• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Under what circumstances should you REFUSE the breathalyzer?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

garrula lingua

Senior Member
I know of no databank that keeps statistics on how many times a cop stops a suspected 'drunk' driver and, after testing they release them - uncharged.

I have heard many, many cops testify to a percentage of about 65%-75%arrested (of those stopped for suspected DUI).
The cops specially trained in DUI had higher percentages of arrest, but I never met a cop who didn't release some amount of the drivers stopped for suspicion of DUI.

Unfortunately, there are no stats kept on the amount of DUI cases Prosecutors receive and refuse to file, or file lesser charges.
This, then is the second level where those suspected of DUI are released, uncharged.

As far as refusing to blow, I dealt with many people who had refused and swore they really did have only two beers all night. They were screwed by refusing.
A Prosecutor has to charge when there's a refusal (the BAC can = reasonable doubt, ergo no charge).
A cop who's unsure of whether the driver is DUI, will charge when there's a refusal.

Read past posts on this board, from drivers stating they were ticketed, but no charges. Several posted back that the charges were never filed by the Prosecutor - this is not that rare, folks. There really are not many Nifongs out there.

Those who are truly DUI, usually show it in their driving patterns, the objective signs observed by the cop, and their statements - they are, most often, convicted.

As Carl stated, the refusal also shows consciousness of guilt in a trial.
Most important, the refusal just adds penalties on top of the DUI.


Shelton, Carl is (IMHO, too) patient, thoughtful, intelligent and courteous. He is a gentleman and scholar, no matter in what field he earns his living.

You, Shelton, are not - reverse the above & there is your description.
 
Last edited:


tony317536

Junior Member
MADD stands for Mothers Against Drunk Driving but could also stand for Mean, Angry, Dirisive & Devisive.

Drivers who are substantially impaired should not be driving. When the police see them driving poorly, they should be stopped and tested. However, driving between 12:00 AM and 3:00 AM does not make one impaired! Fishing (stopping drivers for fabricated reasons) for OWI arrests should not be allowed in a free society.

Madd Mothers are clearly the prominent promoter of the injustice and foolishness surrounding OWI laws. Certainly we all sympathize with the loss of loved ones due to traffic accidents. But one's sorrow should not turn to vengeance. Vengeance against people who have harmed no one is immoral and certainly not consistent with important American values such as freedom and justice. Madd Mothers have actively promoted and encouraged vengeful laws that cast too wide a net to ensnare many innocent citizens for the sake of their misguided world view that seems to blame alcohol for all traffic problems. Many people drive quite successfully after having consumed moderate amounts of alcohol.

Since most accidents (93%) are not "alcohol-related", it begs this question. Are many of the so called alcohol-related accidents actually due to the same causes as non-alcohol-related accidents? Of course they are. Logic dictates that they must be. Madd Mothers should find something more positive and productive to do with their time and money. Maybe they should campaign for reparations for the millions of American citizens who have been unjustly deprived of their money and driving rights over the years.

Hey Madd Moms, how about MAID (Mothers Against Injustice to Drivers)?

Citation - http://www.drunkdriverinfo.com/OWIMADDPage.asp
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
tony317536 said:
MADD stands for Mothers Against Drunk Driving but could also stand for Mean, Angry, Dirisive & Devisive.
I'd be mad, too, if my family was devastated by a DUI driver.

What's so derisive and divisive about wanting to make the roads safer? :confused:

However, driving between 12:00 AM and 3:00 AM does not make one impaired!
Absolutely true.

Fishing (stopping drivers for fabricated reasons) for OWI arrests should not be allowed in a free society.
Stopping a driver without reasonable suspicion is an unlawful detention. Stopping one for a violation of the vehicle code - no matter how trivial - is perfectly lawful according to the US Supreme Court, even if the true motivation is to check for DUI.

Madd Mothers are clearly the prominent promoter of the injustice and foolishness surrounding OWI laws.
Perhaps. But how does that make the wrong? Law enforcement, medical professionals, and a host of others also have historically had a say in the legislation.

Vengeance against people who have harmed no one is immoral and certainly not consistent with important American values such as freedom and justice.
How is it vengeance to say you should not drive impaired? Even if it is, how is that problematic?

We have many laws that are designed to step in before someone is harmed - DUI is but one of them.

Many people drive quite successfully after having consumed moderate amounts of alcohol.
Alternately, they have been lucky.

Impairment is measurable at .02 ... obvious at .05 ... and certain at .08. The fact that someone has not caused a problem is not proof that they were safe any more than having a clean driving record proves that you never speed.

Are many of the so called alcohol-related accidents actually due to the same causes as non-alcohol-related accidents?
Possibly. But the additional factor of impairment thus reducing perceptions, judgment and reaction time tends to make these drivers a greater danger.

Maybe they should campaign for reparations for the millions of American citizens who have been unjustly deprived of their money and driving rights over the years.
Or, maybe, YOU can start such a fabulous grass-roots organization rather than castigating MADD? Blaming MADD for laws that politicians introduced and the vast majority of the public is a tad disingenuous.

DUI is an easy crime to avoid ... too bad more people don't try it.

And I can offer explanations all over the place to explain why this poor fellow's blood BAC might have been higher than he thought it might be.

After reading several of the links at this site, I can see that he wants to gripe and has no real concept of the damages of DUI drivers, but then, he has a right to his perspective. I can only hope that now he goes out with either a designated driver, or he keeps very close tabs on the amount he imbibes.

- Carl
 

shelton442

Junior Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a legal advice forum.
Are you kidding? No one has given one shread of helpful advice since I have viewed these
boards for months . You are Charlie Manson and all of the above if you-bigod drink and drive - oh it's ok to do that but. lord forbid don't get arrested for it. Lord Carl and the rest are going to judge you.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
I'm stil waiting for a link or quote to where I "judged" anyone here.

"Lord Carl" .... Hmm ... maybe that'll be better than Chief? :D

- Carl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top