I live in the southen United States.
this had absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. I am so sorry to have interrupted.
Frequently, some time passes between the time that the person is observed driving and the time that the person is tested, if it takes a long time to get the driver transported to jail or if he’s taken to the hospital. If the person is on the “downward slide” and no more alcohol is entering his bloodstream, he will lose about .02 on his BAC for every hour that passes.
So say you have someone who leaves a bar, drives for an hour, and gets into an accident. The cops get there 20 mintes later, it takes 40 minutes to careflight him to the hospital, and another 30 minutes elapse before his blood is tested. If his blood is tested at 0.07, the prosecutor can still argue that his BAC was at .10 at the time of the accident, and as high as .12 when he left the bar.
Hey, me too! You know Jim? 
How can that ever be beyond reasonable doubt if one persons word against another is the only evidence? (maybe this needs its own thread? )
Basically, because the jury is entitled to make the judgment as to who is a credible witness and who isn’t, and how much weight to give to this or that piece of evidence or testimony. Juries frequently decide that police officers are better judges of intoxication and driving impairment than the defendant, and more likely to tell the truth about it.
Are your snakes drunk drivers? 
As you can see from the responses, it can go either way. It depends on how credible the officer’s testimony is and how good your lawyer is and how willing the judge is to believe the officer or you.
Ok OK I know…very old thread
- In New Zealand we call a DUI / DWI a DIC (Drunk In Charge)
- Refusal of a breathalyser test / blood test is an admission of guilt
- To be charged, you would have to be proven as driving…(not be pulled out from inside your house) …
BTW, stupid teenager story…
Two friends of mine, both drinking to well over the limit, friend 1 drives home, side swipes another car on the way, guys in the other car do “citizens arrest” and drag to police station whereupon he gets charged. OK so far fair enough…
Friend 2, then drives friend 1’s car to police station whereupon he immediately gets tested and arrested :smack:
Another story, one of my class mates, goes out drinking with friend…friend falls asleep in passenger seat, class mate stops at bar, gets drunk, crashes on way home, kills friend - gets jail sentence.
Story 3, (wow I never realised how criminal my upbringing was!!)…father goes out drinking (in 60’s) - drives his **friend’s ** car home, side swipes little old lady in small car, doesn’t notice, 3-4 hours later police knock on door, goes to court police officer states as a fact the my father was driving HIS car, gets off all charges on this technicality…
Can you convict without a BAC test? Yes you can. I was on a jury that did just that.
The evidence we had was the testimony of both officers, and their written report. The report was done at the time and details the subject’s actions, and answers to various questions. Things like "What time is it?’ and a place to record the correct time.
Anyway there were two counts against the driver. Misdemeanor DUI, and refusal to take a BAC test. Only if we found the driver guilty of the first count could we convict on the second.
FTR he went down on both counts.
This was in California, YMMV as different places have different laws.
I know a guy who was fixing his car, which was on blocks, in his driveway. As he worked on the car, he was drinking beer. Somehow a cop came around (I think for some other reason) and noticed the guy had a beer. Then he noticed the keys were in the ignition, so he arrested the guy for DUI. I don’t recall if he beat the case or not. So even if you’re not in your car, if you have the keys in your posession, or in the ignition, they can arrest you, even if the car is effectively not operatable.
Heck, they can arrest you if the car is imaginary. The issue is getting a CONVICTION.
I’ve always wondered if I could…
get in an accident while intoxicated…
pop open the trunk…
start drinking vodka…
and avoid a drunk driving cconviction, since the cops would have no way of proving that I was drunk BEFORE the accident except for my driving.
To answer your question, Oregon (and maybe other states) uses the acronym DUII: driving under (the) influence (of) intoxicants.
However, as was more-or-less stated before, each state pretty much picks one acronym & sticks with it; they don’t use all and differentiate meanings between them.
Courts call the process of determining BAC at the time of operation from a later BAC result “retrograde extrapolation.”
North Carolina permits such evidence: http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2004/030334-1.htm (expert was permitted to extrapolate from .05 reading at 3pm to .08 at 1pm).
New Mexico seems to permit it too: http://www.supremecourt.nm.org/pastopinion/VIEW/05ca-100.html
There is a reverse argument to be made, too (the defendant’s BAC at the time of testing was more than when she was operating the vehicle). This is sometimes called reverse extrapolation. http://nydwi.com/Articles/index.php?Reverse%20Extrapolation
See generally, http://www.ndaa-apri.org/pdf/toxicology_final.pdf (discussing both retrograde extrapolation and reverse extraploation in the case where the defendant claims to have consumed alcohol after an accident.)