# Overhaul needed in DWI law & enforcement? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 2, 2009, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435 "2009-06-02T01:11:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/81 "2009-06-04T00:24:12Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Has this been ruled legal (in the US) because the revocation of driving rights doesn’t require due process because they’re a privilege? Breathing into a machine isn’t “testimony” any more than giving a fingerprint or having your hair clipped for a DNA sample. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/82 "2009-06-04T02:25:18Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > That’s _denatured_ ethanol. You can’t drink it. Forgive my ignorance but what does denatured mean exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/83 "2009-06-04T02:31:51Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > Breathing into a machine isn’t "testimony"any more than giving a fingerprint or having your hair clipped for a DNA sample. You aren’t found guilty of doing something for refusing to give fingerprints or give a DNA sample. Also, you can’t be forced to give fingerprints or a DNA sample unless you’ve already been charged with something. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/84 "2009-06-04T02:50:14Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Forgive my ignorance but what does denatured mean exactly? It has poison added to it so you won’t drink it, generally methanol. It is exempt from alcohol taxes. > **[Denatured alcohol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_Alcohol)** > > Denatured alcohol, also known as methylated spirits, metho, or meths in Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom, and as denatured rectified spirit, is ethanol that has additives to make it poisonous, bad-tasting, foul-smelling, or nauseating to discourage its recreational consumption. It is sometimes dyed so that it can be identified visually. Pyridine and methanol, each and together, make denatured alcohol poisonous; denatonium makes it bitter. > Denatured alcohol... ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/85 "2009-06-04T02:51:30Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Has this been ruled legal (in the US) because the revocation of driving rights doesn’t require due process because they’re a privilege? That’s exactly the rationale used. If you refuse to take the breath test the cops impose on the spot what is called here in Ohio an “Administrative License Suspension.” They’ve been able to do that for a number of years, and now they’re going even further. The cite isn’t handy (I’m at home, not in the office where the article with the cite is), but some Ohio police are adding an additional criminal charge of “obstruction of official business” and the like for refusing to take the test. Yikes! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/86 "2009-06-04T04:10:12Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > It has poison added to it so you won’t drink it, generally methanol. It is exempt from alcohol taxes. > > [Denatured alcohol - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_Alcohol) Haha that’s so brutal. “cheat on your taxes and we’ll kill ya!” ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/87 "2009-06-04T13:22:16Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > You know, I never thought about this aspect too much. > > Is there any other crime where a refusal to incriminate yourself is punished? > > Has this been ruled legal (in the US) because the revocation of driving rights doesn’t require due process because they’re a privilege? Pretty much. It’s called “implied consent”. When you obtain a driver’s license and drive on public roads, you are, by law, telling the government that you will blow into a breathalyzer if you are asked to do so by a peace officer. If you refuse when asked, your license will be suspended. As you noted, driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. You are required to accept certain conditions for the privilege to continue. One of those conditions is a breath sample. It’s no more intrusive than emptying your pockets before getting on an airplane; if you don’t want to empty your pockets, don’t fly. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/88 "2009-06-04T13:47:38Z")
> [@Max Torque](#): > > As you noted, driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. I take issue with this. Not driving in many parts of the country is essentially house arrest. Our society is built with the notion of personal private mobility in mind. It’s about like stipulating “wearing shoes is a privileged, not a right” when you can’t go into a store and buy anything without shoes. Finding a job can require a search of several counties. Going to college can be a journey of 40 miles or more. Calling driving a right does nothing to prevent driving regulation. Look at the Second Amendment. There’s all sorts of gun control regulation, licensing, and the like. What it does do is force us to look at regulation with a strong eye to see if it’s necessary. Another example is people’s right to safety. You can’t shout fire in a crowded theater, even though you have a free speech right because other people have a right to not be trampled to death. What calling driving a right does do is establish safeguards to prevent abuse. Say the government passed a law saying “Owning a license is an implied agreement not to criticize the president. You can still exercise your free speech right but in doing so you waive your driving privileges”. Without using any argument that would also be valid if driving is a right, please explain to me how the above law be different then: > [@](#): > > When you obtain a driver’s license and drive on public roads, you are, by law, telling the government that you will blow into a breathalyzer if you are asked to do so by a peace officer. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/89 "2009-06-04T14:12:57Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > You aren’t found guilty of doing something for refusing to give fingerprints or give a DNA sample. Also, you can’t be forced to give fingerprints or a DNA sample unless you’ve already been charged with something. People are usually fingerprinted after arrest, but before being charged with a crime. The use of breathalyzer and blood tests in DUI cases, and penalties for refusal to submit to such tests, raise two constitutional problems–unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment) and self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment). Others have concentrated on the Fourth Amendment issue, which as noted is largely resolved through implied consent. There is also a Fifth Amendment issue relating to self-incrimination, which was addressed by the Supreme Court as it relates to blood DUI tests in [_Schmerber v. California_](http://law.jrank.org/pages/12953/Schmerber-v-California.html). “Just as state and federal courts generally agree that [the Fifth] amendment allows compulsory fingerprinting, photographing, measuring, and so forth, so it can also allow tests.” ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/90 "2009-06-04T15:23:39Z")
> [@CutterJohn](#): > > Speaking as someone who has driven home drunk hundreds of times, I am continually astonished at the hysteria surrounding drunken driving.. It must be similar to what someone who smokes pot realizes the first time they try it and realize that all the anti pot laws are complete bullshit. Unsurprisingly, I must confess I feel the laws are too strict. I grant that I’m not falling over puking drunk, and the few occasions I was that bad, I simply slept in the car, happy for a soft seat. I am impaired when I do this. I understand it. I understand the consequences of being caught. I understand that people say I’m a danger on the road, and will kill people. And, sitting in the car, with the keys in the ignition, I laugh, because even with a twelve pack in me, there are zero issues on my way home. Bit slow on the brake? Yep. I know this. I drive markedly slower to compensate. I take back roads. Its 2 AM in rural Iowa, on gravel. Its rare to meet cars on main roads. On gravel, I go weeks, months sometimes, in between seeing a car at that hour. And I’m a danger? To who? The deer? > > So, in my own rambling roundabout way, my opinion is that the laws are simply stupidly rigid. 0.25 in downtown wherever during rush hour with your kids in the back? You are a fool. 0.14 on deserted roads with only yourself in the car, along a route you know like the back of your hand? Not the smartest thing to do, but nowhere even near as bad as the former, and a tolerable risk that I would never fault anyone for taking,. Stupidly, the people in each case would be punished identically. The DUI laws are simply being used as a bludgeon to force the wide variety of offenders and circumstances into one neat hole, where they can be properly demonized and used as additional nontax revenue. > > Oh well. Its a good thing the cop goes off duty at 10. I won’t have to worry about an absurdly harsh punishment for such a benign infraction. 🙂 Um … have I been wooshed? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/91 "2009-06-04T16:06:04Z")
It’s a battle of dueling outrage. If you or a close friend have been arrested for drunk driving then you probably think the laws are outrageously harsh for such a minor offense. If you know someone who was killed by a drunk driver then you probably think the laws are outrageously lenient of such a serious crime. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/92 "2009-06-04T18:23:45Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > which as noted is largely resolved through implied consent. How so? How would that be any different then a law saying “Owning a license is an implied agreement not to criticize the president. You can still exercise your free speech right but in doing so you waive your driving privileges”? Or even closer “Own a driver’s license is implied consent for complete search and seizure of your vehicle, and onsight strip search of your person at the sole discretion of an officer of the law”? Just defining a commonly vital activity as implied consent to wave Constitutional rights seems pretty dangerous and sleazy. ---
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/93 "2009-06-04T18:32:49Z")
**Bump** , for your friend driving too fast, it’s his own fault. The expense of the violation is really the motivating factor to not do it again, IMHO. As far as your friend in the parking lot, should’ve walked. Little taps in a parking lot really doesn’t prove to me she’s too impaired to drive, but sucks at driving in a parking lot. Did she really just tap it, or accidentally floor it and wreck the bumper? Certain things HAVE to go. For instance, recently in my neighborhood a bar patron who WAS drunk was arrested for the “keys in the ignition” violation. She was getting a ride from a friends later, but went to her car in the parking lot to use the battery to charge her iPhone. Arrested for DUI. Doesn’t that seem entirely convoluted? A drunk putting the keys in the ignition, starting the engine and putting the car in gear certainly shows intent. This person wasn’t even in her car! The logic behind this law seems to be “intent”. By starting your car while inebriated tends to show intent to kill or harm someone. Still, keeping a loaded gun in your house does not constitute intent to kill anyone. I’ve taken cabs home before. It’s really not that hard or expensive. Shit, there’s always a bus too… ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/94 "2009-06-04T19:07:56Z")
> [@Max\_Torque](#): > > Pretty much. It’s called “implied consent”. When you obtain a driver’s license and drive on public roads, you are, by law, telling the government that you will blow into a breathalyzer if you are asked to do so by a peace officer. If you refuse when asked, your license will be suspended. Well as I see it in practical terms is that getting stopped by the police randomly to ascertain that I have a license, the proper license for the vehicle, insurance and that I am not under the influence of intoxicants is fine when it comes under the heading of IC. Where I take issue with it, is when criminal charges are iminent. The threat of jail time kicks it up another notch, assuming that judge gas pedal is not an option, refusal to submit to a breathalyzer may not help you in the short run, as it carries it’s own set of problems, but reasonable doubt in a court room is not one of them. While some jurisdictions do things differently and a LEO’s word is generally given more weight than a defendant, it’s kinda hard to go to trial when you have given a scientifically proven, court tested sample of your BAC and expect to win. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/95 "2009-06-04T19:28:31Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > I take issue with this. Not driving in many parts of the country is essentially house arrest. Our society is built with the notion of personal private mobility in mind. You don’t need a driver’s license to drive on your own property. Public roads are a whole 'nother animal. No one’s saying you can’t _travel_, only that you can’t _drive_. You can have someone else drive you, you can take a bus, you can ride a bicycle, you can ride a [pushme-pullyu](http://www.myshingle.com/PushMePullYou(1).jpg) for all the government cares. But if you operate a motor vehicle on a public road, you have to be licensed, and by obtaining a license, you consent to giving a breath sample. > [@](#): > > It’s about like stipulating “wearing shoes is a privileged, not a right” when you can’t go into a store and buy anything without shoes. Finding a job can require a search of several counties. Going to college can be a journey of 40 miles or more. Different by orders of magnitude. Wearing shoes doesn’t require extensive training and licensing to ensure that you know what signs and pavement markers mean, that you know how to estimate speed and distance, that you know rules of right-of-way and how to interact with other walkers. As for the rest, see above. > [@](#): > > Say the government passed a law saying “Owning a license is an implied agreement not to criticize the president. You can still exercise your free speech right but in doing so you waive your driving privileges”. > > Without using any argument that would also be valid if driving is a right, please explain to me how the above law be different[.] I can’t even wrap my mind around this. For one thing, such a law couldn’t possibly be passed, first because it’s a prior restraint on free speech, and second because there is no logical connection between criticizing the President and driving a car, so there is no rational basis for the law. For another, you’re posing a fallacious “irresistible force/immovable object” question, because free speech is a Constitutional right, and for your question you apparently want me to assume that driving is as well. So, you’re asking that I justify a law that puts two fundamental rights at complete odds with one another, such that one can never be exercised without surrendering the other. That’s not the way “rights” work. > [@](#): > > Or even closer > > “Own a driver’s license is implied consent for complete search and seizure of your vehicle, and onsight strip search of your person at the sole discretion of an officer of the law”? > > Just defining a commonly vital activity as implied consent to wave Constitutional rights seems pretty dangerous and sleazy. Not even remotely similar. Searching your entire car and person is a very intrusive and time-consuming activity, which in your example is being performed without any sort of direction or purpose, just to “see what might turn up.” A breathalyzer (or PBT, more likely) is not invasive, and it checks for only one thing: whether the particular person being tested has alcohol in his system. The “search” performed by having someone blow into a tube is extremely limited, and the courts have determined that it does not offend the Constitution. If you don’t agree, write your legislators. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/96 "2009-06-04T20:49:21Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > I take issue with this. Not driving in many parts of the country is essentially house arrest. Our society is built with the notion of personal private mobility in mind. That’s true, and of course I think we all acknowledge that not driving would be a tremendous difficulty for many people. However, _the road still doesn’t belong to you_. You’re pointing out the practical limitations of saying driving is a privilege, but it must also be noted that the practical fact is that the government built the roads. If I drive on the 401, that road belongs to Her Majesty in theory (I’m Canadian) and, for all practical intents, the people of the Province of Ontario. If you live in the States, then the road belongs to the people of your state (and/or the municipality, or the feds, depending on what road you’re on.) Those people have, through their legislative representatives, chosen to make the decision that nobody can drive on their roads while drunk and that the police can take unusually inquisitive steps (as opposed to other crimes) to prevent it. It’s an unfortunate fact of life that while we want to maximize our freedoms, the government does have a legitimate interest in engaging in some limitation thereof, as is reasonably appropriate to maintaining public safety and order. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/97 "2009-06-05T02:52:55Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > That’s true, and of course I think we all acknowledge that not driving would be a tremendous difficulty for many people. > > However, _the road still doesn’t belong to you_. You’re pointing out the practical limitations of saying driving is a privilege, but it must also be noted that the practical fact is that the government built the roads. If I drive on the 401, that road belongs to Her Majesty in theory (I’m Canadian) and, for all practical intents, the people of the Province of Ontario. If you live in the States, then the road belongs to the people of your state (and/or the municipality, or the feds, depending on what road you’re on.) Those people have, through their legislative representatives, chosen to make the decision that nobody can drive on their roads while drunk and that the police can take unusually inquisitive steps (as opposed to other crimes) to prevent it. > > It’s an unfortunate fact of life that while we want to maximize our freedoms, the government does have a legitimate interest in engaging in some limitation thereof, as is reasonably appropriate to maintaining public safety and order. You didn’t answer my objection. Your “unusually inquisitive” is a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. Plain and simple. Our Constitution says no unwarranted search. If using the public roads (which one can’t travel anywhere much beyond their own block, at best, without using) counts as a waiving of rights what the fuck meaning do my Constitutional rights have at all? If the government wants to violate them all it has to do is say I can’t use a road if I want to exercise them. Suddenly I’m either in house arrest or the right is effectively stolen. What good are rights one can’t leave their house without “consenting to waive”? It’s a bullshit reason pure and simple. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/98 "2009-06-05T03:09:59Z")
I have extremely little sympathy for drunk drivers and think the penalty for even the first violation at “low” levels of drunkenness (i.e. .08 blood alcohol level) should be a wake-up call on the order of a heavy fine and short-term license suspension. I’m fine with mandatory jail time for a second offense. What ticks me off, though, are legislative efforts like the one in Ohio to mandate permanent breathalyzer devices in the vehicles of first-time offenders. Not so much because it is unfair to the DUI offender, but because it is part of a MADD campaign to get the things mandated in _everyone’s_ vehicle (MADD has acknowledged this goal). I don’t usually go on about the “nanny state”, but saddling everybody with this expense and presumption of guilt every time you get into your car is going too damn far. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Raven\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@The\_Raven\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Raven_1)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/99 "2009-06-05T20:44:07Z")
I spent some time in Seoul recently, and marveled at their solution to DUI. It’s incredibly simple. It’s also very useful, since SK’s DUI laws are brutal, particularly for a country where drinking is very much part of the social fabric, and there are about a brazillion cars on the road. So you go to a bar, get hammered, and call this service. They come to where you are and drop off a driver who drives you home, IN YOUR OWN CAR. That’s the beauty of it. Then someone from the service comes and picks up the driver, and moves on to the next customer. You don’t wake up the next day and have to find your way to wherever you parked the night before, which is a real pain in the ass. Ta-daaa! ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435/100 "2009-06-05T21:27:56Z")
> [@The\_Raven](#): > > I spent some time in Seoul recently, and marveled at their solution to DUI. It’s incredibly simple. It’s also very useful, since SK’s DUI laws are brutal, particularly for a country where drinking is very much part of the social fabric, and there are about a brazillion cars on the road. > > So you go to a bar, get hammered, and call this service. They come to where you are and drop off a driver who drives you home, IN YOUR OWN CAR. That’s the beauty of it. Then someone from the service comes and picks up the driver, and moves on to the next customer. > > You don’t wake up the next day and have to find your way to wherever you parked the night before, which is a real pain in the ass. > > Ta-daaa! They have those services here. The kind of idiots who drive drunk are too proud to use them. Hell, you think Mel Gibson couldn’t afford a driver? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overhaul-needed-in-dwi-law-enforcement/498435.md?page=6)