Approximatley what percent of DUI's end up in a full DUI conviction??

[Zigner]

...I 100% do not agree with is DUI check points.

Funny - I think they're great. Then again, I don't have to worry about getting stopped for a DUI at one of them either

 

[CdwJava]

Funny - I think they're great. Then again, I don't have to worry about getting stopped for a DUI at one of them either

My agency and our county are doing our first one - ever - this month!

I used to work for an agency that ran them at least once a month. They worked well. A s amatter of fact, I got delayed by them twice! I was subject to the same inquiry as anyone else and was delayed for no more than two minutes.

But, like you, I don't drive DUI ... well, I don't drink at all anymore.

- Carl

 

[fagettaboutit]

That's not what I meant at all. My point was that the statute might broadly define operation to include just being in your vehicle with the keys, or with the engine on, etc.. BECAUSE of the argument that the person would have had to drive there, and would presumably drive from that point on. The State still has to prove that the person actually operated the vehicle (however operation is defined in that state's laws) while intoxicated. So you absolutely cannot charge someone with the crime before they commit it. The closest thing to that is attempt and so it would have to be a charge of attempted DWI and most states have no such crime.

My bad. I meant: it’s perfectly acceptable to ARREST. I still stand my statement of it being perfectly acceptable because as Carl’s comment below points out, it's about prevention.

You’re somewhat right, but let’s split hairs for a moment.

First of all you stated: The State still has to prove that the person actually operated the vehicle (however operation is defined in that state's laws). Then you wrote: BECAUSE of the argument that the person would have had to drive there, and would presumably drive from that point on.

So if the state can’t prove the driver drove there drunk or would drive from there drunk, what case does the DA have other than presumption? AND since you can’t charge someone with a crime before they commit it (ie: could have driven from there), again, what other evidence does the DA have to charge the person with the crime (other than the state’s loosely defined operation law)? The OP’s husband may or may not have had the keys in the ignition, but from a legal standpoint, if there’s no evidence of driving to or from drunk the assumption alone isn’t grounds to charge someone with a crime. So again, it goes back was the husband “operating” the car as defined by law. I guess we’ll have to wait see if the OP comes back the clues us in.

But you can’t deny people have been arrested, and will continue being arrested, for a crime (DUI) they didn’t commit as defined by statute.

Using the definition of “operation” as two true life examples:

A NYC man gets into car, put his key in the ignition, cop comes along and arrests him for DUI before he started the car. DA claimed “intent is enough and that a person doesn’t have to be operating a vehicle to be charged with driving while intoxicated.” Therefore the DA was going forward with the case. However, the DA’s office later concluded they couldn’t make a case that the driver intended to drive and therefore charges were being dropped.

Now maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see “intent to drive while intoxicated” listed anywhere in the NY statute.

Second example: A Chicago man goes to his car to use cell phone (does not put keys in the ignition), cops assume he’s going to drive, even without evidence (or proof) of this happening, cops arrest the man for DUI. Arrest sticks and the man is charged for the crime. However, his lawyer expected the charges to be dropped at the next court hearing. And a class-action suit has been filed in U.S. District Court surrounding this case and many others involving the same officer.

Both of these cases aren’t a matter of broadly defining the law. These are cases where the cops and DA created law to justify their broad attempt at charging someone with a crime that wasn’t committed. I won’t even get into the cases where no alcohol or drug impairment was found, yet the DA still believes the person to be DUI.

So you absolutely cannot charge someone with the crime before they commit it.

Don’t be so sure of that counselor. As shown with the two cases I provided, no crime was committed, yet that didn’t stop the cops from arresting and the DA from trying to charge for a crime that wasn’t committed. Arresting someone under the guise of prevention and safety (though no crime has been committed) is becoming perfectly acceptable these days.

Everything you wrote is correct as defined by law. But when you have cases like the ones I mentioned, it really doesn’t matter whether you’re correct or not because the accused is still going to have an “arrested for DUI” on their record and still would have spent plenty of cash for a lawyer to explain to the courts, ironically enough, the very things you pointed out.

 

[fagettaboutit]

You are SOOO focused on MADD ... I have been in law enforcement for more than 16 years and I have NEVER seen a MADD representative in court, speak to my agency or any reps from my agency, and have certainly never seen them passing any laws (since they are not part of the government in any way). The MOST they have done is offer pins, medallions, and plaques to encourage or reward officers and agencies that work toward reducing DUI related collisions (yes, this often means encouraging arrests ... but, gee, yeah, I'll risk making a false arrest to get a "23152" pin ).

Oh Carl. It's a big country out there and believe it not, but not every police force operates as wonderfully as yours and all cops aren't as all-knowing and perfect as you. Once you look behind your desk, out in the big world, you'll find things are very different from the little world in which you've grown accustom to. Do every situation really have to be about you Carl?

As for MADD not passing laws, you tell them that cause they like to take credit for DUI laws. But then again, what do they know anyway. Hell those lobbiests of theirs probably are in DC for the party and all the pressure they put on polititcans to get new DUI laws passed probably means nothing to the government. Oh no, they aren't part of the government, but the NM chapter of MADD got a state-funded grant to monitor the courts. You may not march with MADD, but you march to the very orders inspired by MADD. As difficult as it is for you to comprehend, they have created the landscape for which your cruiser roams upon in search of DUIs.

The MOST they have done is offer pins, medallions, and plaques to encourage or reward officers and agencies that work toward reducing DUI related collisions

Nice spin. LMAO MADD doesn't reward cops for reducing DUI related collisions. They reward cops for making the most DUI arrests. Not the most DUI convictions. That matters not. They're only interested in arrests. And yes, they don't care if the arrests were false.

Unless he pushed the car to the pond, he drove it there and could drive it away. However, none of us were there so we do not know what the situation was.

So what if he drove it there? How do you know without certain he didn't drive there sober and then drank? How do you know he wasn't going to hang out there for a couple of hours before driving back? How do you know he wasn't going to call his wife and ask her to come pick him up?

The fact is you don't know and you have no evidence, you can only assume he's going to drive drunk. The last time I checked, the law doesn't allow for assumptions without evidence to back it up.

But, some of us would rather not wait for him to get on the road drunk ... I'd rather prevent it.

How would you prevent it, Carl? If the driver isn't breaking any laws, how are you going to prevent something that isn't happening?

Each state is different on what they consider to be DUI. This pond arrest likely would not happen in my state unless the keys were in the ignition and the engine was on (with some exceptions).

- Carl

 

[BigMistakeFl]

BigMistakeFl

I'd like to sit in the courtroom the day we argue that the perp' pushed the car to the pond. I'll bring popcorn.

 

[CdwJava]

Oh Carl. It's a big country out there and believe it not, but not every police force operates as wonderfully as yours and all cops aren't as all-knowing and perfect as you.

My agency and I are no more or less special than any other place in CA - and much like the majority of agencies and officers in this country. There are exceptions to every rule.

Once you look behind your desk, out in the big world, you'll find things are very different from the little world in which you've grown accustom to. Do every situation really have to be about you Carl?

Oh, please - it's not about "me", it's about this perception that you and others have that some evil cabal called MADD is responsible for preventing people from innocently driving impaired ... er, sorry, from driving after they have had a tad too much to drink.

Heck, why now wait for them to smack and kill someone before intervening?

As for MADD not passing laws, you tell them that cause they like to take credit for DUI laws.

Heck, politicians do that, too! Let them take credit for whatever they want.

As difficult as it is for you to comprehend, they have created the landscape for which your cruiser roams upon in search of DUIs.

Not so much as you might think.

I provide instruction on DUI and drug recognition ... flipping through my training materials and resources let me count the number of items or publications that even MENTION "MADD" or a similar organization ... hmmm ... nope ... note that one - or those ... no ... hmmm ... nope. not there. Nowhere.

They have zero impact on the training we provide, nor do they have any impact on the background support for that training.

They may have impacted some level of legislation regarding penalties, but certainly not training as to what constitutes a DUI in my state. Oh, and since the DRE and SFST training is pretty much standardized nationwide, I think it is safe to say that MADD is not a resource most anywhere.

Many lobbying groups have an impact on legislation. Heck, I think the AAA also had an impact on DUI laws! There is probably not a single law of import that was NOT impacted by some grass-roots lobbying organization.

Nice spin. LMAO MADD doesn't reward cops for reducing DUI related collisions.

Amazing how increased enforcement seems to equate to decreased collisions.

So what if he drove it there? How do you know without certain he didn't drive there sober and then drank?

I don't. But, this didn't occur in my state. Different states have a right to enact different laws. Apparently in his state this constituted DUI. Or, at least provided sufficient suspicion to support an arrest.

I'll say it once again - if you do not like DUI laws, lobby to change them. I'm sure there is a pro-drinking constituency out there somewhere ... not likely too many politicians who want to take up the hue and cry, but ... maybe.

In the meantime, the smart choice is to stay away from a vehicle if you have been drinking. Simple.

- Carl

 

[fagettaboutit]

My agency and I are no more or less special than any other place in CA - and much like the majority of agencies and officers in this country. There are exceptions to every rule.

Oh, please - it's not about "me", it's about this perception that you and others have that some evil cabal called MADD is responsible for preventing people from innocently driving impaired ... er, sorry, from driving after they have had a tad too much to drink.

Actually Carl, whenever an issue comes up. You always have to make it about you and your agency. MY AGENCY doesn’t do this…or I wouldn’t do that. Well, guess what, there are cops who don’t do such a great job. And not everyone cares what happens in the land of fruit and nuts.

Not so much as you might think.

I provide instruction on DUI and drug recognition ... flipping through my training materials and resources let me count the number of items or publications that even MENTION "MADD" or a similar organization ... hmmm ... nope ... note that one - or those ... no ... hmmm ... nope. not there. Nowhere.

They have zero impact on the training we provide, nor do they have any impact on the background support for that training.

They may have impacted some level of legislation regarding penalties, but certainly not training as to what constitutes a DUI in my state. Oh, and since the DRE and SFST training is pretty much standardized nationwide, I think it is safe to say that MADD is not a resource most anywhere.

Many lobbying groups have an impact on legislation. Heck, I think the AAA also had an impact on DUI laws! There is probably not a single law of import that was NOT impacted by some grass-roots lobbying organization.

What the heck does DUI training have to do with this??? I never claimed they’re involved with training. I said they had a hand in the laws you enforce while you continue to claim they had very little impact.

Amazing how increased enforcement seems to equate to decreased collisions.

Show me the evidence to back up that claim for all 50 states – not just YOURS.

I don't. But, this didn't occur in my state. Different states have a right to enact different laws. Apparently in his state this constituted DUI. Or, at least provided sufficient suspicion to support an arrest.

You’re right, you don’t know. But that didn’t stop you from making this comment: But, some of us would rather not wait for him to get on the road drunk ... I'd rather prevent it.

So I’ll ask again: How would you prevent it, Carl? If the driver isn't breaking any laws, how are you going to prevent something that isn't happening?

I'll say it once again - if you do not like DUI laws, lobby to change them. I'm sure there is a pro-drinking constituency out there somewhere ... not likely too many politicians who want to take up the hue and cry, but ... maybe.

Actually, I don’t like how cops try to stretch DUI laws to make them fit their liking. I don’t like how cops lie under oath to justify their DUI arrests. I can’t imagine an honest, do-good cop like yourself liking that either, Carl.

If drunk driving is as rampant as we’re all suppose to believe, is it really that difficult to find someone who is truly DRUNK AND truly DRIVING at the same time?? I mean, car comes along, the driver is clearly driving in a dangerous manner….and bam, you just nailed a drunk driver. Hell, you’ve got roadblocks now. That’s like fishing with a gun in a barrel.

I mean, it would have served public safety just as well if the OP’s husband was arrested for public intoxication instead of DUI.

In the meantime, the smart choice is to stay away from a vehicle if you have been drinking. Simple.

You might want to rephrase that statement – unless you’re looking to extend DUIs to passengers. The best bet to avoid being charged for DUI (and of course this is no guarantee you’ll avoid being arrested), don’t have any car keys in your car or in your possession. Because after all, boys and girls, how could one possibly DRIVE DRUNK if they don't have keys to a car?

 

[Zigner]

The best bet to avoid being charged for DUI, don’t have any car keys in your car or in your possession.

I've modified your statement that that it reflects something closer to the truth.

 

[CdwJava]

MY AGENCY doesn’t do this…or I wouldn’t do that. Well, guess what, there are cops who don’t do such a great job. And not everyone cares what happens in the land of fruit and nuts.

Since CA is the largest state in the union, and much of the training in law enforcement practice, policy and procedure comes from out this way, how we do things IS quite relevant.

I certainly cannot say what YOUR agency does, or what Podunk, MS does, because I do not know. But I DO know how we do it in CA and in many other parts of the country. I qualify my replies because I do not want to imply that everyone has the same policies or laws.

What the heck does DUI training have to do with this??? I never claimed they’re involved with training. I said they had a hand in the laws you enforce while you continue to claim they had very little impact.

The laws are about enforcing impairment. the procedures involving the identification of this impairment and determining the level of the per se limits comes from sources other than MADD.

Training and enforcement has everything to do with DUI laws.

Show me the evidence to back up that claim for all 50 states – not just YOURS.

Like ANY lobbying group, they DO have an impact on policy. I don't see you railing against other organizations that might have supported the SAME legislation.

You’re right, you don’t know. But that didn’t stop you from making this comment: But, some of us would rather not wait for him to get on the road drunk ... I'd rather prevent it.

Prevention within the law. I never said that unlawful arrests were justified.

So I’ll ask again: How would you prevent it, Carl? If the driver isn't breaking any laws, how are you going to prevent something that isn't happening?

If his state defines drunk driving as being in the car with possession of the keys, than he IS breaking the law. This is not the case in every state.

Actually, I don’t like how cops try to stretch DUI laws to make them fit their liking. I don’t like how cops lie under oath to justify their DUI arrests. I can’t imagine an honest, do-good cop like yourself liking that either, Carl.

How does a cop "stretch" a DUI law? We don't make the laws.

Any officer that lies should be fired. I have yet to see one that HAS done that, though I do know of one officer who got lazy and boiler-plated all his arrests so much that the suspects all appeared to have done the same thing. The DA refused to file when it was pointed out to him, and none of that officer's DUI or drug influence arrests ever again went to court because the DA could not rely on them based upon three almost identical reports. (No, he was not one of "my" officers - I only had two stripes back then. Yes, he was disciplined. And, yes, I was the one who discovered the duplicate reports.)

If drunk driving is as rampant as we’re all suppose to believe, is it really that difficult to find someone who is truly DRUNK AND truly DRIVING at the same time??

Not really, know. We just had stepped up enforcement and about one in four drivers stopped was DUI. However, the enforcement was between 7 PM and 3 AM in the Holiday season so it certainly increased the odds.

I mean, car comes along, the driver is clearly driving in a dangerous manner….and bam, you just nailed a drunk driver.

He's also DUI if he is impaired and the stop is for a tail light out.

I mean, it would have served public safety just as well if the OP’s husband was arrested for public intoxication instead of DUI.

Most states define public intoxication as something much greater than DUI. In other words, one can be too impaired to operate a motor vehicle but NOT so drunk that he is unable to care for himself or the safety of others.

- Carl

 

[fagettaboutit]

I've modified your statement that that it reflects something closer to the truth.

No it doesn't reflect a closer truth and I certainly don't stand 100 percent behind your modified statement .

But hey, if your modified statement makes you feel better, believe what you want.

 

[fagettaboutit]

Like ANY lobbying group, they DO have an impact on policy. I don't see you railing against other organizations that might have supported the SAME legislation.

Show me a group with lobbiest pushing for more DUI laws other than MADD.


I see, even though you like to tell us all how you do things in Califorina, you refuse to answer my simple question: How would you prevent. Within the law was suppose to be a given, not an answer on how you do so.

I never said that unlawful arrests were justified.

Never said you did.

If his state defines drunk driving as being in the car with possession of the keys, than he IS breaking the law. This is not the case in every state.

You metioned it wasn't the case in California and you said you'd rather prevent. So again, I asked you how YOU would do that -- within the law of course.

How does a cop "stretch" a DUI law? We don't make the laws.

Let's see. Arresting someone for DUI in a wheelchair, on a horse, on a bicylce. Arresting someone for DUI when the person was just getting their cell phone and the keys weren't even in the ignition. Arresting a handicapped person, I think takes the cake.

Any officer that lies should be fired. I have yet to see one that HAS done that, though I do know of one officer who got lazy and boiler-plated all his arrests so much that the suspects all appeared to have done the same thing. The DA refused to file when it was pointed out to him, and none of that officer's DUI or drug influence arrests ever again went to court because the DA could not rely on them based upon three almost identical reports. (No, he was not one of "my" officers - I only had two stripes back then. Yes, he was disciplined. And, yes, I was the one who discovered the duplicate reports.)

Yeah, when you're Joe Blow and Mr. Officer is up there on the stand lying, sometimes it's a little difficult for Mr. Blow to prove the "respected" man in uniform isn't tell the truth. Besides, if there's no tape or you don't have an experienced lawyer who knows how to bust the officer's tall tale, how can one prove the accused didn't do what the officer claimed he saw?

Not really, know.

...and the stop is for a tail light out.

See, easy as pie to find people who are actually DRIVING down the road DRUNK. A cop only has to say the tail light was out (doesn't have to be true), ask the driver if they've been drinking and you've got yourself an easy in for a DUI arrest. On the report the cop claims they smelled alcohol and the driver had bloodshot eyes. Isn't that on every report?? Drunk drivers swarming all around us. Cops have free range to pull over anyone they want. Ooops...what's that....your tail light was working....gee...it didn't look like it to me.

Most states define public intoxication as something much greater than DUI. In other words, one can be too impaired to operate a motor vehicle but NOT so drunk that he is unable to care for himself or the safety of others.

Yes, but most people would agree that a public intoxication arrest is far better than being arrested for DUI. In the name of safety, getting that person from behind the wheel before they drive serves it's purpose. But, if you're get your kicks in punishing someone, I guess DUI arrest is golden.

 

[CdwJava]

Show me a group with lobbiest pushing for more DUI laws other than MADD.

I don't know of any ... but, then, I don't pay attention to lobbying groups, for the most part.

I see, even though you like to tell us all how you do things in Califorina, you refuse to answer my simple question: How would you prevent. Within the law was suppose to be a given, not an answer on how you do so.

Prevention is multi-faceted; Education, enforcement, legislation ... I don't have a single answer. Some people won't listen to education, some people don't care about the arrests (many don't as we frequently arrest the same people multiple times), and some are not concerned about the law.

Yeah, when you're Joe Blow and Mr. Officer is up there on the stand lying, sometimes it's a little difficult for Mr. Blow to prove the "respected" man in uniform isn't tell the truth.

I'd say the instances of the defendant lying are a lot greater than the officer.

And, either party can be wrong and still not be lying. perceptions are different. Two people can see the same event and come away with two different observations.

We can "what if" the whole thing all day. The system breaks down when people lie. There's no way to prevent anyone from lying - hence the reason you have advocates (lawyers) and judges.

On the report the cop claims they smelled alcohol and the driver had bloodshot eyes. Isn't that on every report??

A little hint ... that's usually what keys the officer that the driver might be drunk! So, of COURSE these are on the report! These are two of the most key objective symptoms of alcohol impairment!

Maybe where you are the cops make crap up ... I doubt it, but maybe they do. Out here, we don't have to. Is there someone that does it? probably, but, again, that's the exception - by far.

Yes, but most people would agree that a public intoxication arrest is far better than being arrested for DUI.

Unfortunately, the elements of the two offenses are different. So we can't just arrest someone for public intoxication when they aren't. But, there are some states (including CA) that can allow for an arrest for DUI in an "attempt" situation under the right set of circumstances.

In the name of safety, getting that person from behind the wheel before they drive serves it's purpose. But, if you're get your kicks in punishing someone, I guess DUI arrest is golden.

I'd prefer to prevent it. But, unless the legislature gives a viable option, law enforcement can only suggest not to drive and then linger in the area waiting to see if the impaired dolt gets behind the wheel. And, yes, occasionally we do that.

- Carl

 

[seniorjudge]

... I have been in law enforcement for more than 16 years and I have NEVER seen a MADD representative in court ....

I have.

Also ACLU and several other conservative lobby groups.

All of them wanted to know my "policy" on this that or the other.

I reminded all of them that courts were open to the public; come and sit on the front row, I told them all....

 

[CdwJava]

I have.

Also ACLU and several other conservative lobby groups.

All of them wanted to know my "policy" on this that or the other.

I reminded all of them that courts were open to the public; come and sit on the front row, I told them all....

I suppose that comes from being a judge and not just a witness or the investigating officer.

But, as you said, they are simply observers.

- carl

 

[JV25]

Back to the original question...

No it doesn't reflect a closer truth and I certainly don't stand 100 percent behind your modified statement .

But hey, if your modified statement makes you feel better, believe what you want.

How many DUI's do you think end up in a conviction? Wet reckless or lesser chargers do not count. I know this is a vague question, but I would love to hear what Fagettaboutit and SeniorJudge thoughts are. So out of the last 100 DUI cases in the United States, how many do you THINK ended up a DUI conviction? My guess is about 73%.