What to do in this scenario

[curiousnoob]

What is the name of your state? Ohio

My friend recently got a DUI in my car. I knew I was to drunk to drive, but being an idiot I allowed him to drive. We were followed for about a mile on the freeway and then we were pulled over. He consented to the field test, blew, and was arrested. He blew a 0.001 at the scene, but the officer said it was broken and took him to the station anyway. I guess the officer wasn't lying because at the station he blew a 0.08 exact and was charged.

Seeing him deal with this was painful for me. He was so close to being within limits it's not funny. He's gone through alot emotionally, and I do not want the same to happen to me. He went to an AA meeting, and at that meeting they actually discussed once what you really should do if you are pulled over and not sure what you would blow. He said that people told him that he should have denied the field test, tell the officer not to 'video or audio record' you, and not answer anything that you feel could be used against you.

So if the officer asks you how much you have had to drink, he said you can request to speak to an attorney. He basically said you don't have to blow, but you do have to submit to a blood test once you get to the station. Is this true?

I don't get behind the wheel when I know I'm drunk, but it would be ignorant to say there may not be a point in the future that I might get caught after two drinks...

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by curiousnoob

He was so close to being within limits it's not funny.

Contrarry to popular myth, someone can be guilty of DUI and still be under the 'per se' limit of .08. That level is just the level at which guilt is presumed. Beneath that might require greater evidence of impairment.

He went to an AA meeting, and at that meeting they actually discussed once what you really should do if you are pulled over and not sure what you would blow.

Accepting Legal advice from attendees at an AA meeting is NOT a good idea for a whole lot of reasons.

He said that people told him that he should have denied the field test, tell the officer not to 'video or audio record' you, and not answer anything that you feel could be used against you.

The officer can audio or video record you whether you want him to or not. you can refuse the field tests, but the officer can still make an arrest if he feels that you are impaired.

So if the officer asks you how much you have had to drink, he said you can request to speak to an attorney.

Yep. You can also request to speak to your mother, a priest, or your best friend. If you don't want to talk to the officer, that's fine. He'll likely err on the side of caution and depending on the situation will take you in for a mandator chemical test ... provided he has some probable cause to believe you might be DUI.

He basically said you don't have to blow, but you do have to submit to a blood test once you get to the station. Is this true?

You do not have to blow in the field, but you DO have to submit to a chemical test once you are arrested or risk losing your license and having the refusal used against you as consciousness of guilt..

I don't get behind the wheel when I know I'm drunk, but it would be ignorant to say there may not be a point in the future that I might get caught after two drinks...

Two drinks are not likely to mess you up bad enough to get arrested unless you slam then a half hour before you drive ... then, they MIGHT. But, if they are standard drinks, you would likely be no higher than .04, so unless you are a lightweight you won't be exhibiting too many signs of impairment ... though you WILL be mildly impaired by that level. Hence, the BEST solution is to not drive at all after you drink.

- Carl

[justaregulargal]

Its still completely legal to drink and drive so your question is a very good one, in my opinion, especially when there can be corruption in police forces. I'm not sure what the best answer is to this situation because there really isn't much you can do if a cop wants to give you a DWI. You get to have your day in court eventually. The .08 limit is so tricky because you probably won't feel drunk at this level so how are you going to know if you're committing a crime? And yes you can get a DWI after only 2 drinks. Some people might blow .08 after only that. Hopefully in this situation you'd pass the breath test though.

I'd say just do what the cop tells you to do and hope for the best. But remember everything that happens!! You don't really have any rights once the cop thinks he can get you for DWI.

I don't think you're going to get an honest answer from anyone else on this board because its mostly MADD people who post here.

[Blue Meanie]

Originally Posted by justaregulargal

Its still completely legal to drink and drive so your question is a very good one, in my opinion, especially when there can be corruption in police forces. I'm not sure what the best answer is to this situation because there really isn't much you can do if a cop wants to give you a DWI. You get to have your day in court eventually. The .08 limit is so tricky because you probably won't feel drunk at this level so how are you going to know if you're committing a crime? And yes you can get a DWI after only 2 drinks. Some people might blow .08 after only that. Hopefully in this situation you'd pass the breath test though.

I'd say just do what the cop tells you to do and hope for the best. But remember everything that happens!! You don't really have any rights once the cop thinks he can get you for DWI.

I don't think you're going to get an honest answer from anyone else on this board because its mostly MADD people who post here.

Carl is a Calif. cop you moron...

Originally Posted by justaregulargal

Its still completely legal to drink and drive so your question is a very good one, in my opinion, especially when there can be corruption in police forces. I'm not sure what the best answer is to this situation because there really isn't much you can do if a cop wants to give you a DWI. You get to have your day in court eventually. The .08 limit is so tricky because you probably won't feel drunk at this level so how are you going to know if you're committing a crime? And yes you can get a DWI after only 2 drinks. Some people might blow .08 after only that. Hopefully in this situation you'd pass the breath test though.

I'd say just do what the cop tells you to do and hope for the best. But remember everything that happens!! You don't really have any rights once the cop thinks he can get you for DWI.

I don't think you're going to get an honest answer from anyone else on this board because its mostly MADD people who post here.

could you please tell us where you live and what you drive so that we can all keep our loved ones off the roads you drive
it is statements like yours that get people KILLED by drunk drivers

and besides that i am VERY proud to be a MADD member my great grandmother was a founding member of her chapter and your very right giving our opinions about drunk driving will not bring back the loved ones we have lost...but it might make people think a bit more before drinking (at all) before driving

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by justaregulargal

Its still completely legal to drink and drive so your question is a very good one, in my opinion, especially when there can be corruption in police forces.

Which question was that?

And what does corruption have to do with DUI? I suppose if I got a bounty for every drunk I arrested, you'd have a point ... but it doesn't work that way.

The .08 limit is so tricky because you probably won't feel drunk at this level so how are you going to know if you're committing a crime?

Since impairment begins with the BAC as low as .02, the safest decision is never to drink and drive. Having a designated driver is ALWAYS the safest bet. And even sloppy drunks can tell you they feel fine. That's the problem with impairment - it skews the senses as well as good judgement.

And yes you can get a DWI after only 2 drinks. Some people might blow .08 after only that.

Maybe if they were both heavy pour Long Island Ice Teas consumed within a half hour before the test by a small to medium sized person with little to eat. Yes, it's possible to be .08 after two drinks - just not probable.

I don't think you're going to get an honest answer from anyone else on this board because its mostly MADD people who post here.

Why do people keep saying that? I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never been in any way affiliated with MADD; I do not visit their website, I am not on their mailing list, I have never given them money, and I don't know anyone who is a member of MADD ... and even if I did, so what?

People who are opposed to drinking and driving have to be off their rocker?

Oh, puh-lease!

Try scraping a few victims off the pavement while the drunk is screaming that he is being unlawfully detained and persecuted and then see how long that opinion remains with you.

- Carl

[BigMistakeFl]

First, it's not your fault that your friend drove drunk, even if it was your car. Each driver chooses for himself or herself. You wisely chose not to drive. Your friend was not so smart. You can refuse the tests, but in many states that choice works only on the first offense and not very well there. Look into the implied consent laws to which you agreed when you got your license.

Finally, it's not illegal to drive after drinking as long as we're not impaired. Problem is, the first sense we lose when we drink is the sense of judgment. So we judge for ourselves when we are or are not too impaired to drive, and speaking from personal experience, not always accurately. The "legal limit" grants people a false sense of security that they are not too impaired to drive, but also that they are safe from DUI arrest as long as they remain under 0.08, which is not true.

[justaregulargal]

Originally Posted by eme76

could you please tell us where you live and what you drive so that we can all keep our loved ones off the roads you drive
it is statements like yours that get people KILLED by drunk drivers

--------I don't have to tell you where I live -- because people everywhere are out driving after they've been drinking, because it is legal to do, so don't worry about me.

Carl is a Calif. cop you moron...
--------Did I say something insulting towards police officers? Oh no! I care so much!

Which question was that?
--------She was asking what to do when a cop pulls you over and you've had a couple of drinks but you're not drunk or anything, so what is the best way to handle this situation. Its a good question because it can happen to anyone anytime and that person might not be doing anything wrong but could get in trouble anyway.


People who are opposed to drinking and driving have to be off their rocker?
--------No, people who are opposed to drunk driving are not off their rocker. But there are many scenerios in which someone is arrested and severly penalized for DWI when they weren't harming anyone, such as if someone was simply warming up their car and they were like a .08 and not drunk, knew what they were doing, weren't even going to drive, but get arrested anyway.

[BigMistakeFl]

If a cop pulls you over and asks if you've had anything to drink, your answer can appear on the DUI arrest documents, despite how polite and cooperative you are.

Again, best bet is forget how legal it is to drive after drinking, or when or how you cross the line..... just don't chance it and find another way home if you're going somewhere and alcohol will be involved. It's just not worth the risk, for all concerned.

[fairisfair]

Originally Posted by justaregulargal

--------I don't have to tell you where I live -- because people everywhere are out driving after they've been drinking, because it is legal to do, so don't worry about me.

Carl is a Calif. cop you moron...
--------Did I say something insulting towards police officers? Oh no! I care so much!

Which question was that?
--------She was asking what to do when a cop pulls you over and you've had a couple of drinks but you're not drunk or anything, so what is the best way to handle this situation. Its a good question because it can happen to anyone anytime and that person might not be doing anything wrong but could get in trouble anyway.


People who are opposed to drinking and driving have to be off their rocker?
--------No, people who are opposed to drunk driving are not off their rocker. But there are many scenerios in which someone is arrested and severly penalized for DWI when they weren't harming anyone, such as if someone was simply warming up their car and they were like a .08 and not drunk, knew what they were doing, weren't even going to drive, but get arrested anyway.

Isn't there a stool, in a place, somewhere everybody knows your name, waiting for you? Please spare us your nonsense.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by justaregulargal

No, people who are opposed to drunk driving are not off their rocker. But there are many scenerios in which someone is arrested and severly penalized for DWI when they weren't harming anyone, such as if someone was simply warming up their car and they were like a .08 and not drunk, knew what they were doing, weren't even going to drive, but get arrested anyway.

If you are .08 and sitting in your car "warming it up", you are in control of an operating motor vehicle! Of COURSE it's DUI.

And .08 may not be "drunk" by the legal definition of "drunk" (which in my state includes being unable to care for one's own safety and the safety of others) but it is certainly an impairing BAC for purposes of DUI. To deny this is to deny medical fact.

Is this what happened to you or someone you know?

- Carl

[SillyPuddy]

Noob.

The states are adjusting DUI laws so the penalties are the same whether one takes the tests or not. And you don't have to be a .08 to get a DUI. The question of should I or should I refuse is really become irrelevant.

It's important to understand what the .08 "legal limit" is. The "legal limit" was created by the States and MADD as a means to prevent suspects from being cut loose because they are the police officers friend, family member, a local political figure, female, or otherwise locally famous. etc. and it prevents the courts from dismissing cases without a clear violation of the law that the courts are forced to comply with.

[Shay-Pari'e]

[quote=justaregulargal]Its still completely legal to drink and drive so your question is a very good one, in my opinion, especially when there can be corruption in police forces. I'm not sure what the best answer is to this situation because there really isn't much you can do if a cop wants to give you a DWI. You get to have your day in court eventually. The .08 limit is so tricky because you probably won't feel drunk at this level so how are you going to know if you're committing a crime?Are you really this dumb? How are you going to know if you commit a crime? So, in your logic, if you are drinking, you don't know if you are commiting a crime? Well DUH!


And yes you can get a DWI after only 2 drinks. Some people might blow .08 after only that. Hopefully in this situation you'd pass the breath test though.

I'd say just do what the cop tells you to do and hope for the best. But remember everything that happens!! You don't really have any rights once the cop thinks he can get you for DWI.

I don't think you're going to get an honest answer from anyone else on this board because its mostly MADD people who post here. Gee, to think the American Public does not want our kids being run down by drunk drivers. I am not a member of MADD either.

[BigMistakeFl]

Are the DUI laws and powers of arrest too broad, draconian? It really doesn't matter. They will not change, only become more strict. Just try to approach your congressperson about reducing DUI laws and you will be laughed at, at best. No one is going to touch it. I like to party too, but never again should anyone drive after consuming even one drink. It's not worth the risk.

[tranquility]

I'm not sure anyone cares as most posts I've seen show a clear bias in either direction, but I think we need to rethink where we are going regarding DUI. When I was a cop long, long, ago FSTs were not as standardized as they are today. I had attended DART (drug-alcohol-recognition-training put on by one of the few authors of FST studies) which was the beginning of the standardized FST we have today. (Stand on one leg and count, walk the line turn and count, nystagmus/onset, tracking, lateral extreme) There were also other techniques taught to assess one's level of inebriation. The main focus was not balance or coordination, but divided attention impairment. (i.e. Ask for the license and then ask another question. Stopping the search for the license to answer the question is an indication of impairment.) The reduction in the ability to do more than one thing at a time. A skill driving requires. My knowledge is very old as the amount for a per se violation back then was .10 and not .o8 BAC. By the way, I was good at arresting for DUI. I would always win any bet with other officers about what the suspect would blow and I had more arrests than anyone else on the (small) force. I often got kudos from supervisors for my production. It wasn't money in my pocket, but it didn't look bad for me either. To say the police don't have a motivation for making DUI arrests, beyond just being upright, reverent, thrifty and brave isn't exactly true.

That being said, the vast majority of bad accidents (death or serious bodily injury) sourced to drunk driving are where the driver is well above the statutory limit. Even then, all accidents with any driver being "drunk" are attributed to drunk driving, even if the driver who is under the influence was shown to not be at fault. Even in the very drunk driver at fault accidents, causation isn't always easy to source to the impairment. People break driving laws and cause accidents even when they have not been drinking and those who are really drunk often make it home just fine. (I don't know where the statistic came from, but I heard for each time a person is arrested for drunk driving it is thought they had driven drunk an average 100 times before.) That makes statistics a difficult measure when I'd bet 99% of the people who were in a serious accident had urinated in the last 24 hours. The point is that the statistics are skewed. An accident were the .08 driver is driving perfectly and the non-drinking driver jumps the median and crashed into him causing the non-drinking driver's child who was not in a child seat to die would be listed as another death from drunk driving.

That's not to say drunk driving isn't a problem. Clearly we want to get drunks off the road. But, are draconian remedies for people who are not statistically more likely to be impaired to a level risk beyond those who do other, currently legal, things the sign of a free society? Study after study show talking on a cell phone while driving offers at least the same impairment as driving at a .08. It doesn't seem to matter if you are using a hands-free phone or not, so it doesn't seem to be related to coordination. While the *time* factor of this statistic is less than those who are at .08, (one is drunk all the time when driving while talking on the phone is not necessarily the same) the risk for the time is comparable. Why don't we put people who are talking on their cell phone in jail? Don't worry, it's coming. It will start with allowance for tickets and will morph to arrests. Older drivers are "impaired" when compared to younger ones--once the younger get past the risk-taking stage. At what age do we eliminate the driving privilege in the name of safety? What other modifiers can we find to impair a driver's ability to divide attention? (I don't know if any of these will rise to the level of .08 I haven't researched it.) Listening to the radio, looking at the navigation system, talking to another person in the car, eating, putting on make-up, having a high level of adrenaline from just being in an argument with your spouse or from listening to rap music could all affect the ability to drive. Where will it end?

The huge penalties are creating a number of "criminals" without an appropriate concomitant reduction in deaths from drunk driving. Those who have statistically caused the most serious accidents are heavy drinkers who have a much higher than .08 BAC at the time and who are not stopping their driving. Those with a lesser amount in their bloodstream are not driving as much. But the difference is in societal attitude and not from overbearing punishment. When I was young, if a person told a story at a party about how he made it home from a bar after drinking heavily, everyone would laugh. Today, most people would be appalled. We have changed for the better. But, anyone who says that a person who had two drinks and drives is akin to a murderer is a cheesehead--pure and simple.