I always wondered will a guy who gets wasted off his ass from 2 drinks blow the same blood alcohol level on a breathalyzer test as a alcoholic who feels almost nothing from 2 drinks?
Assuming they weigh the same, drank the same kind of drinks in the same amount of time, and there are not any other extenuating facts, then yes. An Intoxilyzer only measures BAC, not how it affects the subject.
And a guy getting wasted off his ass on 2 lousy drinks is either a very small guy or is drinking very large drinks.
It seems weird that a person who is very drunk can legally drive home after 2 drink but a a alcoholic can’t.
As long as their BAC is below legal limits then it doesn’t matter. BAC tests test for BAC, not tolerance. The fact that many people regularly drive above that limit as alcoholics means they simply aren’t getting pulled over.
But, an ‘alcoholic’ or in this case, someone who can ‘handle their alcohol’ may be (in all seriousness) fine to drive while the lightweight isn’t. In this case, if they both blow below the legal limit the lightweight will fail the field sobriety tests and probably still get carted off in the back of the cruiser.
So if a person fails the field sobriety test, and then the cops asked them to blow on the breathalyzer and they come out below .08 What does the cop do then?
That’s not what I said and it’s not consistent to your OP. You asked about blood alcohol level and I answered it accurately.
One can be under the BAC legal limit (.08 in the USA) and still be charged with driving under the influence if they exhibit signs of impairment. (Driving Under the Influence is not the same charge as Driving While Intoxicated). So the guy who get’s “drunk off his ass” on 2 drinks may very well be under .08 but can still be charged with driving under the influence.
You can be taken in for failing the field sobriety test. IIRC, that’s how they can arrest people that are high (heroin, marijuana, ecstasy, LSD etc), tired, drunk but not over the legal limit. The BAC is just a ‘we don’t care how well you’re driving, you’ve had too much to drink’ thing or a way to skip the field sobriety test and just have them blow over a .08 (since they know they will). It’s much more black and white that way.
Similarly, once they find a way chemically field test to see if someone is stoned, it won’t matter how sober you can act, if you’re high, you’ll get arrested (assuming they have a zero tolerance policy for driving stoned).
Although they can technically arrest people who are under .08 it is my understanding they usually don’t even if they fail the field sobriety test becasue it’s very hard to convict them in court if they blow under .08.
I Have to say I know the answer to this in Oklahoma.
I have learned now to not be honest to the police.
I was stopped at 1:30in the AM after a long session of poker I was going 6 miles over the speed limit. I was asked if I had been drinking and I was truthful in that I had had about 6 beers over 7 hours.
I lold him I know my llimits and I was find to drive.
long story short they do not use field tests you have to go to the count to get tested on the big machine.
I blew a .02 well under the limit.
I thought I would be released but I was booked fingerprinted and jailed until I could make bail. I was not happy.
Changed my perception of law enforcement
I’m “they” and you are incorrect. People who are slurring and staggering and exhibit other signs of being under the influence and odor of intoxicants are arrested. People are arrested/charged/convicted of DUI even when they are under the limit.
You may arrest them but I don’t think you convict them. It’s really a “he said, she said” scenario, and I don’t think the DA would proceed with charges. One cop may say they were slurring while another may say they sounded fine. Theres not any hard evidence there.
Except for the dashcam video that shows you hardly able to walk a straight line and the dashcam audio that records you saying things like “Is this really necessary officer, I just need to get home to my babysitter” instead answering yes or no to the question “Have you been drinking today?”
If this guy didn’t take a breathalyzer or blew a .07, you think they couldn’t convict with the video?
Well, he certainly told you!
That statement is moot because he obviously blew higher than a .08 based on falling over ect. What I am referring to is someone maybe slightly slurring or can walk a straight line fairly well maybe messing up a little bit, if they blow a .06 it would be impossible to convict them, and I don’t think it would even be enough to arrest them.
Aw, you think the DA would drop charges in the absence of strong evidence? That’s so sweet. Disabuse yourself of that line of thought, and quickly. DA has nothing to lose if the prosecution fails to convict, and everything to lose if they fail to prosecute and the perp reoffends and causes damage to the community, so they prosecute. Defendant, on the other hand, faces imprisonment, fines and legal expenses and so has every reason to plea bargain, and is more likely to do so rather than face the uncertainty of trial and expense of defense (which is not reimbursed by the DA should the defendant prevail).
The OP scenario kind of glosses over one detail. Why is the lightweight getting pulled over? Barring a checkpoint scenario, he’s getting pulled over because he’s visibly failing to control his car. The guy who can handle .230 gets to sleep at home because he CAN handle his car properly and doesn’t attract Officer Friendly’s attention. Now, neither is an ideal driver, but if you had to choose, whom would you rather share the road with?
Move the goal posts much.
Let’s go back to what was said…
Matt357:Although they can technically arrest people who are under .08 it is my understanding they usually don’t even if they fail the field sobriety test becasue it’s very hard to convict them in court if they blow under .08.
PKBites:People who are slurring and staggering and exhibit other signs of being under the influence and odor of intoxicants are arrested. People are arrested/charged/convicted of DUI even when they are under the limit.
So, it’s your position that someone who fails the field sobriety test without blowing a .08 will not be arrested. PK shows up to tell you that your wrong (IIRC, he’s a former Milwaukee LEO (Sheriff? Police?).
I then added in that they’ll have a dash cam video that will show the person failing the field sobriety test, so even without the breathalyzer they’ll still have that. I provided what I felt was a pretty good example.
You came back with:That statement is moot because he obviously blew higher than a .08 based on falling over ect. What I am referring to is someone maybe slightly slurring or can walk a straight line fairly well maybe messing up a little bit, if they blow a .06 it would be impossible to convict them, and I don’t think it would even be enough to arrest them.
So, it’s not moot because you changed it from “even if they fail the field sobriety test” to “What I am referring to is someone maybe slightly slurring or can walk a straight line fairly well”. So, what are we talking about? People that can pass a field sobriety test or people that can’t?
No cites, but there’s really no such thing as “holding your booze well” insofar as performance on various motor tasks are concerned.
For any given level of blood alcohol, the chronic drinker may be better at masking his intoxication, but he is still as intoxicated as a naive drinker. His motor performance is basically the same as someone who rarely imbibes.
That said, a chronic drinker will metabolize (break down) the alcohol in his system faster than somebody who doesn’t drink regularly. In other words, he will get sober faster (and, for a given level of alcohol that’s been ingested, may have a lower peak alcohol concentration - he may never get as drunk).
Actually still current (25 years full time, retired 2007, part-time with another agency since then) total 31 years. All but 6 years on a patrol unit (4 years as an investigator, 2 years in the jail).
matt357 is either a teenager/very young adult or one of those know-it-all guys (same thing as a teenager/very young adult) who is going to insist that what we’ve seen/done for decades in our adult lives just isn’t so.