DUI Laws, Love em or Hate em

I thought I'd introduce a subject that (hopefully) is less political than some previous threads. Are they too strict? Is 0.08 BAC too low?

I have heard some novel approaches to the current law.

1. Make 2 am thru 3 am a dui free pass time. If you're out on the road at this time, know its every man/woman for themselves, since DUI laws won't be enforced.

2. Allow people to establish their own personal DUI limit. Similar to getting your car inspected, go to a licensed inspector, drink in front of him, and try your hand at a driving simulator. When he says you're drunk, he records the BAC, and that becomes your personal level (maybe its 0.12 for example).

Before I go further, I realize that there is probably at least one person on this board who has suffered a loss from a DUI accident, and I hope this thread will not make light of those cases.

Moving on, I think the limit is too low. I think it was lowered from 0.10 to 0.08 primarily as a money making scheme (as evidenced by the invention of the 'diversion'). I also think other things like being tired, texting, eating, applying make-up are just as dangerous as having a 0.08 BAC.

How about your rights when pulled over? I was recently pulled over for having no license plate light (around 20 feet away from a bar I had just left).

This was a fishing expedition. I wasn't worried (only had 5 drinks in 4 hours, along with food, and trust me, I weigh more than average). But here we went...he smelled beer on my breath. Have you been drinking? Yes, 5 beers in 4 hours.

Does this give him probable cause to do anything more? I wasn't weaving, or doing anything that demonstrated I couldn't control the car. Apparently it did, because he asked me to say (not sing) part of the alphabet, and do some counting thing with my fingers. IMHO, I did fine with the alphabet, and performed the finger thing with more dexterity than he had shown. He said, ok, we're going to let you go...but then his partner, who I had to this point not even seen, gave him a signal.

OK, step out of the car for a breathalizer. Well this is getting serious. Do they have the right to do this? I wasn't weaving, but was semi-legitmately pulled over for the light. I had beer on my breath, but was clearly not drunk. I had passed his tests...but now they wanted more. I fear the breathalizer. What if it screws up? I get arrested on the spot! If the blood test later shows it screwed up, can I trust LE to admit that and let me go?...doubtful. All of the sudden, my entire future depends on this little machine.

By now, I was getting the picture - this officer was in training. He had to state my rights (essentially blow or we're taking you in), and stumbled through it awfully. He was so nervous he forgot which end to put the straw in. Then he dropped the straw on the ground and had to get a new one. Finally, I blew. I have no idea what I blew, but they told me I could go.

Yeah, I'm safe. But is DUI really so heinous a crime that all civil rights seem to be suspended? I know people are killed by DUI drivers...but non weaving, coherently speaking, alphabet saying, finger counting people? I was obviously not snockered...but they thought maybe, just maybe, this guy is over 0.08, so lets go fishing and make him blow.

Sounds like it was training and you got picked. The game is for the new guy to guess the intoxication level and then test to see the actual level. Your attorney could probably get you off if it went to court, but that's expensive.

I work late weekends which puts me driving through a small town about 2am. I've been pulled over for no license plate light, crossing the center line on a curve, turn signal too early and too late, switching lanes too much, not dimming my lights quickly enough going over a hill, going too slow, and about every other thing you can imagine. Never been ticketed or even tested as I rarely drink.

Finally, one day as the officer said I could go, I asked her what I could do to avoid getting pulled over once a month. Do I need to change car type or what?

She explained that in this town (population 12,000) there are 6 cars out every night at 2am and they are bored and don't have anything to do. I drive all the way through town, so I generally notice at least 3 of them each night, sometimes all 6. One will usually follow me for 1-3 miles through town.

At that time of night, they will make up any reason to pull you over just to see if you might possibly be intoxicated.

I will also say that I've always had a lot of respect for the police. I've had several relatives who were officers over the years. But in the last 5 years my view has changed from officers doing the right thing to them generating tickets for their own kudos and money for the city. It is really a shame, but the city budget managers call the shots.

I think part of the reason DUI laws suck is because they are enforced so subjectively. They can get anyone on any given night. I was pulled over once for making a "wide right turn" (making a right turn onto a four lane road and not spending "enough time" in the right lane before crossing into the left lane, lol), and yeah I was quite past the limit that night. But I gave the cop coherant answers and passed all the tests so I didn't get the breathalizer. Lucky I guess. Did I deserve a DUI? Second story, I had a friend get pulled over in a snowstorm for slight weaving WITHIN HIS LANE. (yeah maybe due to the blizzard winds) This happened late night on an abandoned road and he got a DUI for a .09. Instead of being out helping stopped cars in the frozen weather, the cop was working on his quota for the month. Should our record really depend on how a cop "is feeling" that night?

If LE was really so concerned with our safety, the laws would be inforced at the bar itself. But no, the bar will keep serving, knowing full well a large percentage of customers are driving themselves home. And thus the lawyers and cops all get their cut, and of course the government gets their liquor tax.

My views on DUI/DWI have changed over the years. When I was in my 20s and single, I would leave the bar I was at and drive the 10 miles from the bar to my apartment as carefully as I could even though it was 1 AM and I knew I was close to the .10 legal limit. Fortunately, during those years I never was pulled over for DUI.

Now, as a parent of a driver-in-training, I am glad the legal limit of .08 is now in force. I, myself, do not drink if I am driving or if I have either of my kids with me at a sporting event. I don't want to give the cops any reason to pull me over. It's served me well for over 25 years.

Well Crue, on this one I have got to disagree with you, I do think the law is important and should be enforced to the utmost. Drinking is the largest single contributing factor in single and multiple car accidents, accounting for thousands of deaths and millions of dollars in damages. I could careless if someone drinks, but when they get behind the wheel of a 3500 pound weapon with impared mental and physical capabilities I get very concerned. While you might believe that your faculties are in tact at .10, are you sure they are, how do you know your drunk LOL. Seriouly though if you implemented the things that you indicated you would end up with an even more seriously convoluted mess than we have now. Putting even more decision making responsibility on the officer, which can open up a lot of different cans of worms.

Bottom line to me is this, if there was a magic button that we could push that ensured that only the drunk driver would be hurt or killed then I say drink up and by a fast car LOL. But the reality is my family, friends and others that I love and care about are not protected by the decesion making of a drunk.

This is a touchy subject for me because I've lost two family members to drunk drivers. I will NOT get behind the wheel if I've been drinking and I do not nor will I feel sorry for people who get DUI's.

People need to take responsibility for their actions. If they've been drinking, call a cab or ask a friend to come get you. Most won't though, its too much trouble I'm assuming. If you know you're going to be drinking, be responsible and don't drive. I have no problem paying for a cab instead of paying a lawyer, fines and losing my license.

I will agree that bars need to be conscience of the people they're serving. Some bartenders and waiters/waitresses keep an eye on people, but the majority don't.

People in general have different outlooks on this subject, but if anyone has ever lost someone due to a drunk driver, your outlook usually changes. Its hard to look in the face of a child who has lost their parent, a parent who has lost their only child or a person who has lost their family to a drunk driver. Better yet, what if you lost your life due to your drinking and driving? Even if it was just a couple of drinks.

Its very very simple.....don't drink and drive! Period

The rest is just bitching.

Its very very simple.....don't drink and drive! Period

The rest is just bitching. Originally Posted by swarmyone

Spare no words, it was about drinking and getting drunk. I've never been there, drunk that is. The glow, the buzz, what ever it was called, many folks shared and I could never find a reason in all the discussion to try it even once.....now another reason not to start. The DUI
No effort, no spare in the net even backward...

I'm not supporting any drunk driving whatsoever and I think we can all agree it is a terrible idea. My point is that it's hard to respect a law that isn't evenly enforced, AND gives the appearance of a money-making device more than a safety mechanism. Again, if it was really in the government's interest to totally eliminate drunk driving, cars would come with breathalizers. Or you'd have to take one before leaving a bar and being able to get your keys. Or maybe you'd get a beer card kinda like a credit card that you could only use every x hours. Or whatever... All a DUI does is give the public a false sense of safety. I know lots of repeat DUI offenders, so no, it's not much of a deterrent.

BTW, I've never gotten a DUI.

I think this thread so far has demonstrated some of the emotion brought out by drunk driving. Some people have lost friends due to it and support any and all enforcement....but, does that justify the treatment that Biggestbest gets late at night? Is it right for the police to search out a reason to stop him? I've also gotten pulled over for out of state tag, weaving in my lane, turn signal too early, pulling into traffic too early...all while stone cold sober. Each time, while I'm happy to not get a ticket, the mere fact that no ticket is issued demonstrates that the stop was a means to another end.

What about sobriety checkpoints. LE is not even sure a crime has been committed, and certainly has no probable cause to suspect you in particular, yet you are subjected to 'contact' with LE randomly. I can't think of any other crime that merits that treatment.

I looked up a drunk driving calculator and plugged my info in, for my little episode described at the top of the thread. My BAC should have been 0.01...very low. Sure, I Was drinking...but I was nursing beers over a period of hours (along with eating, and mixing in bottles of water). Theortically, I wasn't even close to drunk...how did I end up on the side of the road blowing into a machine?

I didn't mention before that I saw the police before I even got in my car...but I didn't care. I Knew I wasn't drunk, and saw no reason to worry. Yet, I ended up blowing into the machine because of a license plate light. Should I have been worried before getting into my car? Remember, the law doesn't prohibit you from driving with beer on your breath...and it does define a limit (which I was lower than by a factor of 8). If they wanted to train this cop, they should have brought him into the bar (the MP's would do that in the military, and people would volunteer to blow).

Wikipedia states that people's BAC reading on a breathalizer varies 15%, and cites an estimate that 23% of readings are incorrectly high. So I absolutely fear the breathalizer. Even if I hadn't drank for weeks, I would still fear the breathalizer. It is a delicate scientific instrument...calibrated by not so scientific people.

I can't argue with the fact that drunk driving deaths have dropped with increased enforcement. That's a good thing. But using the same logic, couldn't we reduce alot of crimes by unleashing LE on our homes, with random searches of houses? That would be a good thing...but would society accept that intrusion?

I will just throw one more thing out there. In my experience, 90% of the information out there about DUI laws, field tests, breath tests, etc. is total bullshit...usually spouted by some idiot who thinks he's an expert because he or his friend knows someone who knows someone who got a dui and his friend's friend's friend's lawyer told them such and such.

For example, Breathalyzer is the most commonly used term when refering to a breath test instrument. But it's not. It's a name brand. There are dozens of different breath test instruments. There is a BIG legal difference between a Preliminary Breath Test (PBT) and a breath test device owned, certified, and maintained by a state agency. Unless you are a police officer, a prosecutor, or a competent (this is important) defense attorney, you probably don't know what your talking about.

BTW-I had to appear as a witness in an accident and while waiting for our case 2 men were convicted of DUI that refused the give a breath sample. After LE testified as to the appearance, speech, smell and a couple other things I don't remember the judge found them guilty.

Swarmy-do you like the term breath sample? Heard that term that day in court.

"Unless you are a police officer, a prosecutor, or a competent (this is important) defense attorney, you probably don't know what your talking about."

Don't 'we the people' make the laws? If the laws and measuring devices are so complex that 'we the people' aren't even remotely qualified to understand them, shouldn't we take a step back?

Yes, I know breathalizer is a brand name (and I willingly mispell it, too). My favorite brand is the Drunkometer...no kidding. But you are right - it is very complicated. What does a failed breathalyzer mean legally? How transparent are LE calibration records? Is the blood test data 'adjusted' to compensate for expended time, and is that accurate and moral?

Does LE understand the chemistry behind the test results...for each brand and style of device? Does LE understand effects of temperature on the device? How come they have to break out the CSI team to use all the other scientific instruments...but a patrol officer is qualified to use a breathalizer?

I just think there is a 'slippery slope' of probable cause going on here. There is absolutely no way that beer on the breath would be probable cause to take blood. So, you get muscled into taking a 'preliminary test'...which is not that awfully accurate. Then, the officer, who probably doesn't understand the statistical signficance of the machine's variability (and people's variability), suddenly has cause to take you in for a blood test. Murder suspects have been more successful in refusing to have blood drawn.

Sorry for the rambling...I just sometimes think LE is spending too much time going after the social drinker, who might just be a cash jackpot, instead of the blatantly drunk people I see on the road every day (yes I've actually called the police and reported people). IMHO, if they have to break out a device and haggle over 0's and 1's on it, they are probably standing on the side of the road while stumbling drunks are driving by (probably repeat offenders with no license, and no money to pay fines and diversions either). Its similar to the pissed off feeling I get when I see them pulling over a soccer mom for speeding in the richie rich part of town, while downtown is a running gang war...I think money is driving the train instead of true safety.

I think anyone who drinks and drives NO MATTER HOW LITTLE OR HOW MUCH should go to Jail. Drunk Drivers Killed someone in My Family. If you drink you aren't 100% Sober Period!

DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!

The court system did not pull the .08% standard out of their ass. There is scientific evidence to show that the average individual is significantly impaired when their blood alcohol content reaches a certain point. It's not practical to have a sliding scale (what's drunk for the social drinker as opposed to the old drunk). There has to be a standard. .08 is the standard. The law as written says if your BAC is .08 or greater, you are in violation of the law.

Just like a speed limit. You may argue that your a safe driver and you "feel" like you can safely drive your car 30 mph on a residential street. What you "feel" doesn't matter. If the speed limit is 25 mph, your breaking the law. You can bitch about it, but that's all it really is.

BTW - Results of a Preliminary Breath Test (PBT) are NOT admissible in court (at least in Kansas). However, you are required by law to submit and if you refuse, the fact that you refused a test IS admissible.

The fact of the matter is that most people cannot adequately guage their own impairment while they are drinking. Don't be a dumbass. Recognize that there are laws and if you choose to drive, you have to follow them. Not just the ones you agree with.