f***ing drunk driver

[Milkman delivers]

The leniency of DUI laws in America is ridiculous.

 

It's ABSURD. And to successfully convict someone of DUI is unbelievably difficult. The most mundane details get cases thrown out regularly. It's why every department has only a handful of "DUI" guys.

[Milkman delivers]

And of course, sorry for your loss, Tex.

[mr_genius]

It's ABSURD. And to successfully convict someone of DUI is unbelievably difficult. The most mundane details get cases thrown out regularly. It's why every department has only a handful of "DUI" guys.

 

i always thought they were easy to prosecute. shows what i know.

[Milkman delivers]

i always thought they were easy to prosecute. shows what i know.

 

You'd think they would be.

[G&T]

It's ABSURD. And to successfully convict someone of DUI is unbelievably difficult. The most mundane details get cases thrown out regularly. It's why every department has only a handful of "DUI" guys.

 

Not really. There are go to arguments for defense attorneys but most cases settle early on if the cops do their jobs. The problem comes when a good defense attorney convinces a jury that field sobriety tests are harder than they look.

 

Wait. I should go back a second. The difficulty isn't getting a conviction, it's establishing BAC. If a curve argument is in play then prosecution becomes a major challenge.

Edited May 7, 2013 by G&T

[Y2HH]

Not really. There are go to arguments for defense attorneys but most cases settle early on if the cops do their jobs. The problem comes when a good defense attorney convinces a jury that field sobriety tests are harder than they look.

 

Wait. I should go back a second. The difficulty isn't getting a conviction, it's establishing BAC. If a curve argument is in play then prosecution becomes a major challenge.

 

That's because they are. Most people can't pass them sober.

[EvilMonkey]

That's because they are. Most people can't pass them sober.

With my knees and feet issues I couldn't stand on one leg for very long, certainly not without wobbling. Hell I can't WALK without wobbling. Heel to toe? Yeah, again, not very long.

[witesoxfan]

With my knees and feet issues I couldn't stand on one leg for very long, certainly not without wobbling. Hell I can't WALK without wobbling. Heel to toe? Yeah, again, not very long.

 

Meanwhile, being a young, in shape, and healthy 25 year old, I can do all those things 8 beers deep.

[iamshack]

Yeah, the field sobriety test is pretty much entirely discriminatory.

 

They should just go right to the breath test...and skip the field sobriety test altogether.

[Jake]

My brother passed the field sobriety test and almost got off without a breathalyzer. He later blood tested .19 -- the legal limit in CO is .05. Sounds like field sobriety test just sucks as an indicator. It's so crazy to think what something like that can do.

 

I'll be honest, my brother and I think the reason he got accustomed to doing that was when he drank underage. As a high schooler, he would go to "parties" and drink with his friends and he would basically have to drive home so not to attract the attention of our parents. Of course, my parents would say that they would pick him up anytime for any reason, but high school kids don't weigh the potential death of self or others versus getting grounded very well. Once you've done it a few times, you start to think it is okay. "My threshold is higher." "I've done it a million times."

 

It's a tricky problem to solve because the people committing the offense are physiologically disabled to a certain extent when it comes to making good decisions. I'd imagine many of the people that do this (not all, by any means -- there are some assholes that know exactly what they are doing) would say they wouldn't ever drive drunk when they are sober. Then they have some drinks, maybe don't realize how much they had, maybe think it's just a one time thing, think it is their only option that night for some reason...who knows.

 

With all that said, AFAIK drunk driving rates are trending downward. It's hard to deal with because it is so entrenched with some people...it's far easier to try to get young people to never start than it is to get the town drunk to quit doing the thing he's done for 20 years. My dad said when he was a younger guy in 70s, 80s he and his friends would ride MOTORCYCLES drunk. They never even thought about how that might be illegal -- he said if you got pulled over, lots of cops would just take your alcohol or drive you home.

[bmags]

My brother passed the field sobriety test and almost got off without a breathalyzer. He later blood tested .19 -- the legal limit in CO is .05. Sounds like field sobriety test just sucks as an indicator. It's so crazy to think what something like that can do.

 

I'll be honest, my brother and I think the reason he got accustomed to doing that was when he drank underage. As a high schooler, he would go to "parties" and drink with his friends and he would basically have to drive home so not to attract the attention of our parents. Of course, my parents would say that they would pick him up anytime for any reason, but high school kids don't weigh the potential death of self or others versus getting grounded very well. Once you've done it a few times, you start to think it is okay. "My threshold is higher." "I've done it a million times."

 

It's a tricky problem to solve because the people committing the offense are physiologically disabled to a certain extent when it comes to making good decisions. I'd imagine many of the people that do this (not all, by any means -- there are some assholes that know exactly what they are doing) would say they wouldn't ever drive drunk when they are sober. Then they have some drinks, maybe don't realize how much they had, maybe think it's just a one time thing, think it is their only option that night for some reason...who knows.

 

With all that said, AFAIK drunk driving rates are trending downward. It's hard to deal with because it is so entrenched with some people...it's far easier to try to get young people to never start than it is to get the town drunk to quit doing the thing he's done for 20 years. My dad said when he was a younger guy in 70s, 80s he and his friends would ride MOTORCYCLES drunk. They never even thought about how that might be illegal -- he said if you got pulled over, lots of cops would just take your alcohol or drive you home.

 

This is why I'd prefer to raise kids in a walkable neighborhood. Too many deaths from automobile accidents in my hometown and towns around me. Really hit hard on a few.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah, the field sobriety test is pretty much entirely discriminatory.

 

They should just go right to the breath test...and skip the field sobriety test altogether.

 

I recall there being quite a big fight about this in the law recently. My criminal defense professor advised his entire class of 22-23 year old law students to never, ever submit to a breathalyzer because without it they have no evidence of a DUI. You'll spend a night in jail, but that's it. Some states got smart and passed laws that basically said if you refuse the breathalyzer, the assumption is that you'd blow beyond the legal limit. Not sure whatever happened with that law and if it remains on the books.

 

Edit: Actually I guess it's a whole separate violation of "implied consent" to testing, which carries an automatic suspension of your license. Still, probably better than a DUI charge.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

Yeah criminal lawyers still advise not to blow if you believe youll fail.

[G&T]

Yeah criminal lawyers still advise not to blow if you believe youll fail.

 

In WI that results in a refusal which itself carries a 1 year revocation of your DL and an ignition interlock for 1 year. So, basically, you have to blow.

[witesoxfan]

In WI that results in a refusal which itself carries a 1 year revocation of your DL and an ignition interlock for 1 year. So, basically, you have to blow.

 

And if the dumbass is lucky, the breathalyzer doesn't register properly and they get away. I talked to a guy who was at a bar, had 4 beers and 4 Irish car bombs, drove home, and got pulled over for window tint. The officer had him blow and he blew a .072 and he got away clean. He was, if not drunk, quite intoxicated.

 

On the flip side, I had a buddy who had 3 beers in 2 hours, got pulled over, and blew a .18. He was taken in to the hospital, they did bloodwork, and he came back at .057 or something.

 

In both cases, I'm sure proper calibration of the breathalyzer puts the right guy behind bars and lets the other one go.

 

(legal limit is .08 in ND)

[iamshack]

And if the dumbass is lucky, the breathalyzer doesn't register properly and they get away. I talked to a guy who was at a bar, had 4 beers and 4 Irish car bombs, drove home, and got pulled over for window tint. The officer had him blow and he blew a .072 and he got away clean. He was, if not drunk, quite intoxicated.

 

On the flip side, I had a buddy who had 3 beers in 2 hours, got pulled over, and blew a .18. He was taken in to the hospital, they did bloodwork, and he came back at .057 or something.

 

In both cases, I'm sure proper calibration of the breathalyzer puts the right guy behind bars and lets the other one go.

 

(legal limit is .08 in ND)

Yeah, and you can challenge the calibration by requesting the records of same, however, that in and of itself is getting you into the four figures for legal fees.

 

I really sympathize with the victims because it is a horrible, horrible tragedy when it occurs, however, it really has become a municipal and state money grab, and it is way out of hand. I know I have argued this multiple times before here, but I just think it is quite hypocritical to breed a culture based around so much alcohol, and then turn around and use drinking and driving as basically a municipal and state fundraiser.

 

I think the breathalzer in the vehicle is a great start.

[Texsox]

The passenger was sober. She could have driven.

[farmteam]

So if BAC is the be-all end-all, what do prosecutors do for non-alcohol DUIs? I mean, I suppose some drugs, like cocaine, if it's in your system that means you're probably high or at least very very recently were. But for others, most notably (and commonly) marijuana, that's definitely not the case.

[G&T]

So if BAC is the be-all end-all, what do prosecutors do for non-alcohol DUIs? I mean, I suppose some drugs, like cocaine, if it's in your system that means you're probably high or at least very very recently were. But for others, most notably (and commonly) marijuana, that's definitely not the case.

 

Certian drugs, including weed, are per se prohibited while driving. The mere fact that its in your system is enough. Most prescription meds require impairment so proof of bad driving and the presence of the drug is required.

[IlliniKrush]

The passenger was sober. She could have driven.

How in the hell did the passenger get in the car and let that person drive?

[LittleHurt05]

How in the hell did the passenger get in the car and let that person drive?

 

I think the same thing happened in the crash with the ex-Illini football players. Brent was driving drunk, Brown was sober and died as the passenger.

[farmteam]

Certian drugs, including weed, are per se prohibited while driving. The mere fact that its in your system is enough. Most prescription meds require impairment so proof of bad driving and the presence of the drug is required.

I figured that were the case, just seems like a lot of times the "I smoked a week ago, I was in no way stoned when driving" would be...persuasive?

 

I have wondered what they'll do for sobriety tests after weed's legalized. I assume it would be similar to regular field sobriety tests?

[G&T]

I figured that were the case, just seems like a lot of times the "I smoked a week ago, I was in no way stoned when driving" would be...persuasive?

 

I have wondered what they'll do for sobriety tests after weed's legalized. I assume it would be similar to regular field sobriety tests?

 

Motor skills and attention span are still impacted by weed so I'm doubtful anything will change. Field sobriety tests are divided attention tests. So you have to listen to complicated instructions then do what you've been told. Not easy on weed. Not any different than for other medications.

 

As far as the "I smoked last week" defense, that doesn't work for another reason. The blood work shows various compounds for THC in the blood that rise and fall at different rates. An expert knows immediately how recently they smoked. Plus the likelihood of having probable cause to arrest based on the presence of weed from a week earlier is very low.

[farmteam]

Motor skills and attention span are still impacted by weed so I'm doubtful anything will change. Field sobriety tests are divided attention tests. So you have to listen to complicated instructions then do what you've been told. Not easy on weed. Not any different than for other medications.

 

As far as the "I smoked last week" defense, that doesn't work for another reason. The blood work shows various compounds for THC in the blood that rise and fall at different rates. An expert knows immediately how recently they smoked. Plus the likelihood of having probable cause to arrest based on the presence of weed from a week earlier is very low.

I remember seeing a comparison in the Indiana Daily Student when I was there about how different things affect your reaction time while driving on average. IIRC, texting and alcohol both slowed reaction time by about 20%-25%, whereas weed slowed it by roughly 35%.

 

I guess my question was, if we're saying the field sobriety tests aren't great indicators for alcohol, why are we saying they're great indicators for other substances? Or is it just that we lack something comparable to BAC for those other drugs, and therefore have to rely on field sobriety tests?

 

Or perhaps I am overstating the uselessness of field sobriety tests? Never actually taken one, but my guess is that I'd be pretty terrible at them sober. I do remember hearing something in Crim Pro about the test where your eyes follow the pen, though. Apparently when you're drunk your eyes can't follow something in a continuous motion, they just skip across.

[iamshack]

I remember seeing a comparison in the Indiana Daily Student when I was there about how different things affect your reaction time while driving on average. IIRC, texting and alcohol both slowed reaction time by about 20%-25%, whereas weed slowed it by roughly 35%.

 

I guess my question was, if we're saying the field sobriety tests aren't great indicators for alcohol, why are we saying they're great indicators for other substances? Or is it just that we lack something comparable to BAC for those other drugs, and therefore have to rely on field sobriety tests?

 

Or perhaps I am overstating the uselessness of field sobriety tests? Never actually taken one, but my guess is that I'd be pretty terrible at them sober. I do remember hearing something in Crim Pro about the test where your eyes follow the pen, though. Apparently when you're drunk your eyes can't follow something in a continuous motion, they just skip across.

Yeah, there are certain physical indicators, such as the eye test, which are actually pretty consistent from person to person...there are others, such as the standing on one leg and "walking the plank" that are just completely outdated and ridiculous.