Quoted: Please point out the flaws in my perfect crimes so I am no longer tempted to put them into execution.

I'll start w/ the gas station. The receipt would show you pumped on pump #1. Your wife's car pulled away from Pump #2. Video will verify that. Also ought to show your license plate on Pump #1 at the same time as your wife's at #2. For both of you trying to scam them on purpose, instead of just contacting you and asking you to return and pay for it, you'll both likely get arrested and charged with retail theft.

#2... what's the arrest for? By complying with the officer's direction to get back in the car, he would not be subject to a charge of obstructing the police for failing to get back in. However, the (I'm assuming loaded) gun in the car where it's not legal would likely result in the applicable weapons charge, since the officer can articulate that the driver was already operating the car with the weapon where it is found.

#1 the DUI...

Look at it this way: A drunk doing that compared to an absolutely sober person doing that.

The officer would be able to converse with the sober person and observe no signs of intoxication or impairment, since the alcohol would not yet get into the bloodstream and make it to the brain and lungs where it would have an effect or be measurable in blood or breath. The eyes would appear normal, the face not flushed, there would likely be no staggering or swaying, nor would there likely have been bad driving present. The driver would also likely pass the sobriety tests with flying colors since nothing's yet in his system.

A person already drunk, however, can exhibit all the classic indicia of alcohol impairment at the time he exits the car. Even removing the "odor of alcohol" from the evidence due to the driver choosing to chug some in view of the officer, any reasonable adult who's ever experienced drunk people ought to be able to articulate that the driver was impaired at the time he exited the car. Also, the officer could take the alcohol away, wait about five minutes which is more than ample time for any alcohol to evaporate from the mouth, and administer a portable breath test to get an accurate reading of the BAC at time of stop assuming the driver submits to it. The just-consumed alcohol wouldnt' have had the time to get into the bloodstream enough to have any measurable effect in just those few minutes.

Proving it in court probably wouldn't be a problem, based on the testimony of the officer about his observations of the driving, the behavior, the flushed face, staggering, swaying, slurred speech, glassy/bloodshot eyes, disheveled clothing, vomit on the driver's door, etc etc.

because who IN THEIR RIGHT mind would start drinking if pulled over, if they were sober to begin with. On the off chance the driver wins in court... I don't mind. Hopefully the lesson was learned one way or the other. The attorney cost him money, court likely did, too, if he had to take time off work. A driver's license suspension could very well happen also. But the important thing was done: the impaired driver wasnt' allowed to continue on his way after being stopped.

Good scenarios to make you think.


Your turn now:

Open question, no wrong answer, I just want legitimate opinions from anyone reading who'd like to suggest a reasonable answer:

What do YOU think should happen when a police officer stops an impaired driver (impaired whether due to drugs, medication, model airplane glue, alcohol.. whatever)

What do YOU think is the best way to keep people from choosing to drive impaired, if when they get stopped, the police just "take them out from behind the wheel and give them a ride home"

What do YOU think should happen, when an impaired driver blows through a red light at 70 MPH, t-bones a car killing four women: the victim car's three occupants: three high-school aged girls returning home from a night of TeePee-ing houses of football team members just before Homecoming, and also the female passenger from his own car?

(I'll give you a hint about what DID happen in the last case) Click here and here to read about it.)

Oh, and to you all replying... remember, this is not the General Discussion forum, so keep in mind this forum's rules.

I'll go with the first scenario since that has happened to me on more than one occasion.  The other two have been covered.  

I was able to prove that the beer consumed was insufficient to cause the level of impairment witnessed before and after the stop.  Also, after the guy went to the ER,  (He decided to fight as well)  It was shown that the single beer he consumed on video at 7:30 AM could not have caused his blood alcohol level of .26 at 10:00 am.  (He fought the nurse too)

I had a guy slug a full bottle of JD before.  He went to the ER right away. Stopped breathing at one point.  I still charged him, although he jumped bail and never went to court.

BAC level is based upon the absorbtion of alcohol into your system over a period of time. Take a great big chug when I pull you over, won't matter one bit.

You were still in the vehicle with the gun when you were stopped and will be so charged.

I'm pretty sure the gas station can prove which pump had gas charged and which didn't. If their records show that she was on pump #2 and selected "pay inside", she's going to have to prove she actually went inside.

Quoted: BAC level is based upon the absorbtion of alcohol into your system over a period of time. Take a great big chug when I pull you over, won't matter one bit. You were still in the vehicle with the gun when you were stopped and will be so charged. I'm pretty sure the gas station can prove which pump had gas charged and which didn't. If their records show that she was on pump #2 and selected "pay inside", she's going to have to prove she actually went inside.

+1 to the DUI situation.   It's all about the absorbtion rate..................

Quoted: Open question, no wrong answer, I just want legitimate opinions from anyone reading who'd like to suggest a reasonable answer: What do YOU think should happen when a police officer stops an impaired driver (impaired whether due to drugs, medication, model airplane glue, alcohol.. whatever) What do YOU think is the best way to keep people from choosing to drive impaired, if when they get stopped, the police just "take them out from behind the wheel and give them a ride home" What do YOU think should happen, when an impaired driver blows through a red light at 70 MPH, t-bones a car killing four women: the victim car's three occupants: three high-school aged girls returning home from a night of TeePee-ing houses of football team members just before Homecoming, and also the female passenger from his own car? (I'll give you a hint about what DID happen in the last case) Click here and here to read about it.) Oh, and to you all replying... remember, this is not the General Discussion forum, so keep in mind this forum's rules.

When a guy I knew in high-school killed a family of 5 while drag-racing (Friends of mine were at the scene and heard the kids screaming as their van burned) nothing happened.  When the guy he was racing blew a guy away in a "hunting accident" nothing happened.  Glad to hear your guy at least got sentenced.

IMHO a person who chooses to get drunk and then chooses to drive a vehicle should face a similar penalty to one who loads a weapon and fires it indiscriminately into a crowd.  You are not certain you will kill someone, but the odds are good.  Should be treated accordingly.

Ok second silly scenario.  Person traveling in vehicle with a gun in close proximity to person. Not a gun friendly state.  Gets pulled over and immediatly walks away from vehicle.  Officer orders the man back into the car.  After arrest and infront of judge the man states he walked away from the weapon for officer safety, but the officer ordered him back into the proximity of the weapon, so he had no choice but to obey an officer of the law.

First, I would not send someone back into a car that they have walked away from. Bad officer safety.

Second, walking away from the gun has no bearing on the crime.  That is like dropping a baggie of cocaine in front of the officer and saying that you can't arrest me because I am no longer in possession. Once you have possessed the illegal item, dropping it or walking away from it does not negate the crime.

Third silly scenario.   Of course video cameras around pumps would defeat this, so we assume there are none.  Pump takes card and gives receipt.  My wife in her car, and I in my  vehicle pull into fill gas at same time.  I fill Dodge Magnum with gas exactly $25.00 worth charged to my gas card.  At same time wife selects pay inside, pumps exactly $25.00 worth of gas into Chevy Blazer and we both drive away.   Store attendant calls the police, give description and even license plate of Chevy Blazer to cops, they pull her over sometime in the near future, but after we have met down and street and I have given her my gas card and receipt for the same time, same station, same amount as supposedly stolen. She has proof of payment.  Cops are not looking for my vehicle so I am apparantly not involved.

That is an awful lot of trouble to go through for 3 gallons of gasoline.

#1: Alcohol doesn't absorb that fast.  If they test you soon enough they will know if you're going up or down and be able to relate back to the time of the stop.

#2: I don't have the case name in front of me, but that has been dealt with in Arizona.  Even if you voluntarily leave your car, the officer can still search it incident to arrest.  The search will be good and the gun admissable in court.

#3: For that reason, I haven't seen a pump that wouldn't make you go inside and pay before giving you gas.

Once a violator exits the vehicle before I ask them too I NEVER order them back in. They come to a point of control of my choice and we go from there. I also have a cover unit en route becuase there is something in that car that I need to be concerned about.