Just out of curiosity, matt, how old are you? I’ll be 53 on 10/31/2013. Knowing your age might explain your mentality. Or not.
I’ve arrested/gotten convicted numerous people for DUI that were under the limit.
It certainly isn’t a common thing as most people driving under the influence are over the limit, but I have pinched several that were under. Almost all of them were female for some reason. I’m certainly not going to research all my drunk driving arrests and post names online of those that were under the limit. That might not work out too well for me.
Here is a cite to my states DOT, just in case you think it’s not legal or something:
Definitions
A driver is “under the influence” when his or her ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired. A person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired if he or she is less able to safely control the vehicle because of the consumption of alcohol or controlled substances. This means that if a police officer pulls you over and determines that you are impaired by alcohol and/or any other drug, you could be arrested and prosecuted, regardless of your BAC.
In this state people are usually charged with BOTH DUI and OWI (2 different charges).
If the person refuses or fails the field sobriety test, and then their blood/breath/urine comes back under the limit, the OWI is dropped and the DUI is still prosecuted. This is up to the D.A. though, not the police.
I’ve been in this field 31+ years and have arrested hundreds of drunk drivers, and, yes, a few of them turned out to under the legal limit but were still convicted of DUI. This is a statement of fact. All matt can do now is call me a fucking liar.
No, it’s not good enough for me. A absent BAC test is different than a BAC test that’s below the legal limit. Weird states like Arizona aside its hard to convict someone of DUI is they blow a .06 (or less like a .04) 10 minutes after they drive away from the bar.
No true Scotsman.
Also, you’re moving the goal posts again. You’ve now gone from “it’s very hard to convict them in court if they blow under .08” to “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 now you’re at “(or less like a .04)”
So what do you want us to find? A DUI conviction with .08, .06 or .04. Oh and you just added that Arizona isn’t allowed to be used in our search.
Back when breathalyzers were first introduced (I’m older than pkbites) there was significant discussion about what constituted impaired. Irecall seeing news reports with numerous “public service” type demonstrations - with various groups like teen clubs, with reporters, etc. - drinking a measured amount of alcohol and then taking a real (closed course) or simulated driving test. The point of the breathalyzer and the .08 limit was that long before the average person starts to feel it, their ability to judge and react is impaired. Reaction time to brake, judging steering reaction in slaloms, avoiding dummies “jumping” out onto the road, etc - much worse.
IMHO (but inexperienced) the problem with drunks vs. neophyte drinkers is not that drunks are “more in control”. They have the same reaction time problems, they are just better at hiding their instability. A drunk person is the worst judge of their own capabilities or control.
Also note, several provinces in Canada, if you blow over .05 but not .08 you will face less serious consequences - immediate mandatory license suspension for 48 hours, for example. (Or did that get overruled?) Similarly, Sweden IIRC has DUI for anything over 0.05 BAC.
Yes, there is a DUI charge, an exceeding 0.08 charge, and a “refusing a breathalyzer” charge. All are criminal offenses in Canada. I assume they are offenses similar to these in most states.
So blowing 0.06 and then arguing “I was in perfect control of myself” will likely not win in court, if sober witness(es) testify otherwise. Evidence has shown that some people can appear impaired and be under 0.08 BAC.
Yes, police can be dicks and deal with honest or dishonest people by tossing them in the drunk tank, charging them for no reason, getting their car towed, even lying about the situation, etc. - but odds are if you do get that treatment there’s a good reason for it.
I think this video is a good example Rather Ditzy Girl Performs Sobriety Test - YouTube of what I mean by a sobriety test being a “he said she said” scenario. I watched that video and the girls did not look intoxicated to me. She appears to pass the sobriety test at least from what I am seeing but she was arrested anyway. Wether she took a breathalizer I don’t know because it’s not on the video.
i’m hoping pkbites will respond to this (you’re ignoring him anyway) - but there is more to that test that you cannot ‘see’ in the video - the cop is watching the girls eyes, etc - it is more than just the ‘walk in a straight line’
Its also interesting to note that the video skips the second ‘line walk’ entirely.
Not your best evidence. How many “girls” do you see in that video? maybe you should go get your BAC checked now - and don’t drive to get a free one.
The point is a person may not act, feel, or appear drunk - but at 0.08 their actual ability to react is impaired enough that they are much more dangerous on the road.
Like many other limits - age of consent, drinking age, voting age, mimimum height to ride roller coaster, need for child seat in car, etc. - different people may have different appropriate limits, but the law has to establish a fixed limit, and 0.08 was the best compromise between the “thou shalt not drink at all” and “who cares?” ends of the spectrum.
The varies from state to stae. In mine, TX, the law says someone’s committed DWI if they’re either over .08 OR they’ve lost the normal use of their physical or mental faculties due to the introduction of drugs or alcohol. So yeah, they can continue to prosecute even if you’re under .08. Heck, they can prosecute even if you blow .00 - they’d just argue you were under the influence of drugs, not alcohol. If you’re .06 they could argue you were under the influence of drugs AND alcohol. Or, you’re just a lightweight. Or, your BAC was higher when you were driving. (Since it can take a while before they get you to the Intoxilyzer.)
Anyway, by the time you blow in the machine, you’ve already been arrested. They can drop the charges, if they want to, but they can’t go back in time and un-arrest you.
Having said all that, if you’re a criminal defense attorney, you’d love to have a case where the defendant blew under .08. That’s even better than not blowing at all.
I don’t know about that. My sister was driving home from a bar, they stopped her car a few streets away for unknown reasons. They gave her a breathalyzer, she blew under the legal limit and they let her go. She was not given a traffic ticket either. She is in NY state.
You really don’t get it - or you are being argumentative for no reason.
If you are ‘otherwise fine’ and blow below the limit - they have NO REASON to arrest you.
If you are driving impaired - they can arrest you regaurdless of your breathalyzer ‘score’ or your pass/fail of the test.
I call it a ‘sobriety checkpoint’ as in the cops set up within a couple of blocks from bars and watch for drivers and are known to stop them at random - it serves two purposes -
a) lets others know they are in the area - discourages others
b) catches a few in the process
She likely did do something that caught thier atteniton - but was minor enough, as already alluded to in earlier posts, like rolling a stop sign - that it did not warrant any further action.