Chief Justice Rehnquist admitted it was a Constitutional violation- but “only a little one.” :rolleyes:
Yes, everyone is doing background checks, and once they see the DUI, they reject you–for a job, an apartment, Jesus, even a job as a gardener.
The result is that people think, “Well, my life is screwed anyway, so why should I worry about punishment?”
I heard that if you’ve gotten a DUI in the US they won’t even let you go into Canada.
If there is a problem with enforcement regarding DUI in this country, I feel it would be the monetary aspect. An NBA player or a millionaire could afford to get a DWI infraction, and pay the fines, once per day for his entire career. A blue-collar worker at minimum wage can barely afford to be caught once. The behavior is equally abhorrent, but the fine is not equally deterrent.
Not fair, they have better beer.
I really think they need to do a better job educating people about DUI consequences–they aren’t much of a deterrent if you don’t know about them, and I think many people do not–tehy know it’s “bad”, but not the details.
Indeed they were. They arrested people in bars. They attempted to shut down nightclubs for selling alcohol to patrons over the age of 21. It made them look very silly indeed.
Indeed. I vacation to Victoria every other year or so. They warn you on the vacation website, when you reserve, when you hit the terminal, once you get on the ferry then when you hit customs “If you have been convicted of DUI you may be denied access.”
A customer told me a story about going on a vacation with his kids and grandkids. They got the whole family together, three generations. They all get to the border and they refused to let him in. He had to turn around and go home while his family went on their vacation for a DUI he got when he was a kid, 30-40 years ago. Humiliating.
How do they know? They do a background check on everyone crossing the border? Isn’t it one of the busiest borders in the world?
We had to give basic information when we signed up for the trip which I assume was just forwarded to proper authorities. When you showed up you showed your paperwork and they put your name into the computer (I’m assuming to check to see if they found anything) and told you to have a nice trip.
I’m not sure how regular border crossings with no prior warning work though. Maybe just a spot check.
This is an interesting development. From today’s (6/6/09) Cleveland Plain Dealer Link
I’m not even sure how to read that, if the state averages 70 k DUI each year and new ones to boot, that would read between 04 and 08 there would be 280 k or just over a quarter of a million felony offenders, depending on when these stats were compiled.
I could probably find the most recent census figures for Ohio, but assuming that these were the gross figures that also included temporary suspensions and the like , right up to felony convictions, but seriously when does the state run out of drivers?
I also get that a number of these were probably out of state and Canadian drivers, but still.
Declan
I hadn’t noted the stats that you did, Declan. I was more interested in the treatment over punishment angle. Good catch.
Assuming those stats are accurate, you are incorrect that those arrested would be felonies. In Ohio the first 3 DUIs are misdemeanors with increasingly severe penalties. Any over 3 would be felonies.
A chart of Ohio DUI penalties is available in .pdf format Here. Click on page 2 of the impaired driving chart.
A friend of mine once went to a State Police barracks in Massachusetts to participate in a study. He’s a pretty hardcore drinker (in fact, he’s a drinking buddy) and has been for over about 20 years. The study consisted of the police serving beer and taking a measure of everyone’s BAC after every beer (or maybe every 2 beers, I forget). Apparently some of the beer they confiscate goes into a large walk-in refrigerator and they use that for these studies. The troopers came to his house at around 6 am, picked him up and brought him to the barracks where there were about 20 other people: different genders, different builds, different ages, etc. They cracked open their first beer at 7:30 am (after orientation and signing a bunch of forms). They sat around playing cards, bullshitting, and some played drinking games. My buddy said it took him until around 11:00 am and 8 beers later to blow a .08. That’s drinking at a pretty steady clip for almost 3.5 hours. I’ve never been pulled over (I drank and drove a bit when I was younger and stupid, but haven’t once in at least 10 years) so I never took an official breathalyzer, so I was surprised to learn how one actually feels in accordance with the measured BAC. The troopers in the study explained at the beginning, as part of the orientation, that anyone who says they had 2 beers but blows a .08 is really full of shit and that they’d see how true that was. So that was kind of interesting, I thought, especially after hearing people downplay the .08 legal limit. Apparently, a .08 gives you a fair amount of room to have a couple drinks and not worry about a DUI conviction.
I did take a breathalyzer once, now that I think about it. I went to Munich, Germany a long time ago with AF buddies and we went to the Hofbrau House. I got completely shitfaced. In the back they had a breathalyzer machine. I think you’d put money in and out would come a straw that you’d use to blow into the machine. I remember blowing a .24… I was having trouble walking at this point. I can’t believe people would actually get behind the wheel at that level of inebriation.
While the penalties applied to first time offenders do not need to be increased, it is people like Ms. Pugh below who need to be locked up for a long, long time (I’m talking decades):
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6460006.html
“Cheryl Anne Guberman, 44, a married mother of four from the Woodlands, was killed May 28.”
“The crash data computer taken from Pugh’s Chrysler Sebring showed she was traveling 115 mph just five seconds before hitting Guberman’s pickup, a criminal complaint shows. One-tenth of a second before impact, Pugh was driving 100 mph and hadn’t hit the brakes, according to court records.”
“Tests revealed Pugh had a blood alcohol level of 0.19 — well above the state’s legal limit of 0.08, said Chief Mark Herman of the Harris County Precinct 4 Constable’s Office.”
"Pugh refused to submit to field sobriety tests or provide a breath sample when she was arrested, court records show, but a mandatory blood sample taken at a hospital revealed her blood alcohol level.
She was [previously] convicted of drunken driving in 2007."
There are Canadian immigration waiversavailable for cases like this, but you have to apply in advance. I’ve worked on a few cases like this, and waivers are more likely to be approved if they are for minor offenses that happened a long time ago, particularly if there was only one offense.
I think your buddy would have to weigh well over 300lbs for this to be true. I’m larger than average (~200lbs), and IIRC my 4th drink would put me at .08. That’s why I absolutely never drive if I’ve had 4, and on the rare occasions that I have 3 and need to drive, I wait quite awhile. Tolerance has nothing to do with BAC, by the way. I’m not sure if you think it does but that seems to be an implication of your story. And .08 is a moot point in Arizona 'cause you’re getting nailed to the wall at .05. Jail time, interlock device, etc.
That’s bullshit right there. I got a DUI in 1991 when I was 21 years old, and it is NOT on my record.
I also want to chime in and say that drunk driving is abhorrent. The problem with the laws is setting a standard for everyone that doesn’t apply to everyone. As others have stated, there are LEGION reasons for impaired driving, drunkeness included. Stupidity, failure to obey basic road safety, speeding, cellphone/text usage, fatigue (probably the worst), a sense of entitlement…all of these can and do injure or kill people.
I realize that drunk driving kills a lot of people and that it should be punished harshly from the get-go.
However, having two beers in an hour and subsequently being pulled over for a bullshit reason and ending up a criminal because you blew right at the stupidly low legal limit of .08 is ridiculous. The limit is too low because of politics (and scare groups like MADD), not from some demonstrable impairment threshold between .08 and .1, which is what the limit use to be, and in my mind was acceptable compared to other conditions a driver may suffer from that impairs them equally without alcohol in the equation and which they rarely if ever are punished for if they cause an accident.
Field sobriety tests should be administered FIRST in all cases of suspected DUI, or for people that are impaired for some other reason a breathalyzer will not reveal.
Or, if you’re stone cold sober, you should have the option at a checkpoint to cut through the BS and skip to the breathalyzer step just so you can go about your way.
If you’ve had two to three beers (and are over the breathalyzer limit) and you can demonstrate that you’re capable of passing a field sobriety test as well or better than a plethora of other people whom cannot that haven’t had a drop of booze, then you should be allowed to go on your way.
Not your driving record, but it is on your NCIC record. And Canada is accessing the NCIC database to exclude undesirables. It does not make any differencehow long ago you were convicted, either:
You are persona non grata in Canada, my friend. And it will cost you $850 to be considered for a rehabilitation waiver; if you are rejected, your $850 is non-refundable. They really don’t want you up there, eh?
Fortunately for me then, I have no desire to go there. Sucks that I can’t though, according to your rules. I have a hard time believing that Canada would refuse an American entry into their county over something that happened 17 years ago.
That is not what the Constitution says; if you’re going to argue constitutional law, Jesus, at least look the amendment up. It says there shall be no unreasonable searches. Lots and lots of legal searches don’t involve a warrant.
Many think it’s reasonable to engage in mild searches of people who are using state property to attempt to stop a crime that kills sixteen thousand Americans a year. You think it’s unreasonable. Let’s see what the courts say.