If any of you ever drive in the UK you might like to know:
*The legal alcohol limit for drivers in the UK is:
35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath
80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood
107 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine*
There is no difference in respect of the size of the vehicle being driven.
The usual procedure is that the cops stop someone for a driving offence (they need probable cause here too - but that has a pretty wide interpretation) and breathalyse the driver if they smell alcohol or see other signs. If they don’t have a machine, they will often call for backup, but even without it, if they are pretty sure, they can make the arrest and cart the driver off to the station for the proper test. The blood and/or urine samples are only used if there is a medical problem like asthma. Refusal is an automatic guilty plea.
I only ever got stopped once. I was driving my girlfriend home after an evening out. The road was winding and I sort of straightened it out and got stopped. As I blew into the machine, my passenger leaned over and said the immortal words - “Haven’t you got anything better to do?”)
She was very attractive, and wearing an extremely short skirt, so I got away with a ‘just-under’ reading, and a lecture about staying on the correct side of the road.
In Ontario, a driver suspected of being impaired must submit to a roadside breath test, refusing to do so would result in an impaired charge…but one has the right to refuse to perform any physical and/or verbal sobriety test because because they rely on the officer’s subjective observations.
The officer has no baseline to compare your behaviour to. He doesn’t know if you normally slur words, have a limp, have balance problems, etc… without the presence of alcohol in your system.
For those that don’t know,the roadside breath test is only an an indicator of impairment. After an arrest the accused is taken to the police station where, after offered their right to counsel, a more accurate and calibrated breathalyzer test is administered. After being arrested, presumeably read your rights and spoken to counsel the investigator may also ask to perform additional sobriety tests which, again you have the right to refuse.
As has been stated by others, in some states the commercial driver has the same limits as any other driver.
In Georgia you have laws that make it worse to have a child in the car with the drunk driver? This is a new one on me. I wonder how many other States +/or Providences have laws that do this.
While I am not against harsher punishment when a child is involved, I am not sure if I agree with this. The drunk driver without any children in his/her vehicle is likely to main or kill children. Under this law he/she gets a break. If the law includes harsher penalties if a child is in any way harmed by the DDs actions, then It would be more equitable.
I used to drive a wrecker and I personally have scraped way too many dead bodies off of the pavement in my life. It is a preventible tragedy that so many innocent people are killed or maimed by drunk drivers. It is inexcusable. It is especially bad when the victim is a child. I have NO tolerance with/for drunk drivers. I will, and have, turned them into the police!, Yes, I do support MADD!
Came in here to echo what oz0ne posted, though with regard to California. Same general concept - there are two general DUI charges, one is for being “under the influence” (defined as not being able to drive with the care of a sober person) and one for merely being above .08 BAC. So, if you completely flunk the FSTs but show .07 on the breathalyzer, you could potential be guilty of the first crime but not the second. Likewise, you could be driving perfectly fine, get pulled over for a broken tail light, and be found guilty of the second charge but not the first (though of course the criminologist will argue that anyone over a .08 BAC is under the influence).
Following up on 48Willys’ point - my experience, at least in CA, was that if a child was in the backseat of a drunk driver’s car they would slap on a general “child endangerment” charge.
To answer your question, yes, Georgia has a separate offense when you’re DUI with a child under 14 years of age in the vehicle. The charge still falls under the DUI statute (OCGA 40-6-391, but titled in a subsection as endangering a child while DUI of alcohol and/or drugs). This charge cannot be merged with the normal DUI charge and carries different penalties. If convicted it carries the same penalty as contributing to the delinquency, unruliness, or deprivation of a child (OCGA 16-12-1). Both are misdemeanors.
Additionally, in regards to your other statements, if there is any injury to other parties while DUI the penalties are harsher (more harsh?) whether it be an adult or child. I have no tolerance either. My specialty was DUIs. I have made over 200 DUI arrests and have 197 convictions.
Edited my last sentence because it sounded like I have been arrested myself 200 times for DUI. :eek:
Sorry I missed this before. As written you are saying that it is illegal to drive impaired by exhaustion or illness. I can’t say for certain that it’s this way in other states but here that is certainly not the case. There is no legal standard for how ill or tired you have to be to be impaired. Or DUI laws state "impaired by drugs and/or alcohol. If you are exhausted and drive poorly you can get tickets for your actions. But you will not get a ticket for driving while tired. If you illness is causing you to drive dangerously (as happens with diabetics at times) an ambulance will be called and you won’t be getting tickets.
The driver has the right to refuse, but the officer can rely on personal observations of the driver’s physical co-ordination in deciding whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the driver is impaired and to make a breath demand.