DUI discussion

[Champ]

In the America vs. Europe debate, what is the difference over there in population density and public transit.

I want to say America has many more suburbanites traveling into a "metro" area to drink where the hip bars are, then getting back home.

I know here in the twin cities + metro area, the buses and light rail train only run til 1am, then you are on your own after that and bars close at 2.  A taxi to the suburbs can cost well over $50.  While this is obviously cheap compared to wrecking a car or another (or your) life, it would add up if you even went downtown twice a month.

I personally don't drive if I have more than one an hour, with a 4 hour max one-per-hour sitting.  I have no idea what that corresponds to in BAC terms, but I would rather just sleep it off in my car for a few hours instead of trying to "risk it."

[Eye of the Tiger]

In the America vs. Europe debate, what is the difference over there in population density and public transit.

I want to say America has many more suburbanites traveling into a "metro" area to drink where the hip bars are, then getting back home.

I know here in the twin cities + metro area, the buses and light rail train only run til 1am, then you are on your own after that and bars close at 2.? A taxi to the suburbs can cost well over $50.? While this is obviously cheap compared to wrecking a car or another (or your) life, it would add up if you even went downtown twice a month.

I personally don't drive if I have more than one an hour, with a 4 hour max one-per-hour sitting.? I have no idea what that corresponds to in BAC terms, but I would rather just sleep it off in my car for a few hours instead of trying to "risk it."

Sleeping in your car FTW!!! Just make sure the keys aren't in the ignition. Or, better yet, sleep in the passenger seat. A friend of mine got a DUI just for sleeping in the driver's seat with the keys in the ignition so he could listen to the radio.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Speaking of DUI's... somehow I've managed to find another keg party tonight. Hopefully it doesn't get busted up by the cops like last weekend's.

[the Teuton]

Speaking of DUI's... somehow I've managed to find another keg party tonight. Hopefully it doesn't get busted up by the cops like last weekend's.

Oh, to be back in college.  (13 days and counting... )

[dazzleman]

I think real DUI is a very serious matter that should be dealt with severely.

OTOH, I deplore this nannyish approach that our society takes to these issues.  We acknowledge that drunk driving is a problem, and that the vast majority of the DUI crashes are caused by people with a BAC over a certain level; let's say for argument's sake that that level is 0.15.

So instead of targeting those who drive at that BAC level with severe penalties, we lower the BAC level at which it is illegal to drive.  This is the same approach we've taken to speeding -- we say that people who drive at 100 mph on the highway create danger, so we make the speed limit 55 mph, and criminalize nearly everybody in the process.

The lower the BAC level is at which driving is considered DUI, the more socially acceptable DUI will be, and the harder it will be to separate borderline people with truly dangerous drunks and target the dangerous drunks with meaningful penalties.  This is exactly where our nannyish approach to speeding has led -- speeding tickets are something that people laugh at and joke about with their friends, and few people are embarrassed by them -- and I fear we're going down the same path with DUI, as we cast a wider net for violators rather than target the right people.

Our society has a major case of ADD, and seems unable to look at issues broadly.  Instead, we deal with the issue du jour, and ignore other similar issues that are causing the same problem.  An example of this is all the distractions that are built into modern cars, and the fact that so many people 'multitask' as they're driving.  I don't mean to sound sexist, but I think this is a bigger problem with women than men.  I think that distracted drivers, drivers who aren't paying attention to the road because they're putting on their makeup, shaving, eating, talking on their cellphones, etc. are as big a problem as those who are driving with a marginal BAC level.

I don't mean to condone drunk driving, but there isn't some magical point where a person goes from being sober enough to be considered a safe driver to being a dangerous drunk.  It's something that happens gradually as BAC increases, so maybe it would be a better idea to at least have graduated penalties, rather than the approach we have now.

[L. ed foote]

Sleeping in your car FTW!!! Just make sure the keys aren't in the ignition. Or, better yet, sleep in the passenger seat. A friend of mine got a DUI just for sleeping in the driver's seat with the keys in the ignition so he could listen to the radio.

That's why when I sleep in my car, I make sure to do it in a parking lot 

[JWC]

Friend of mine got busted for "in or about a motor vehicle while under the influence".  This was in California.  He didn't have the keys in the ignition and was trying to sleep it off in the back seat, while parked in the parking lot of a Mexican restaurant.

He told the judge that from then on, he'd just risk driving home while under the influence.

[SaltyDog]

I think real DUI is a very serious matter that should be dealt with severely.

OTOH, I deplore this nannyish approach that our society takes to these issues.  We acknowledge that drunk driving is a problem, and that the vast majority of the DUI crashes are caused by people with a BAC over a certain level; let's say for argument's sake that that level is 0.15.

So instead of targeting those who drive at that BAC level with severe penalties, we lower the BAC level at which it is illegal to drive.  This is the same approach we've taken to speeding -- we say that people who drive at 100 mph on the highway create danger, so we make the speed limit 55 mph, and criminalize nearly everybody in the process.

The lower the BAC level is at which driving is considered DUI, the more socially acceptable DUI will be, and the harder it will be to separate borderline people with truly dangerous drunks and target the dangerous drunks with meaningful penalties.  This is exactly where our nannyish approach to speeding has led -- speeding tickets are something that people laugh at and joke about with their friends, and few people are embarrassed by them -- and I fear we're going down the same path with DUI, as we cast a wider net for violators rather than target the right people.

Our society has a major case of ADD, and seems unable to look at issues broadly.  Instead, we deal with the issue du jour, and ignore other similar issues that are causing the same problem.  An example of this is all the distractions that are built into modern cars, and the fact that so many people 'multitask' as they're driving.  I don't mean to sound sexist, but I think this is a bigger problem with women than men.  I think that distracted drivers, drivers who aren't paying attention to the road because they're putting on their makeup, shaving, eating, talking on their cellphones, etc. are as big a problem as those who are driving with a marginal BAC level.

I don't mean to condone drunk driving, but there isn't some magical point where a person goes from being sober enough to be considered a safe driver to being a dangerous drunk.  It's something that happens gradually as BAC increases, so maybe it would be a better idea to at least have graduated penalties, rather than the approach we have now.

Good points

[Champ]

Friend of mine got busted for "in or about a motor vehicle while under the influence".  This was in California.  He didn't have the keys in the ignition and was trying to sleep it off in the back seat, while parked in the parking lot of a Mexican restaurant.

He told the judge that from then on, he'd just risk driving home while under the influence.

I've heard of people getting a hard time from police while sleeping in their car w/o the keys in the ignition and not in the drivers seat.  You would think that would be a good spot for them. 

[Rupert]

Probably something about looking bad to passers by... Pretty dumb.

[S204STi]

Because that's dumb.

I think I heard you wrong, did you mean to say, because you're drunk?

[bing_oh]

Those charts can't be that far off. Meh...

I'm glad that you base your determination of DUI on standard tests. Out of curiosity (mostly), what would you do if someone passed the tests well enough, but had a BAC of, say, .15?

I might argue that one person who's had a few drinks, but is a very good driver when sober, can still be a better driver than another who's a crappy driver and totally sober. I know I have friends I'd rather ride with when they're drunk that other friends at any time.

Yes, actually, the charts CAN be that far off. It's really all about absorption of alcohol into the blood stream and the natural elimination of that alcohol. There are just too many physiological factors to make a simple chart of number of drinks = BAC.

As for people "passing" the test, I can't say. One of the factors is, the SFST's aren't a "pass/fail" kind of thing. It's much more complicated than that. If the person didn't show significant indicators on the SFST's, they wouldn't be arrested and I'd never know their BAC (I don't use portable breath testers as a normal part of my SFST's). Also, there are tests...specifically the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus...that are absolutely spectacular at determining BAC level. People can practice the balance tests and actually get better at them (to a certain degree), but tests like HGN are physiological in nature and cannot be beaten.

I'm not going to argue that there are sober drivers out there that are worse than drunk drivers. That's true, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't deal with the DUI problem. It only means that some dumbasses shouldn't drive, sober or drunk!

[bing_oh]

You'll find that many states have a "physical control" law that prohibits a person from being in control of a motor vehicle under the influence, even if the vehicle isn't on or moving. The specifics vary from state to state, of course. In Ohio, if you have access to the keys and are in the driver's seat, you're considered in "physical control" of the vehicle.

There are actually good reasons for such laws.

First and foremost, it gives police the chance to arrest a drunk driver before they have the chance to actually get on the roadway and put others at risk. I know some officers who will wait for a DUI to actually get moving before making the stop. I don't agree with this practice. I'll try to stop the DUI driver as quickly as possible, to decrease the risk to others.

Then, there's the issue of the person who plans to "sleep it off for a few hours" and then drive home. Alcohol is eliminated from the body at .015 BAC per hour in a person with a normally-functioning liver. So, .015 per hour is the fastest that alcohol is eliminated from the body, but may be slower depending on physiological factors. Things like caffein or water do not make the body elminiate alcohol any faster or make you "more sober." Most people that plan to "sleep it off" in their vehicle generally do so for maybe an hour or two and then drive home. That couple hours does not significantly decrease the person's BAC, so the idea that the time spent "sleeping it off" is nothing but self-delusion on the part of the intoxicated driver.

[Rupert]

I think I heard you wrong, did you mean to say, because you're drunk?

Oh, shit, yeah, that's what I meant. Damn.

[Rupert]

Yes, actually, the charts CAN be that far off. It's really all about absorption of alcohol into the blood stream and the natural elimination of that alcohol. There are just too many physiological factors to make a simple chart of number of drinks = BAC.

As for people "passing" the test, I can't say. One of the factors is, the SFST's aren't a "pass/fail" kind of thing. It's much more complicated than that. If the person didn't show significant indicators on the SFST's, they wouldn't be arrested and I'd never know their BAC (I don't use portable breath testers as a normal part of my SFST's). Also, there are tests...specifically the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus...that are absolutely spectacular at determining BAC level. People can practice the balance tests and actually get better at them (to a certain degree), but tests like HGN are physiological in nature and cannot be beaten.

I'm not going to argue that there are sober drivers out there that are worse than drunk drivers. That's true, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't deal with the DUI problem. It only means that some dumbasses shouldn't drive, sober or drunk!

I don't know enough about charts of BAC levels to argue that point anymore.

Yeah, I know the field tests aren't a pass/fail thing, and that's why I like them, assuming the officer conducting the tests is honest and competent. I think generally, though, people don't get pulled over on suspicion of DUI for no good reason. Even if you are above the limit, if you're driving is OK, you'll probably not get pulled over. And, I would like to think, if you're stone sober and you're a shitty driver, you will get pulled over. It's the exceptions to that rule that create problems for the system.

Do you have some references to the alcohol elimination rate thing? I found a couple in a quick search, and they use ml/hr as the unit.

[bing_oh]

Do you have some references to the alcohol elimination rate thing? I found a couple in a quick search, and they use ml/hr as the unit.

My knowledge comes from my original ADAP training. I've been able to locate a few web sites with the same information, but there are alot of others that use different measuring scales (like ml/hr), which may very well be more scientifically-accurate. I'm afraid that my math skills pretty much suck, so I couldn't sit here and do the conversions to see if the ml/hr ratios equal the .015 per hour ratio if you put a gun to my head.

[bing_oh]

I just realized something...

If we were to totally eliminate BAC-based DUI enforcement and, instead, concentrate on coordination-based skills tests to determine if a person is too intoxicated to be driving, then it would be a relatively rare event to arrest a career alcoholic for DUI. In my experience, alcoholics tend to have considerably fewer DUI indicators during SFST's then more casual drinkers, even at considerably higher tested BAC levels. In general, alcoholics will be walking and talking at BAC levels that would have the rest of us somewhere between puketastic and comotose.

Now, what does that say about the elimination of BAC-based enforcement?

[rohan]

I just realized something...

If we were to totally eliminate BAC-based DUI enforcement and, instead, concentrate on coordination-based skills tests to determine if a person is too intoxicated to be driving, then it would be a relatively rare event to arrest a career alcoholic for DUI. In my experience, alcoholics tend to have considerably fewer DUI indicators during SFST's then more casual drinkers, even at considerably higher tested BAC levels. In general, alcoholics will be walking and talking at BAC levels that would have the rest of us somewhere between puketastic and comotose.

Now, what does that say about the elimination of BAC-based enforcement?

That's why I dont' use or ask my Deps to use SFST's.  They dont' provide a broad enough test range=- and they don't allow ofr pass/fail results.  They were developed by retired and current officers working with defense lawyers- IMO- because they just don't give enough visual clues to juries in court. 

In Michigna we have some of the tougher laws on OWI in the country.
1st offense- misdemeanor -up to 93 days in the county jail- up to $500 fines plus lawyer fees and 30 days automatic suspension up to 150 days- immobilization of your car up to 180 days- up to 45 days community service.

2nd offense- misdemeanor- 5 days minimum and up to 1 year in county jail- license plate removed and red tag placed in rear window- minumum 1 year automatic revocation/denial of license- immobilization of car required 90-180 days- vehicle forfeiture permitted to police department- With child in the car becomes felony child endangerment- 1-5 years in prison.

3rd offense- felony - minimum 1 year and up to 5 years in prison- license plate removed and red tag placed in rear window- automatic state revocation of license- police can often do forfeit car- fines up to $5000.  And you definately don't want to get caught with kid in your car on your 3rd- addition up to 5 mor eyears in prison.

but none of this matters- we still get them drunk over and over and over and the courts don't do their jobs because they are elected officials who watn to be re-elected and even if they did our wonderful governor considers them non-violent and they are the first to be released when the budget gets tight.

I don't know what the answer is- stricter laws isn't the answer- and tighter enforcement does work- but the courts have to do their job to make the system work.  Thanks to the lawyers (please note my dislike for lawyers  ) the system doesn't work and people are getting 5-6-7-8 and more chances AGAINST state law which has minimun sentencing requirements. 

[Rupert]

I just realized something...

If we were to totally eliminate BAC-based DUI enforcement and, instead, concentrate on coordination-based skills tests to determine if a person is too intoxicated to be driving, then it would be a relatively rare event to arrest a career alcoholic for DUI. In my experience, alcoholics tend to have considerably fewer DUI indicators during SFST's then more casual drinkers, even at considerably higher tested BAC levels. In general, alcoholics will be walking and talking at BAC levels that would have the rest of us somewhere between puketastic and comotose.

Now, what does that say about the elimination of BAC-based enforcement?

If the alcoholic is driving poorly, or they reek of booze, or some such, but still pass the standard tests, then testing for BAC is a good idea. Seems to me that someone with a high tolerance, who's had enough to make a normal person pass out, will still show signs of a high level of intoxication. I can usually tell an alcoholic (of the type that regularly drinks that much) after talking to them for a couple of minutes, even when sober. At any rate, the standard tests are underused, and I think breathalyzing is overused.

[J86]

thank god they dont enforce BUI like they do DUI

[bing_oh]

If the alcoholic is driving poorly, or they reek of booze, or some such, but still pass the standard tests, then testing for BAC is a good idea. Seems to me that someone with a high tolerance, who's had enough to make a normal person pass out, will still show signs of a high level of intoxication. I can usually tell an alcoholic (of the type that regularly drinks that much) after talking to them for a couple of minutes, even when sober. At any rate, the standard tests are underused, and I think breathalyzing is overused.

Actually, you'd be amazed at the level of functioning that a career alcoholic can sustain while under the influence of even a high BAC. I've seen alcoholics at .17+ do amazingly well at the balance tests. And, many alcoholics tend to have a preference for clear liquors, which results in a much less distinct smell from their person during contact with them. While alcoholics can still be detected by an experienced officer, making a guess at a BAC level tends to be much more difficult (I, traditionally, have guessed low on BAC when dealing with die-hard alcoholics).

As for SFST's being underused, I don't see that at all. When you talk to most officers, you'll find that most at least try to administer SFST's (at least in Ohio, where SFST's are pretty much a given during any DUI stop). After we get enough indicators, then BAC samples (whether by blood, urine, or breath) are obtained, simply because state laws have per se BAC levels that correspond to different offenses and degrees of offense.

[Eye of the Tiger]

A person can be charged with DUI without going over the legal BAC if they fail to function. So, it stands to reason that a person shouldn't necessarily be charged with a DUI just because their BAC is over a set limit, as long as they can still function at a reasonable level. Who cares if they're an alcoholics or not? That's their problem. If they can still function, good for them.

Using a strict BAC level is just as dumb as using a strict speed limit. The arresting officer should be able to use his judgement to determine if someone is a danger or not. He should not have to arrest someone just because of a number that some bearuacrat came up with.

[bing_oh]

A person can be charged with DUI without going over the legal BAC if they fail to function. So, it stands to reason that a person shouldn't necessarily be charged with a DUI just because their BAC is over a set limit, as long as they can still function at a reasonable level. Who cares if they're an alcoholics or not? That's their problem. If they can still function, good for them.

Using a strict BAC level is just as dumb as using a strict speed limit. The arresting officer should be able to use his judgement to determine if someone is a danger or not. He should not have to arrest someone just because of a number that some bearuacrat came up with.

Do you realize the magnitude of change in the law that you're proposing? You're advocating changing the law from objective to subjective in nature...basically, removing quantitative limitations built into the law specifically for clarity's sake and replacing them with a more opinion-based system. The complications (and potential for abuse) within such a system are enormous!

First, there's the question of equal protection and enforcement under the law. To make the laws (more) subjective in nature is to open up interpetation to law enforcement. Such interpetation is already a point of contention (look at any debate about officer discretion). It also calls into question fair and impartial enforcement. How can enforcement be fair and impartial when the laws themselves are based upon individual opinion? Under such a system, an officer might let a person go, determining them to be in compliance with the law, and another officer a block down arrest that same person for the same violation because his interpetation is different...AND IT WOULD BE LEGIT. The flip-side would be the potential for abuse and corruption under such a system. In essence, we could be operating under a system similar to many third world nations where the law doesn't matter as much as who you are or who you know.

Then there's the question of separation of powers. Law enforcement, as part of the Executive Branch, is tasked with enforcement of the laws. But, to make the laws subjective would give the Executive Branch powers that are supposed to belong to the Judicial and Legislative Branches. In many ways, the officer would be interpeting the law each time he makes a decision on the street (interpetation of the law is a power of the Judiciary) and could, essentially, be making his own laws through individual interpetation (making the law is restricted to the Legislature).

There's also the question of the effect of such changes on court proceedings. As it is now in a criminal trial, the court's job is to determine if the defendant was in violation of the law. But, if the laws were subjective in nature, court proceedings would change from whether the law was violated to whos interpetation of the law the judge or jury agrees with themselves. That's already an issue that has undermined judicial proceedings, even with the laws written with quantitative limitations and objective wording. To intentionally open the laws up to even more subjectivity could wreak havoc on the judiciary.

Finally, how would you like to live in a nation based on laws the are totally subject to the opinion of those enforcing them? No more legal black and white...you're either violating the law or you're not...but just a gray area of opinion. It's nice for someone to express such high regard for those of us in LE that they would give us nearly unfettered power, but even as a police officer, I wouldn't advocate it.

[Eye of the Tiger]

What was the speed limit in Montana 10 years ago? "Reasonable and prudent", I think. Sounds like a good law for everything to me. Life isn't black and white, and it causes nothing but problems when you try to treat it as such.

Yes, there are asshole people who try to do bad things. They do it now, just the same as they'd do it if the laws were more subjective. Laws are really only deterrants for normally law-abiding, good citizens. All of the criminally-minded people will generally continue to do what they do, regardless of the laws.

Just think about the benefits of a more subjective system. There will be less arguing about technicalities, and more getting the job done. No more rapists getting mistrials because evidence was collected without a warrant. Police will have more power to do what is right, when they need to do it, and good people need not be hassled about minor infractions that aren't actually hurting anything. If only we were able to put our trust into the hands of our police departments and courts. It's just something I like to think about in my little idealistic mind.

[bing_oh]

What was the speed limit in Montana 10 years ago? "Reasonable and prudent", I think. Sounds like a good law for everything to me. Life isn't black and white, and it causes nothing but problems when you try to treat it as such.

Yes, there are asshole people who try to do bad things. They do it now, just the same as they'd do it if the laws were more subjective. Laws are really only deterrants for normally law-abiding, good citizens. All of the criminally-minded people will generally continue to do what they do, regardless of the laws.

Just think about the benefits of a more subjective system. There will be less arguing about technicalities, and more getting the job done. No more rapists getting mistrials because evidence was collected without a warrant. Police will have more power to do what is right, when they need to do it, and good people need not be hassled about minor infractions that aren't actually hurting anything. If only we were able to put our trust into the hands of our police departments and courts. It's just something I like to think about in my little idealistic mind.

Instead of the benefits of such a system, I see the potential problems. Call me a pessimist if you like...I prefer the term "realist." I suppose that's why I'm politically conservative.

In a perfect world, you could make the laws subjective (actually, in a perfect world, you wouldn't need laws, but that's an extreme of this argument that serves no purpose but a totally academic one) and not worry abut the abuse of such a system. It would get us closer to total freedom. Unfortunately, in a world populated by fallable humans, "total freedom" has a name...anarchy.

Our current system, as rigid as it is, is manipulated and corrupted by both the citizens and the government. If they do it to a rigid, objective system, I can only imagine what would happen in a flexable, subjective system.

[Eye of the Tiger]

QUothe Wikipedia:

On March 10, 1996 [38], a Montana Patrolman issued a speed ticket to a driver traveling at 85 mph (140 km/h) on a stretch of State Highway 200. The 50 year-old male driver (Rudy Stanko) was operating a 1996 Camaro with less than 10,000 miles (16,000 km) on the odometer. Although the officer gave no opinion as to what would have been a reasonable speed, the driver was convicted. The driver appealed all the way to the Montana Supreme Court. The Court reversed the conviction in case No. 97-486 on December 23, 1998; it held that a law requiring drivers to drive at a non-numerical "reasonable and proper" speed "is so vague that it violates the Due Process Clause ... of the Montana Constitution".

It looks like the law fucked itself in that case. It's a shame. Now the speed limit is just a number. A number that never changes.

But it used to be something more like this:

A person . . . shall drive the vehicle . . . at a rate of speed no greater than is reasonable and proper under the conditions existing at the point of operation . . . so as not to unduly or unreasonably endanger the life, limb, property, or other rights of a person entitled to the use of the street or highway

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? That's because there are actually still a ton of laws in the books that are completely subjective in nature. But, it seems like as soon as something becomes a big issue, some politicians feel like it needs to have a specific value assigned to it, even if they pull it straight out of their asses.

I just hate it when you happen to be doing something completely reasonable, but then the law comes around a fucks you because you exceeded a specified value that is supposed to apply to every situtation. You're right, we are fallible humans, and we make fallible laws, so we can't pretend that they're perfect.

It's not like I have answer to all the world's problems, I'm just complaining here. I really hate laws and politics. I just want to live my life and not be hassled.

[850CSi]

First offense should be a felony.

[Champ]

welcome back!

[Tave]

Lower level, much stricter penatlities: as in many European countries, who have half the DUI-related death rate.

Europe also has 10000000000 times the public transit network we do.




And Dazzle, that was a fantastic post!

[Tave]

What was the speed limit in Montana 10 years ago? "Reasonable and prudent", I think. Sounds like a good law for everything to me. Life isn't black and white, and it causes nothing but problems when you try to treat it as such.

It was a great idea, but it created a living hell for the Montana court system (although it was motorists that ruined the law. People were complaining about a $20 ticket for doing 130 in their rickety Alero).

First offense should be a felony.

In many States it is.