybody who has lost mutiple family members to a drunk driver might consider that a real crime. If you're impaired enough to drive in such a manner as come to the attention of an LEO, I expect you're impaired enough to kill somebody.  And before you whiney bitch about checkpoints, in CA (since most guys don't (or can't) reference the location of the laws that they discuss), between the flashing lights, and several signs warning you about the checkpoint in time to avoid it, if you miss all that and still mdrive in and then are caught in the random number, you're probably impaired. As far as quoting statistics, the best numbers would be those that measure the total percentages of  drunkdrivers in the general driver populations of those not involved in accidents and involved in accidents.  But those numbers are not feasible to collect.   So you measure what you can, the sample of those involved in accidents.  Since we can be pretty sure that the total percentage of drivers impaired among all drivers out there is relatively small.  (There isn't anybody here that is going to argue seriously that 50% of drivers all the time are impaired, is there??)  In other words we can measure # of drunk drivers involved in accidents divided by the total numbers of drivers in accidents, we can't measure # of drunk drivers divided by total number of drivers.   Even better numbers would be to measure by severity of accidents, empirical evidence suggests that drunk drivers would skew to higher percentages in both really minor accidents and really severe accidents. But also accidents are almost always caused by one or both of the drivers not paying sufficient attention, ignoring lights changing, driving into streets without looking, somehow, until we can get ALL people to pay adequate attention, concentrating on those showing that they can't drive makes sense.  Again, any driver that drives poorly enough to get the attention needs to be checked. So because a family member was killed by a person using a gun we should outlaw all guns so it cant happen again??? This does not work.

You are talking about banning a piece of equipment; not the irresponsible use of that equipment. Operating a motor vehicle while impaired is irresponsible.

Quoted: The biggest problem I have with many of the DUI/DWI laws is that if you are "in control" of the vehicle, you can be charged. this is ture if you have the keys in your pocket and are asleep in the back seat. While I know that police are probably allowed to use their own judgement on this, why are they even put in the situation? Quite frankly, if someone was out for a night on the town, and started driving home thinking they were fine (everyone has mis-judged their current state before) but realized while driving that they were not fine, I would rather they pull over and sleep than keep on driving and possibly kill someone. There are too many people in society today who are trying to enact a new prohibition. The fact of the matter is that the dangerous drivers who are intoxicated are usually WAAAAY over the limit. With a limit of 1.0, a person can still have a couple of drinks with a meal and still drive legally.

I think you meant .10%

But even a .08% is high enough that a couple drinks with a meal wont put you over.  unless you are an 90# Female and the "meal" was two martini olives.

For an 170# adult male 5 beers in 3 hours is a .049%.  If you pound those 5 in two hours your still only a .07%  Two beers with dinner and your fine.

www.intox.com/wheel/drinkwheel.asp

The whole problem is that "impaired" is a relative term and where as .05 might impair one person it might have little or no affect on someone else.  

I'm checking on the first time DUI charges in GA.  I think they are far more severe than in CA.  

The bottom line is - no harm, no foul?

I'm just waiting for the B.A.C. to be lowered to .02.  That way if you sip a little cough syrup, you won't be able to drive.


It's just a symptom of the intolerance in society for anything that 'may' be bad for you.  Meanwhile, murderers and rapists are released from prisons everyday to make room for the drunks.

Quoted: You are talking about banning a piece of equipment; not the irresponsible use of that equipment. Operating a motor vehicle while impaired is irresponsible.

It's the same principle dealing with making something a crime because "something may happen". DUI is a crime because an accident may happen, not because it did happen.  Firearms need to be banned because someone may use them to shoot someone else.

Quoted: Quoted: Studies have shown that Asprin, smoking, and a few other things will give you a Higher reading on B.A.C. test but I think most of thoose are for blood test not the intoxilizer.... What are you smoking? You need to start supplying some links or articles to back up your supposed studies.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2231997&dopt=Abstract

English translation; aspirin reduces the metabolism of alcohol in the stomach (but not the liver).  This increases the BAC.  Of course, that is a real increase in BAC, which is what affect neurotransmission.  It's just like you drank more.

Quoted: If a old lady blows a stop sign and hits a car driven by a .08% impaireered driver then the primary collision facter is DUI.

It's still early, but I'm pretty sure this will win the "most retarded thing I read today" award.

Quoted: Quoted: You are talking about banning a piece of equipment; not the irresponsible use of that equipment. Operating a motor vehicle while impaired is irresponsible. It's the same principle dealing with making something a crime because "something may happen". DUI is a crime because an accident may happen, not because it did happen.  Firearms need to be banned because someone may use them to shoot someone else.

I heard somewhere that 100% of people who shot somebody were using a gun.  Same goes for people who shot themselves.  I think the numbers speak for themselves.  

Quoted: If DUI laws are only about revenue, wouldnt it make more sense to spend 4 hours writing speeding tickets at $100/ea, instead of writing 1 DUI ticket?

They do that also.  Haven't you ever heard of diversified revenue streams?     Sheesh   Some people are so innocent.  

BTW BURN, I have great respect what you are trying to accomplish.  Keep it up, and don't let the NannyStaters get you down.  

Wow.  A discussion of an explosive issue with no moral outburst.....yet.  This thread is a good example of how controversial subjects should be discussed.

BTW - I'm still checking on the GA first time offense punishment.  It's harsh.

Quoted: Wow.  A discussion of an explosive issue with no moral outburst.....yet.  This thread is a good example of how controversial subjects should be discussed.

Moral outbursts are fine; it's the ignorant ones that should be banned.

On the topic of increasingly lower BAC limits. The biggests advocates of arresting the .08% impaired driver are Criminal defense attornies speciallizing in DUI defense.  In my area to best schools for DUI enforcment are run by the high dollar DUI attornies.  Any cop or layperson can spot a .16% BAC drunk driver.  its the DUI attornies that are training the cops to detect and arrest the .08% BAC impaired driver. Much of that training also focuses on court testimony, which makes for longer trials and higher paychecks for the attornies.

its a great scam by the DUI attornies.  Charge departments $400.00 a head to train cops to detect and arrest the .08% impaired driver.  then charge the suspects they arrests $10,000.00 to take their case to trail and $500.00 to handle the one hour DMV hearing.

Its strange going into court and when asked who trained you and your answer is the defense attorny sitting next to the defendant.

I don't know how others were trained, but when I was in law enforcement, I was trained to look for signs of impaired driving (the BAC is just a quantative number for the courts).  B.A.C. had nothing to do it with.  If the driving exhibited signs of impaired driving.... signs that I felt were a danger to others on the road.  If I felt the driver was driving "drunk" the next step was the FST which tested basic motor control and coordination skills, which--if impaired--presented a danger to others.  If they didn't "pass" the FST, THEN came the breathalizer and/or intoxilizer, the "nail in the coffin" so to speak.

That's how I was taught atleast.

I have been a LEO since 1996. I have enforced DWI laws during my entire career. I have seen the law change, in Texas, from .10 to .08. I have always done SFST on the roadway and start with HGN. If the subjects HGN is less than 4 clues and the appearent impairment of the driver, while driving, were significant, I continue. If not, I stop. Above that I will continue with SFST and the determination is made using the TOTALITY of the circumstances. In all of those times every person I have gotten a breath sample from has gone well over .08.

I think what needs remembering here is the TOTALITY of the circumstances. Driving charactaristics, nuerological impairment and perceived impairment. The agency I work for does not allow the use of a PBT, Portable Breath Tester, to be used and all breath samples must come from the TDPS certified Breath Test Instrument.  

Changing a law only makes it easier to prove 1 part of law. Texas law does not state that a breath sample must be a .08 only that the driver was impaired at the time of the stop. The .08 only makes them legally intoxicated but not neccesarily guilty. Impairment is the next part of the equation. Then operating a motor vehicle.

I agree that if you pull over and were not observed driving that the elements of the offense have not been met. Whether the keys are in the ignition or not.  The law says, operating a motor vehicle while impaired not Sitting in car while impaired. Some common since should be applied but not all officers will agree, Spirit of the Law vs. Letter of the Law.

For all of the folks out there that say that a violation of law has not been committed or wait until someone hits and kills someone, remember that DWI is a law and if you are impaired you will most likely be arrested. Be smart and get a designated driver or call a friend so that the horrible thing that might or could happen, doesn't happen while your driving.

Quoted: On the topic of increasingly lower BAC limits. The biggests advocates of arresting the .08% impaired driver are Criminal defense attornies speciallizing in DUI defense.  In my area to best schools for DUI enforcment are run by the high dollar DUI attornies.  Any cop or layperson can spot a .16% BAC drunk driver.  its the DUI attornies that are training the cops to detect and arrest the .08% BAC impaired driver. Much of that training also focuses on court testimony, which makes for longer trials and higher paychecks for the attornies. its a great scam by the DUI attornies.  Charge departments $400.00 a head to train cops to detect and arrest the .08% impaired driver.  then charge the suspects they arrests $10,000.00 to take their case to trail and $500.00 to handle the one hour DMV hearing. Its strange going into court and when asked who trained you and your answer is the defense attorny sitting next to the defendant.

Wow, just.....wow.

What you guys must realize that the percentage of people who actually get sentenced for a DUI under 0.10% BAC, in my state at least, must be incredibly small.

I have no stats to prove this however what I do have is experience. I am a parole officer at the county level in PA and I get about 10 new DUI clients per month. NONE of my clients have ever had a BAC of LESS than 0.10% even though the DUI law was changed several years ago. In fact, I can think of only 2 clients who have ever actually had a .10%BAC. Most of my DUI clients had BACs of over .15%, some as high as .35%. Most of these people are problem drinkers who needed a wake up call or hardcore alcoholics who are on their 2nd or 3rd DUI.

There may be the so-called "innocent" out ther who had a few drinks with his dinner, got pulled over at a check point, and blew a .08% BAC. I have never met this fictional character though.

And to those who think it's a money-making scheme: Most of my clients NEVER pay off a quarter of their balance; not because it's so inflated but because they just don't pay it.

Quoted: What you guys must realize that the percentage of people who actually get sentenced for a DUI under 0.10% BAC, in my state at least, must be incredibly small.

Here most .08 or .09% impaired drivers plead down to Wet reckless which is a $50.00 fine.

A conviction for DUI carries a $370.00 fine and 90-day restricted license.  no jail time or supervised probation.

First time in GA is - $1,000 fine, 40 hrs. community service, DUI school, loss of license for one year and 24 hours in jail.  From the horse's mouth.

Pay an atty $10k and your insurance might not go up as much.

Quoted: I have been a LEO since 1996. I have enforced DWI laws during my entire career. ............. Changing a law only makes it easier to prove 1 part of law. Texas law does not state that a breath sample must be a .08 only that the driver was impaired at the time of the stop. The .08 only makes them legally intoxicated but not neccesarily guilty. Impairment is the next part of the equation. Then operating a motor vehicle.

They are legally intoxicated but not guilty? Maybe your words didn't come out correctly but if they have an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher, they are guilty, end of the discussion.

There are two ways to prove intoxication in Texas, (1) by not having normal use of mental or physical faculties or (2) an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher.

Impairment is not even mentioned in the law.