Arrested for DWI-Unwarranted Blood Tests-M.A.D.

Really?

so driving 115MPH in a school zone should not be illegal unless you actually hit someone?
driving on the sidewalk should not be illegal unless you hit someone?
Failing to secure junk blowing off the back of your truck should not be illegal unless it hits someone?

That, in a word, is dumb.

 

Driving a 115 MPH in a school zone is reckless driving, and child endangerment. These are both crimes that no one could argue that a significant % of people have the ability to safely navigate. This is a false equivalency!

Driving outside your traffic lanes would create havoc on the streets and is guarantee to kill people. Again this is a false equivalency.

Securing a load improperly is a prime example of the DUI logic failure. 99 out of 100 times an unsecured load hurts no one. If is does hurt someone, you should get slammed for that crime, but it does not make sense to punish 99 people, because 1 person caused damage to someone. That one person should be punished not everyone that ever had a load become unsecured, or drove a couch down the road hanging off the back of a truck!

 

Wouldn't that be unfair to your guy with the mythical tolerance to alcohol for whom ten drinks has absolutely zero effect on his driving? You'd be punishing him for something you don't recognise as wrong and, from your point of view, can't possibly have been a factor in the death.

Back in the real world though, the fact is that being under the influence already makes driving offences more serious in the eyes of the law. That doesn't mean that drinking and driving but being lucky enough not to have any kind of incident isn't wrong. Quite the opposite in fact - if you recognise that a driving offence while drunk is more serious, you're recognising the driving while drunk is wrong. You still seem to be ignoring the fact that having alcohol in a drivers system will have a negative effect on the quality of their driving even if that is not immediately apparent from the outside.

It's like health regulations. If a restaurant kitchen isn't kept clean, the authorities will cite the owners and potentially close the restaurant. They don't have to wait for a customer to get sick or even demonstrate that the food is directly affected. We know a dirty kitchen is potentially dangerous and easily avoidable so it's stopped right there, before anyone might get hurt.

It isn't an arbitrary line. The principal is simply don't drink and drive. The apparently arbitrary blood-alcohol limits are a function of difficulties in measurement, not the principal.

 

just google signs bill to adopt .08 BAC

 

You obviously are missing my point, if the federal government want to stop anybody who has a drink and then drives then they should pass a law limiting providing drinks to patrons. They have passed a law that virtually makes anyone having two alcoholic beverages from driving. Why not pass a law that bans bars and restuarants from serving anyone more than one alcoholic beverage within one hour? Instead you believe people should not drink at all, that is called prohibition. Whether a person responsible for driving home after visiting a bar or restaurant is driving responsibility should be the question and not on an arbitrary number mandated by the federal government. If you understood how alcohol effects each person, you would know it is based on their size, previous history of alcoholic comsumption . So while one person may consume only one drink and attain .08 another may consume more before reaching .08. Therefore it is difficult for a person to know their exact B.A.C score when leaving an establishment. They rely on past experience and their responsible belief of their own ability to drive. If they are driving safely but fail to stop completely at a stop sign or make too wide of turn in a two lane left turn(something I observe too many doing at all times) or violating another minor traffic law; they shouldn't automatically be subjected to SFST's or other tests just because they smell of alcohol or have just left an establishment that serves alcohol. Too often I have observed truly "impaired" drivers that fails to attempt to stop at a signal or run up on medians; call the police department and they do nothing. Yet they arrest and prosecute drivers doing nothing that these truly intoxicated drivers did. What say you to that?

P.S. in regard to allow them to call a taxi; many posted off duty officers outside of bars and resturaunts refuse to allow people to call a taxi and arrest them instead for public intoxication. That is wrong

 

You're not just missing the point, you're stamping it in to the ground and making up a whole new one!

Please be clear. I am not saying nobody should drink. It is perfectly possible to have alcoholic drinks in all sorts of places and then not drive. You are creating the false image that it is somehow impossible to leave a bar or restaurant without driving. To claim I want to stop people drinking at all is a gross lie that does you no credit.

I've already explained that it isn't an "arbitrary number". The principal is that people shouldn't drink any alcohol prior to driving. The numeric limits are based on the ability to accurately measure alcohol in the system with a measure of confidence suitable for the courts, not to define an amount of alcohol which is considered OK for driving.

I understand that perfectly well. The fact it's impossible for an individual to judge their own level of impairment is why anyone intended to drive shouldn't drink alcohol at all immediately before that. This isn't a game where you have to get as close to .08 without going over, this is the reality of putting your own recreation and convenience over other people's lives.

Yes, but drunk people have terrible judgement (and people in general don't have great judgement in the first place). Various surveys show that around 75-80% of drivers consider their own normal driving ability to be above average. I have no confidence in the average drivers ability to correctly judge the impact of their alcohol consumption. Given we know even relatively small amounts of alcohol can have a negative impact on characteristics key to safe driving and that drinking is an entirely optional, recreational activity, I see no good reason to rely on that judgement. Don't drink and drive is so much more straight forwards and less open to potentially fatal error.

I'm not sure what you expect them to do or indeed how you'd know they did nothing. Regardless, I don't see what the failures of your local police to properly enforce the law has to do with the principals of drink driving that we're disagreeing on.

 

You miss the point, Why allow the sale of alcohol at restaurants and bars? Why not just license grocery stores and liq. stores to sell alcohol and require it be consumed in private places not public places and change the law to .o B.A.C.

Plus you are wrong when you say "Everybody should be perfectly clear that driving while under the influence of alcohol is illegal so if you choose to drink and drive then get caught, you only have yourself to blame." You are wrong because only driving with a .08 Blood Alcohol Level is illegal. So I guess you would like make it illegal to drive with any amount of alcohol in your system. So I guess you never drink when you go to dinner, or a party or at a friends house and if you have even one drink you take a cab? Get a life. I haven't had an accident or a traffic ticket in the past 25 years, I do have a glass of wine or a margarita when I go out socially, so sue me. But, I no my limit and I know when I have had too much to drink and when that happens I don't drive, I drink responsibly, My point is that I don't need the Government regulating the amount of alcohol they arbitrarily decide renders me intoxicated and my ability to drive in a safe manner should be based on my visual performance.
My definition of intoxication when it comes to this law, is driving in a manner that is unsafe. Like the driver I observed running up on medians and failing to stop at strop signs, speeding and who got away with it because the Police Department failed to respond when I called 911.

 

Because it's not necessary and wouldn't solve anything. It is perfectly possible to drink at a restaurant or bar then not drive and it's equally possible to drink alcohol in a private place then drive. Where you get the alcohol and where you choose to drink it are irrelevant. There is absolutely no justification for shifting the responsibility for drink driving from the individuals who, having drunk alcohol, choose to drive.

No, I'll explain this yet again. What is illegal is driving under the influence of alcohol. The ".08" limit is not a function of the law, it is a function of the limitations of the measuring devices used to determine if an individual is under the influence of alcohol. If we had devices which could more accurately differentiate between actual alcohol consumption and, say, recent use of mouthwash, the limit could and would be lowered. If we had devices that could tell with 100% certainty whether someone had drunk even one drink, that would be how the law would be maintained.

Yes, if I'm going somewhere I'm going to be drinking, I arrange transport other than me driving. Cab, public transport, walking, a lift with someone not driving. If I need to drive, I don't drink. I really don't see the point in taking the risk. If alcohol is that vital in your life, I'd suggest you have a wider issue to address.

I don't see what's "uncool" about choosing not to drink and drive (as your "Get a life." implies). It suggests you're approaching this emotionally rather than rationally.

You believe you know your limits. You could be right or you could be lucky. Nobody knows which though. As I've already said, lots of people over-estimate their driving ability in general and we know alcohol, even relatively little, impairs judgement so I see no reason to trust everyone's own judgement regarding this.

Repeating myself again. The government is not arbitrarily deciding how much alcohol renders you intoxicated. Governments, under medical advice, have recognised that any amount of alcohol carries the risk of dangerously impairing anyone's ability to drive safely so it has been determined that the simplest and safest solution is that nobody should drink and drive (on public roads at least).

I've already (re)explained above that part you repeatedly misrepresent as arbitrary.

In practice, your definition is driving in a manner that is blatently unsafe. It is perfectly possible for someone to be dangerous behind the wheel without it being immediately apparent to someone watching them for a short period of time. Delayed reaction times, impaired vision or sluggish motor skills might not be visible until it's too late.

 

For a policeman to force the blood test, he needs probable cause, i.e. drunk behavior. Part of the implied contract of driving is that if you are driving on a public road, you open yourself up to alcohol tests. If you don't like it, stay on private roads. Blood tests do not expose you to disease/infection. They are the most accurate way to determine blood alcohol.

- - - Updated - - -

No search warrant gives the presumed criminal the right to speak with the judge or be represented by counsel.

 

According to BAC calculators, I can have two beers in an hour, and be well under the legal limit. Unless you are a tiny person, you should be able to have one in an hour and be safe.

 

No under current law a policeman can only force a blood test if someone was injured in an accident, killed or they first obtain a warrant from a judge. The law governing application and giving a drivers license only requires you take a breath alcohol test administered by an accredited machine at the police station. Not a Premliminary blood test roadside, not standard filed sobriety tests and definitely not blood tests without warrant.

You need to know the law before you speak.

 

It is also possible to have several drinks within 1 hour and still be able to drive safe. If you disagree with that then you should disagree with the current law that provides for a B.A.C. over .08 indicting someone is for fact intoxicated.

 

In most states, refusing to take a sobriety test can be seen as probable cause for the cop search your car, taking even more time. If you are not drunk, just take the damn test, and get it over with, instead of having the cop decide you are hiding something and rip your care apart.

 

You are absolutely correct. The problem arises when someone has a headlight out, turnsignal not working, expired sticker and is stopped for these fineable only traffic infractions and because the officer smells alcohol on their breath or they have red eyes or take what the officers finds a longer time to find their license and registration they can ask you to perform a PBT and FST even when you showed no inability to drive safe and follow traffic signals. And, a look at cases and appeals online prove that virtually anytime you submit to FST you will fail as it is very subjective.

I object to submitting to have my blood drawn based on issuance of a warrant only on the subjective tests and subjective unproven observations of an officer. The only time any driver should agree to any of these tests is if they have nothing to drink and even then don't take the SFST's because you will likely fail even if you have had no drink. Once an officer asks you to take these tests 99% of the time he has already decided you are DUI or DWI and already plans to arrest he intends to use his subjective documented results of the tests you agree to perform as supporting evidence for arresting you; not as way for you to prove to him you are not intoxicated. Don't believe me, do your own research on these cases and appeals. This is a fact and cannot be disputed

 

You're just repeating exactly the same points I've already addressed but you seem to be completely ignoring those parts of my posts. I'll be happy to address anything new or expanded on if you have anything to offer.

 

Then stay off the public roads. If you are on the public roads in most states, you are consenting to having your car and person searched.

 

It varies state by state. Here is an excerpt from a lawyers website (dui.drivinglaws.org) on FL law.

 

I will NEVER blow into a breathalyzer on the side of the road.... PERIOD.... whether I've had 100 drinks or 0 drinks.

In my state, refusal to blow gets your driver license revoked automatically for 6 months. But every lawyer in town will tell you "don't blow on the road, I can get your D.L. back for refusal, I can't if you blow .08"

I won't blow until my lawyer is present either, and the good ones take their time getting to the station.


I don't support Drunk driving, but I'm not going to let 3 beer or a possible .09 ruin my career or life.

I had a cousin roll his truck drunk driving and another buddy get stopped for drunk driving

My uncle saw the wreck as it was in front of the house when the wreck occurred. He made sure that his son (my cousin) was ok and then googled DUI Lawyers. First # he called he asked "my son was just in a wreck, he's drunk, cops are on their way, what should he do?" Lawyer said "I can't give legal advice without a retainer ($2500 for this one)" So my uncle asked if he could take a credit card # over the phone (which he could). As soon as it cleared, Lawyer said "don't blow, your son is going to go to jail tonight either way, but if he blows over the legal limit, he'll be in worse shape"
cousin was out in less than 12 hours, had his D.L. back within 3 weeks and $15,000 later, the charge went from DUI to Wreckless driving.

my other buddy, cooperated and blew...... a .09. Spent the weekend in jail. DUI on his record permanently and lost his D.L. for 6 months

 

A friend of mine, who is an attorney and has defended drunk drivers, told me the best bet is to ask for a blood test.

 

my lawyer will be present none the less....

I have never driven completely sloshed.... always had rides (see my 'I was date-raped' thread....lol) or crashed at the person's house. I have, however, drank up to 3 beer and driven home.


THOSE are the kind of times I will not participate in field sobriety, or blow in a breathalizer on the side of the road. Just not worth the risk of blowing a .08


The issue I have is how can anyone tell if they are .08 and too drunk to drive or .07 and perfectly fine to drive.

how can you tell if 3 beer will put you personally over in 2007, but not in 2008 or vice versa.

 

You can't (I also question the concept of a BAC of 0.07 being "perfectly fine" to drive). Why not, if you're going to be driving, simply not drink?

 

by law it is....

because reality says you shouldn't have to get a cab ($$$$$) because you had a tall beer at applebees with dinner.


who's also to say that your inability to drive with a .10 BAC means I CAN'T drive with a .10 BAC. It's like texting and driving. Just because you can't, doesn't mean I can't.


I personally think a mother who can't control her kids while driving is far more dangerous than most people with a .10 BAC. So why not make a DUI type law for kids in the car????

 

Just because something isn't illegal doesn't automatically mean it's safe. After all, you can legally drive blindfolded after downing a bottle of whiskey if you're on private land.

Well, you don't have to get a cab - there are all sorts of ways to get where ever you want to get to without driving yourself. My point is that you don't have to drink alcohol (unless you do, which is an entirely different problem). It's optional and entirely recreational and we know it could impair your driving so why take the risk.

Yes, we don't know. Some people will be able to drive at 0.10 BAC without any problems and some will end up killing people. We don't know which is which until after the fact so, yet again, why take the risk?

Well for a start, laws aren't defined based on what you personally think. If you were right, I'm not sure what kind of DUI type law could realistically apply to kids in the car though.

Anyway, you present a classic fallacy - just because X is more dangerous than Y doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop Y too.

 

You can't honestly type that you don't know the type of driver I'm talking about. But that's my point. Me with a .10 (and I'd argue most with a .10 bac) drive better than that young mother of 3 undisciplined hellions in her backseat fighting.

But her unsafe driving is allowed because its her right to raise those kids anyway she wants, huh

 

I didn't. I typed that I'm not sure what kind of "DUI type law" you believe needs to be introduced to account for them. In the UK we have a law of "Driving without due care an attention" which would probably apply to the situation you're talking about. I don't know if there is anything similar in the states.

I don't think either kinds of unsafe driving should be allowed. The fact one might be less dangerous than the other is irrelevant. They're different problems which require different solutions.