Pulled Over after Drinking and Driving

[Aramike]

This is a true story, and it happened tonight.

On my way home with my wife from a friend's house (who lives about 15 minutes away), we were pulled over by a Milwaukee County deputy. Now, in the interest of full disclosure in order to properly make my point, we had been drinking throughout the evening. Julie (my wife) was clearly in the bag from her wine intake while I was quite evidently sober. In fact I had consumed a six pack of Miller Lite over the course of about four hours, with no other alcoholic beverages.

Now, Wisconsin is one of I believe 14 states which does not allow for checkpoints which can allow for law enforcement to randomly test drivers for sobriety. As such, an initiative called "Stop, Test, Arrest" has been gaining steam. Essentially, this initiative allows for law enforcement officers to practically stop any vehicle they spot merely for the purpose of testing its driver for sobriety.

This is what happened to us.

The legal limit in Wisconsin is currently .08. Now, I guarantee that I was stone-cold sober at the time, and the law would agree with me - I blew a point-oh-six. I had not been driving in any way erratically, nor was a violating any traffic laws. And yet I was forced to PROVE that I was not breaking any laws, and once I had done so, I was free to go.

So, the question is this: should ANY US law-enforcement be allowed to require drivers to PROVE that they are operating legally, without respect to any probable cause regarding an illegal activity such as Operating While Intoxicated?

My answer is below.

[Aramike]

I believe that such measures as "Stop, Test, Arrest" and drunk driving checkpoints are an ABSOLUTE violation of civil rights. Forget about the fact that people who are slightly over the legal limit of .08 aren't the ones killing people - what about the fact that, in this country, we shouldn't be forced to produce "papers" during our travels from one location to the next. This practice seems Stalinist, in a sense.

Also of consideration, considering that my blood alcohol content was .06 and, as such, I was completely legally allowed to operate a motor vehicle, what is the justification for saying that a mere two-one-hundreths higher I would be incapable of doing so? The limit itself seems arbitrary. The reason I mention this is the fact that not all people react the same way to all BAC levels. As a result, would it not be more pragmatic to judge the situation on how an individual is driving rather than resorting to a hard-and-fast number? In other words, if you're driving erratically and show to have a certain BAC, you'll be arrested. If you're driving normally and have a similar BAC, you won't. Obviously a limit would be created as a standard for simply being incapable of operating a vehicle.

My point is, should someone who's right at the legal limit but driving completely safely be subject to the same penalties as someone who's twice the limit and driving erractically?

Everytime I've heard of a reduction in the legal alcohol limit, I ask myself, why? What's the point? The people at .10 aren't the problem. Reducing it a couple of percentage points, therefore doesn't address the problem. I've concluded that organizations that advocate such reductions (such as MADD) aren't neccessarily against drunk driving - they are against drinking as a whole.

Why do I suggest this?

Because one would think that keeping an officer from booking a safe driver slightly over the limit at, say, .09 would be smart due to that same officer being available to help spot the dangerous drivers who sneak through.

Which leads me to my ultimate point: doesn't programs such as "Stop, Test, Arrest" and drunk driving checkpoints actually reduce the force available to stop dangerous drivers? True story - while I was pulled over, I saw at least three cars pass who were swerving quite erratically.

Too bad the deputy was busy checking out someone just because...

[Schroeder]

I'm not American but I think it is o.k. . If the police tests people randomly and you know you can be picked regardless of how you are driving you will think twice about drinking/drug consuming and driving. It is also a signal that the police is there and is watching. If one never gets checked by them one might just as well start to believe that they don't care at all for the traffic and do something stupid then. Better feel their presence and drive safely than making people believe they aren't watching at all.

In Germany they are checking especially young people at Friday and Saturday nights. I 've been checked three times in about 10 years. Here they are asking you whether you have consumed alcohol. If you answer no and you seem to be sober they just have a look at you drivers license and registration and are off again. How ever if they smell alcohol you get tested (happened to me once because I had cleaned my wind shield just before they pulled me over and the washing water contained some alcohol to keep it from freezing and that was what they smelled).

[saltysplash]

Couldnt you consider it more a case of Positive Accident Prevention rather than an infringement of your civil liberties?

[Aramike]

Good points, both. However, I do disagree.

For one, "Positive Accident Prevention" via using available resources randomly would seemingly be less effective than targetting said resources at those who demonstrate a greater likelihood of causing an accident.

And I do see it as an infringement on my civil liberties because, while I was delayed in my quest to return home, just because, there were people out there who were clearly driving drunk. However, the officer that had detained me was, as a result, unable to pursue those who were indeed dangerously drunk. As such, that puts all the other sober, legal drivers on the road at a greater risk, as far as my logic is concerned.

Also, I'm not as familiar with German law, Shroeder, but it isn't the place for American law enforcement to use detention and inspection tactics to show that they are watching. A squad car or two on the side of the road would do just fine, and if they weren't randomly pulling cars over, they'd be available to look for the signs of those who are actually breaking the law.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

The cop was justified in doing so. You cant speculate as to probable cause, as you have not had the training he recieved when he became a traffic cop. This isnt a slight on you, mind. I dont doubt that you're a careful driver, but the cop doesnt know that, and I bet these Stop-Test-Arrest schemes catch alot more people than you give them credit for.

[Letum]

So long as a significant amount of random tests lead to a prosecution, I think
it is in the public interest. Say, 4%.
It is certainly in my interest that people think twice before drinking and driving.

[SteamWake]

In fact I had consumed a six pack of Miller Lite over the course of about four hours


Thats enough. Perhaps you have a high tolerance and felt in full control of yourself but the fact is you drank a six pack and had alchohal in your bloodstream.

Just dont drink and drive.

[Neptunus Rex]

I'm against this. Would you have the same precept be applied to your house or residence? If challenged, it ultimately will be determined to be unconstitutional for being an illegel search. There MUST be observed cause to stop and detain anyone, and you are being detained during a sobriety check.

[Rockstar]

One can assume it was Stop, Test & Arrest. But maybe someone at the party thought you had too much and called Johnny Law and gave them a description of your vehicle. Could have been neigbhors of the people whose house the party was at filed a complaint and the law was sent. You just happened to be leaving from a place where alcohol was known to be served and were the first one stopped by the police. Who knows all sorts of possibilities why this officer stopped you. MAybe he thought you were just too damn ugly to be seen in public and was looking for an excuse to lock ya up.


.

[Kapitan]

I am a driver of large vehicles trucks and coaches, now being on the road all day nearly every day i see alot of what goes on the fact is if your innocent dont worry about it but as ive found ranting at an officer gives them more suspision and more reason to have pulled you, your just then fueling a fire.

I agree they should allow stop checks only reason is then more and more people may think twice about drinking then driving, there are alot of people who have been killed on roads accross the world because police have been powerless to stop and check the fact they have to wait for someone to die first is appauling, not only does it ruin some innocent persons life but yours as well and then it creates one hell of a riot because people demand answers especialy "why was he not stopped sooner."

Yes you may have had a drink and your honest and said yes officer ive had a drink provided you pass sobriety tests leave it at that, in the UK argueeing with an officer to the point of being disorderly you will be arrested for this and spend the night in the cells.

I do not in anyway condone drink driving i do not drink drive myself infact i rarely drink now im in a position where i have to drive all the time, i seen to many accidents on the roads friday and saturday nights are the worst because you can garentee some one driving involved has had a drink to many, and the thing that makes me rearly sick is the fact they normally walk away from it unhurt or minor cuts and brusing yet some poor innocent person has died or been seriously injured maybe life changing injuries and they have the cheek to go do the same again.

I personally think the offier was right to stop you i would campaign to have legal stop checks put in place because over here its a good way to cut down on drink drive and also other crimes, its how peter sucliffe was found and he was a serial killer, all it took was a stop check to catch him so it does work.

[Platapus]

I have some questions here. Keeping in mind that alcohol has a graduated effect on people and not a binary effect. A person is NOT sober at one second and with that last sip of alcohol is suddenly drunk. The chemical reaction with the human body does not work that way.

Given the information that you consumed a six pack of Miller Lite over four hours.

while I was quite evidently sober.

How do you know this? You may have felt sober, but one of the insidious aspects of alcohol is that it will diminish your judgement.

The legal limit in Wisconsin is currently .08. Now, I guarantee that I was stone-cold sober at the time, and the law would agree with me - I blew a point-oh-six.

This is one of your first misunderstandings. A legal limit is just that. A person can be physiologically intoxicated while under this limit and not be physiologically intoxicated above this limit. However we are not talking about physiological aspects, we are talking about legal aspects. Since every human processes alcohol differently, it would be impractical for the police to only have a physiological standard. Hence the additional arbitrary (and it is arbitrary) legal limit.

I guarantee that I was stone-cold sober at the time

Since you mentioned this twice, I will give my comment twice :D

How do you know this? You may have felt sober, but one of the insidious aspects of alcohol is that it will diminish your judgement.

I had not been driving in any way erratically, nor was a violating any traffic laws.

Do you have any evidence other than a witness (you) that was not consuming alcohol?

So, the question is this: should ANY US law-enforcement be allowed to require drivers to PROVE that they are operating legally, without respect to any probable cause regarding an illegal activity such as Operating While Intoxicated?

This is the key question. In states that do not allow sobriety check points, there has to be a probable cause for them to pull you over. Probable cause for traffic stops is about as easy as it comes.

Did you ask the citing officer what his or her probable cause was for the pull-over?

I believe that such measures as "Stop, Test, Arrest" and drunk driving checkpoints are an ABSOLUTE violation of civil rights.

I thought you stated that your state does not allow this.

Also of consideration, considering that my blood alcohol content was .06 and, as such, I was completely legally allowed to operate a motor vehicle

Second misunderstanding. You can be arrested for driving while intoxicated/under the influence while having a BAC under the legal limit. The legal limit is only one of the criteria for DUI... not the only one.

If you are over the BAC limit, regardless of how you are driving, your are legally DUI
If you are under the BAC, and you are driving erratically, you MAY be legally DUI

Just because you are under the BAC limit does not mean that you can not be charged and convicted of DUI. There are other factors.

[quote]My point is, should someone who's right at the legal limit but driving completely safely be subject to the same penalties as someone who's twice the limit and driving erratically? [/quote[

I would agree with this as long as both parts are demonstrated

1. The driver had a BAC under the legal limit
2. The driver was operating the vehicle in a completely safe manner

So to offer up my summation of this incident.

A police officer had probable cause to suspect you were DUI

The officer pulled you over and subjected you to a series of approved field tests

You passed the tests

You were allowed to proceed.

What exactly is the problem?

I am happy that we have police officers who are doing just what you described.

Sounds like the officer not only acted in accordance to the laws, but also acted for the greater good of society.

[Schroeder]

@Aramike

I once had the opinion that I could handle a car just as well when I was pretty tired as I could when being wide awake. Then I started to drive Rallies at my Computer. I know now that I don't even have to start the game when I'm tired because I will eventually find myself "parking" at a tree. That opened my eyes for that I might handle a car normally under good conditions without incidents but I wasn't so sure any more whether I could react on time if anything unlikely happened (deers crossing the street, the guy in front of you steps hard on the brakes for some reason, aquaplaning....).

If you have a racing simulation (a proper one not something where you have to drive in an oval) then try it out yourself. Drive around while you are sober and see how good you manage and then drink your six pack and see if you are still driving the same.

I know that this is just simulated stuff but it allows you to compare your skills while being sober, tired, drunk or whatever without endangering yourself and others.
The results are sometimes shocking.:o

[Platapus]

If you have a racing simulation (a proper one not something where you have to drive in an oval) then try it out yourself. Drive around while you are sober and see how good you manage and then drink your six pack and see if you are still driving the same.



What a clever idea. :yeah:

Sure a simulation is not the same as real driving, but, as you said, it will give some feedback.

[XabbaRus]

Having had a cousin killed by a drunk driver I completely disagree with Aramike.

In fact I think you were entirely irresponisble getting into a car after drinking a 6 pack over 4 hours. I don't care if the legal limit is .08 or waht and whether you considered yourself to have been stone cold sober. The fact you registered .06 shows you weren't stone cold sober and regardless that you thought you were entirely capable perceptions become something else after drinking. You complain it is an infringement on your civil rights but what about the rights of people to be able to walk home knowing that they aren't at risk of drink drivers? Do I and anyone else not have that right.

Given that you have admitted drink driving I think you have lost the right NOT to be stopped and tested at random.

[CaptainHaplo]

Aramike, your both right and wrong.

In a sense the stop is an infringement on your rights, because you were perfectly legal. However, there are 2 questions here.

1. - what convinced the cop to pull you in the first place?
For example - did he see you leave a bar/establishment/party where he knew alcohol was being served, presenting a likely situation for drunk drivers to be on the road? *This is a tactic they use where I live - monitor bars and such late at night - however that alone is not probable cause.*
Did you commit any driving action that made him suspicious of your ability to operate a vehicle safely? Did he recieve a tip concerning your vehicle or one similiar that gave him probable cause?

Remember when answering - the first and last examples you don't have any way of knowing, and the 2nd issue is a pure judgement call by the cop.

2. - You stated repeatedly that you were below the limit defined - but how is the cop supposed to know that without testing you? Assuming for a moment he had probable cause (for whatever reason), he has an obligation to the rest of the public to stop and CHECK. Having found no problem, he surely said "have a nice night and stay safe" or something similiar.

Yes, there is the issue of resources being "wasted", but ask yourself this, had the situation been different, and it been a drunk that he DIDN"T pull, that later killed someone dear to you, would you feel the same - that its better to err on the side of the individual's right?

While I am an individual rights person, I understand that there are necessarily some inconvienences necessary to protect us from the stupidest among us. Individual rights, by necessity, must be protected from an overreaching society and government, but society must also be protected from those who would violate the individual rights of others by causing them harm.

In other words, people have every right to tie one on till they can't stand up, they do not have the right to endanger their fellow citizens because of it.

When a person chooses to operate a motor vehicle on their own property, they can be as drunk as they want. When they choose to imbibe, then operate a motor vehicle on public property, they place themselves under the rules of society, meaning that, with justification, they can be stopped and checked for the good of that society.

It sounds like your real concern is his "probable cause". If he didn't have any, then it was a bad stop. If he did - whether a call or some action you took inadvertently or unknowingly, then he did his job.

As for all the drunks going past, yes thats a blasted shame, but thats not the cop's fault assuming a good stop.

And as a side note, what they do here are license checks, simply pull up and show your license. They get close enough to tell if your toasted, and use the check to establish probable cause for other issues. Such a thing has been deemed legal here, and so far they only use such a tactic when they either are looking for a specific person, or in an area where they know they have a DUI issue, so they can "check" pretty much everyone.

Are there issues there - sure, but it gets the job done.

I would just say be happy you and yours got home safely regardless, and please always insure your not impaired anytime you drive, regardless of legal limits and whatever else. Be well

[OneToughHerring]

Out of curiosity, how exactly does one "PROVE that I was not breaking any laws"? You mean by taking the test? Millions of people have to take the test and if they are sober they go about their way. Imagine if there was no testing, sheet would be totally out of control on the roads.

I have extremely little sympathy for drunk drivers, or people driving while nearly over the limit.

Aramike, dude, sleep off the hangover and think again. Hard. Below is a link with pictures of drunk driver accidents. I suggest you take a look.

http://www.car-accidents.com/drunk-driving-accidents.html

Also look at this. (http://www.cafemom.com/journals/read/608177/Not_Everyone_Who_Gets_Hit_By_Drunk_Driver_Dies_war ning_graphic_pictures)

[Platapus]

Also look at this. (http://www.cafemom.com/journals/read/608177/Not_Everyone_Who_Gets_Hit_By_Drunk_Driver_Dies_war ning_graphic_pictures)

Wow This needs to be plastered all over the place. :nope:

What kind of punishment would be justified against this drunk driver?

[Kapitan]

In the UK this would be causing grevious bodily harm (GBH) with intent while driving under the influence and dangerous driving you would be looking at 4 to 8 years inside and your licence endorsed heavily if you ever get it back from the minimum obligatory ten year ban.

[Onkel Neal]

Thats enough. Perhaps you have a high tolerance and felt in full control of yourself but the fact is you drank a six pack and had alchohal in your bloodstream.

Just dont drink and drive.

Yeah, agreed. I do not drink but it seems like six pack over the course of a football game time period, that's not quite stone cold sober.

Also, .06 is darn close to .08, mate. Especially if sober is .00, right?

I fully support stopping people to check sobriety. And citizenship while they are at it ;)

[Aramike]

Sober is .07 and below. Drunk is .08 and above.

So, legally, I was stone-cold sober (even though many feel that the legal limit is WAY too low to be practical). That is why I was stopped, tested, and released.

The average human body can oxidize about one drink's worth of alcohol an hour, meaning that once you finish your beer, your BAC will be at around 0 one hour later.

In any case, the fact was that I was completely (legally and otherwise) sober at the time. And no, I was neither erratically driving nor did my friend of 35 years call the cops on us after we had left his house. Also, I wasn't at a party.

However, that's beside the point I was trying to make. The reason I was stopped was purely due to the fact that I was there ... that's it, that's the only reason. The officer was just following the Stop Test Arrest program. And, while the officer was running my license to make sure I had no warrants and making me blow into a tube just because, other erratic drivers drove passed and were not stopped - the cop was busy with someone who was doing nothing wrong.

Don't get me wrong - I am completely against drunk driving. I think the penalties should be stiffened for it as well. However, my point is that I am also against arbitrary attempts to enforce the law, and I also believe the legal limit should be raised.

People at .08 aren't the ones out there killing others. Why then would they be prosecuted the same as someone who's twice the legal limit?

[Aramike]

Out of curiosity, how exactly does one "PROVE that I was not breaking any laws"? You mean by taking the test? Millions of people have to take the test and if they are sober they go about their way. Imagine if there was no testing, sheet would be totally out of control on the roads.

I have extremely little sympathy for drunk drivers, or people driving while nearly over the limit.

Aramike, dude, sleep off the hangover and think again. Hard. Below is a link with pictures of drunk driver accidents. I suggest you take a look.

http://www.car-accidents.com/drunk-driving-accidents.html

Also look at this. (http://www.cafemom.com/journals/read/608177/Not_Everyone_Who_Gets_Hit_By_Drunk_Driver_Dies_war ning_graphic_pictures)Heh, I've never met anyone who gets a hangover at .06 BAC. Not even the biggest lightweight in the world. There's more effect in a dose of Nyquil.

Moreso, if there was no arbitrary testing on the roads (which is what I'm against; not testing, but random testing) then we'd have more available officers to arrest actual dangerous drivers.

[XabbaRus]

But you should also know that what is ok for you could be completely differetn for someone else. I know a few peoploe who after 2 beers I wouldn't let in a kids push cart let alone a car.

[Letum]

Once when I was young I went to a Morris dancing festival. (I had a good
reason to go that didn't involve Morris dancing).
I didn't expect the chaps in bells and sticks to carry on until well past 1am.
To survive the experience I got stinking drunk on vodka. Afterward I
stumbled through the streets and asked a police man to tell me if I was too
drunk to drive home(!). By the time I got to my small 125cc motorbike I had
forgotten what ever the policeman said to me and I started driving back the
30 miles to my house. Knowing I was in a poor condition to drive I stuck to
30-40mph all the way. I skipped a red light before I saw it and went several
times round a roundabout. Fortunately it was now 2am and the back roads
where silent.

On a small bike I was only really butting my own life in serious risk, but never,
never again.
Now I wait 12 hours after one pint before I touch anything that moves
faster than I can.

[Schroeder]

Sober is .07 and below. Drunk is .08 and above.

So, legally, I was stone-cold sober (even though many feel that the legal limit is WAY too low to be practical). That is why I was stopped, tested, and released.

The average human body can oxidize about one drink's worth of alcohol an hour, meaning that once you finish your beer, your BAC will be at around 0 one hour later.


If you have a game like I mentioned before, then please do the test. Even if .06 only slows you down by 1/10th of a second it might be that time that safes you from dying or living in a nightmare.

BTW I know people who practised to drive drunk just to be able to avoid being pulled over by the police. So sometimes you can't tell whether someone is driving sober or not. You will only see that in an emergency situation were the drunken (or just not entirely sober) driver is a greater risk than a sober one.
I still do not understand why you are so furious about it. What actually happened? You got pulled over, you told the policeman that you've had some alcohol and he did what his duty was and tested you. Afterwards nothing happened because you were within the limits and you drove on. What's the big deal?

[OneToughHerring]

The average human body can oxidize about one drink's worth of alcohol an hour, meaning that once you finish your beer, your BAC will be at around 0 one hour later.

Not "one drink", one unit of alcohol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_alcohol).

I've already had to explain this once to Dowly, maybe there should be like a public service announcement about the dangers of alcohol as a sticky.

Bit OT but I used to know a friend who was an exchange student in Wisconsin. He said that there are plenty of Scandinavians and Germans there so they alone drink more beer then the rest of the US combined or something to that effect. So I can sort of understand your adamant defending of beer drinking.

[SteamWake]

[quote=Letum;1102407](I had a good
reason to go that didn't involve Morris dancing)./quote]

Why do I find it funny that he took time to clairify this :rotfl:

[Letum]

I wonder...

http://www.tournorfolk.co.uk/wells/wellsmorrisdancing.jpg

[Aramike]

If you have a game like I mentioned before, then please do the test. Even if .06 only slows you down by 1/10th of a second it might be that time that safes you from dying or living in a nightmare.

BTW I know people who practised to drive drunk just to be able to avoid being pulled over by the police. So sometimes you can't tell whether someone is driving sober or not. You will only see that in an emergency situation were the drunken (or just not entirely sober) driver is a greater risk than a sober one.
I still do not understand why you are so furious about it. What actually happened? You got pulled over, you told the policeman that you've had some alcohol and he did what his duty was and tested you. Afterwards nothing happened because you were within the limits and you drove on. What's the big deal?First off, I wouldn't say that I'm "furious". I just think it is an interesting topic for discussion. I was a tad annoyed at the time because it had been a long day and I just wanted to get to the house.

As far as the test you're talking about, several years ago I participated in some research on the topic. Essentially a controlled course was set up in a parking lot and several people were tested at differing BAC levels. There was no degradation in my driving whatsoever until about .12, but to be fair, when it started dropping off the drop off was dramatic and fast.

I'm sure it's different for others, but there's a popular BSA line that says "buzzed driving is drunk driving". Most people are absolutely not degraded whatsoever at such low BAC levels.

Even if they are, and the deficiency is slight, so? Fatigued driving can be far worse than driving at .08, but its perfectly legal no matter what level of fatigue one is at. This is why I believe the focus should be on the actual driving versus arbitrary checks.

Someone did bring up the fact that such programs as Stop, Test, Arrest are effective in catching drunk drivers, and I agree that they are. That being said, though, I believe that using the same resources in a more directed manner would be even more effective.

[Dowly]

Just dont drink and drive.

Exactly. :up:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

0.6 isnt stone cold sober, no matter what the legal limits are. Like XabbaRus said, the 0.8 is there as a line that is meant to encompass all types of physiology, as what might be a light afternoon's drinking for one person, could be an absolute smeg-out for another.

Its not an encroachment on your civil rights, in my opinion. If the cop had busted in to your house on a random alcohol search to check if you had picked up your car keys, then sure, string him up, but as I said, I feel he was only doing what his instincts told him.

When you're next on the road, do as I like to do, and put yourself in the shoes of a traffic cop. You'd be suprised at how many people you percieve to be suspicious and worthy of a stop.

[CaptainHaplo]

Somehow I missed your initial question Aramike - and so I will answer it now....

So, the question is this: should ANY US law-enforcement be allowed to require drivers to PROVE that they are operating legally, without respect to any probable cause regarding an illegal activity such as Operating While Intoxicated?

I will say no because you said without respect to probably cause. However - I will also say this isn't what occured in your case. What happened was you were given an opportunity to DISPROVE that you were over the legal limit. Even had you failed the breathalizer, or refused it (which in I think every state mandates a citation if suspicion warrants), and had been cited for DUI/OWI - you still would have had a day in court in which (in theory) the state must prove you were intoxicated.

The problem is that in essence - the "take the breathalizer or else" clause amounts to an unconstitutional violation of the unreasonable search and seizure or self incrimination clauses. If your drunk, and take a breathalizer, you just gave the State alot of evidence - you incriminated yourself. However, if you refuse, they lock you up on suspicion alone - depriving you of your liberty without due process. This is why field testing is still done, because it violates neither your personal freedom or the seach and seizure rule. Field sobriety tests give a reasonable estimation of your abilities so that it can be determined if your beyond a certain level. Still subjective, but usually enough for a judge.

Now lets say its something BESIDES drunk driving. Lets say the cop just stops you because he wants to make sure you have insurance (if your state requires it), or to check your inspection, or look at your tires to make sure they are not too worn. Regardless of why - it goes back to without probable cause. If your stopped WITHOUT reason - its a bad stop no matter what.

And Aramike - I respect you though we often disagree. I would say this - the definition of "stone cold sober" is no measurable amount of BAC. Thats what you are when you don't drink. Anything above that may still be sober, and I am not saying by any means you were intoxicated, but "stone cold" sober you were not. The reason is that any level of BAC has an effect on the brain. That effect may vary between people - and for you .06 may be a drop in the bucket. I can accept that. But to be fully honest - you have to simply say "I was sober". As a friend, I woulda prefered you be at 0.00 - but you were responsible and I respect that. Thanks for that - now teach the rest of the knuckleheads in our society to do that!

The key that must be remembered - not just by Aramike (as he showed he could) - but by every person who chooses to drink and then drive - is to do so responsibly.

For the record - I drink and drive all the time - but its Cheerwine - no alcohol content! :yeah:

[Pioneer]

Sober is .07 and below. Drunk is .08 and above.

So, legally, I was stone-cold sober

There you have it...impaired judgment.
Sorry sir, you were not sober...you were lucky.

Having arrested literally thousands of drink driver over the course of a very long police career where the legal limit is .05%, (.0% if under 25 or driving a heavy vehicle) you are impaired. In fact, it's quite possible that had you been intercepted 10-15 minutes later, you may have blown over the limit as alcohol is absorbed steadily into the bloodstream.

Now, while my experiences are in Australia where there is no "requirement" to have a reason to intercept a vehicle, the notion of "violation of civil liberties" seems slightly ingrained in America as a "free pass" for any indiscretion. I don't agree with it, however, this is America and where I choose to live.

And for Neal, yes I did check citizenship status, and a couple of times the defendant walked out of the Watchouse in the waiting arms of Immigration where they were driven to the airport and deported.

Perhaps next time rather then risking the life of your wife and other road users, abstain or have a designated driver. That way the notion of rights violation is unquestionable.

$0.02

[Zachstar]

Not only do I disagree with your view on the subject. I do not even want to debate with you when you seem to bypass the point that you drank and drive.

I dont give a flying hell about you. I care about the people who trusted you to drive and the potential victims if you had an accident.

You were NOT completely sober NOBODY not even a 500 pound man is going to be completely sober after that much alcohol.

I am only sorry you were below the legal limit.

[CaptainHaplo]

I am only sorry you were below the legal limit.

Zachstar...

We disagree on a lot of things - and I understand your point. But wishing ill - that is a DUI with all its repercussions - on someone that violated no law and was responsible enough to make sure that he stayed within the realms of reason......

Dude - thats just wrong.

I don't approve of drinking and driving - but its not up to you or I to say "well if you have one beer - you can't drive". Which is what you sound like you think should occur. The society at large - through representative government, made that choice - and it said - where Aramike is - that .08 is too much.

If you say one beer is too much - ok what about half of one? Still too much? How about a simple, single swig or swallow? Society has the right to put a limit on it. It did. Aramike was responsible enough to be within that societal limit.

Wishing that someone suffer because they did something entirely legal - just because you disagree with it is intolerance at its worst. I don't approve of homosexuality myself, but I wouldn't ever wish that the people who choose that would all get HIV or something.

I know what your saying, but whether your or I agree with a various law, we should at least respect it, and not wish those who abide by the law were still punished just because we don't agree.

Thats just.... not cool dude... :nope:

[Letum]

I have to agree with Haplo.
Your content was lost in your rudeness Zach.

[OneToughHerring]

Also, if you eat heavily while drinking the six-pack or whatever, the food may actually delay the burning process of the alcohol.

I remember being given an advice that when eating dinner with Russians, it's a good idea to eat some pieces of pure fat before starting. The Russkies will insist on a vodka drink every now and then and a normal person will not be able to take it. The fat will 'coat' your stomach and intestinal tracks so that the alcohol won't digest at once.

However, when the fat 'wears off', the effect can be quite sudden. So to sum it up, I wouldn't necessarily trust the "1 unit of alcohol is burnt off in 1 hour" - rule. Better make it two hours.

[Letum]

I always eat a few slices of bread and thick butter if I need to hold my booze
for some event.

[Aramike]

0.6 isnt stone cold sober, no matter what the legal limits are. Like XabbaRus said, the 0.8 is there as a line that is meant to encompass all types of physiology, as what might be a light afternoon's drinking for one person, could be an absolute smeg-out for another.

Its not an encroachment on your civil rights, in my opinion. If the cop had busted in to your house on a random alcohol search to check if you had picked up your car keys, then sure, string him up, but as I said, I feel he was only doing what his instincts told him.

When you're next on the road, do as I like to do, and put yourself in the shoes of a traffic cop. You'd be suprised at how many people you percieve to be suspicious and worthy of a stop.You're kind of missing the point. I wasn't stopped because of anything I did. I was stopped because, on that night, a program was in place to RANDOMLY stop drivers.

The cop had nothing to do with it as he was just following orders (he even quipped at how he thought the policy was kind of dumb).

But I will concede something: perhaps I wasn't "stone cold sober", but I was legally and physically sober and more than capable of safely operating a motor vehicle. In fact, I was more capable of doing so than an excessively fatigued driver - and that person wouldn't be breaking any law.You were NOT completely sober NOBODY not even a 500 pound man is going to be completely sober after that much alcohol."That much alcohol"? Seriously, do you know how much alcohol is in your system over the course of several hours drinking only six light beers?

Clearly not much, as the reading was .06 BAC.There you have it...impaired judgment.
Sorry sir, you were not sober...you were lucky.My judgement was not impaired in any way. Nor was I "lucky". Using accepted charts considering my body size, the amount of alcohol I consumed over the period of time in which it was consumed put me right at between .05 and .06 BAC.

I have on many occassions had someone drive me when I've been drinking when I've been too impaired to do so.

[CaptainHaplo]

A policy of "randomly" stopping drivers? Without cause? If so that is a violaton of the constitution. No question. That is the definition of unreasonable search and seizure.

If you were a minority (I don't know if you are or not actually) and the ACLU found out - then the cops doing this would have to show demographics on the "random" stops they made to show there was no profiling or whatnot, or end up in one large civil court case.

To pull anyone in this country, without cause - at random - is a violation of your civil rights. Period.

[Aramike]

A policy of "randomly" stopping drivers? Without cause? If so that is a violaton of the constitution. No question. That is the definition of unreasonable search and seizure.

If you were a minority (I don't know if you are or not actually) and the ACLU found out - then the cops doing this would have to show demographics on the "random" stops they made to show there was no profiling or whatnot, or end up in one large civil court case.

To pull anyone in this country, without cause - at random - is a violation of your civil rights. Period.That's exactly my point. I believe that programs such as "Stop, Test, Arrest" are a violation of civil rights.

I have no problem with stopping someone for cause (myself included) and testing them for alcohol consumption if there are reasons to suspect its use. I do have a problem with being stopped just because I was on the road.

The point wasn't that I had been drinking. Even had I not had a drop, I would have been pulled over. I think that's wrong.

[Aramike]

Also, if you eat heavily while drinking the six-pack or whatever, the food may actually delay the burning process of the alcohol.

I remember being given an advice that when eating dinner with Russians, it's a good idea to eat some pieces of pure fat before starting. The Russkies will insist on a vodka drink every now and then and a normal person will not be able to take it. The fat will 'coat' your stomach and intestinal tracks so that the alcohol won't digest at once.

However, when the fat 'wears off', the effect can be quite sudden. So to sum it up, I wouldn't necessarily trust the "1 unit of alcohol is burnt off in 1 hour" - rule. Better make it two hours.
You're right about the "unit of alcohol", by the way. I oversimplified it. One can of light beer is roughly one unit of alcohol.

In any case, the fact remains that I was legally driving, and the officer and law agreed. That's not the issue, really.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Aramike, why would you even drink Miller Lite? It tastes bloomin' awful!

[Aramike]

Aramike, why would you even drink Miller Lite? It tastes bloomin' awful!
:O:

Actually, I think it's a pretty good light beer - and its brewed just minutes from my house, which may be why it tastes better here than there.

[mog]

In an ideal world, drink driving would not be a crime. The crime would be bad driving, which has many possible causes - being drunk, stupid or tired to name a few. People would have enough personal responsibility not to drive while intoxicated because they would know it impairs their driving ability.

Unfortunately, most people do not possess this level of responsibility. Unlike the other causes of bad driving, drunkeness can be detected, measured and a limit set that is arbitrary but fairly accurate in gauging impairment of driving skill. It is therefore pragmatic and logical to legislate against it.

[Onkel Neal]

Sober is .07 and below. Drunk is .08 and above.

So, legally, I was stone-cold sober (even though many feel that the legal limit is WAY too low to be practical). That is why I was stopped, tested, and released.

The average human body can oxidize about one drink's worth of alcohol an hour, meaning that once you finish your beer, your BAC will be at around 0 one hour later.



Ah, ok, gotcha. :yep:

Naturally, I somewhat disagree but only over the point that .07 is sober and .08 is drunk. .07 is not drunk enough to warrant a citation, :) that's how I see it. I'm being facetious, I know one or beers does not = drunk, but the more alky-hal one consumes, the more impaired they are. There's no real breakover point to it. But I am glad you did not have any trouble with the police.




In any case, the fact was that I was completely (legally and otherwise) sober at the time. And no, I was neither erratically driving nor did my friend of 35 years call the cops on us after we had left his house. Also, I wasn't at a party.
However, that's beside the point I was trying to make. The reason I was stopped was purely due to the fact that I was there ... that's it, that's the only reason. The officer was just following the Stop Test Arrest program. And, while the officer was running my license to make sure I had no warrants and making me blow into a tube just because, other erratic drivers drove passed and were not stopped - the cop was busy with someone who was doing nothing wrong.

Don't get me wrong - I am completely against drunk driving. I think the penalties should be stiffened for it as well. However, my point is that I am also against arbitrary attempts to enforce the law, and I also believe the legal limit should be raised.

People at .08 aren't the ones out there killing others. Why then would they be prosecuted the same as someone who's twice the legal limit?


I dunno what to say about that. Yeah, you're right, while he was attending to you, he could have missed a really intoxicated driver. At least you didn't get tased, bro.

[Onkel Neal]

Once when I was young I went to a ...

Haha, I can't let that go by. How old are you? I thought you were still young? :O:

[Zachstar]

Almost sickening to see the defense he gets here. I guess y'all would be screaming tho if he hit someone.

This kinda defense indicates to me that we really need to automate cars. Decades of tough drunk driver enforcement has failed to phase people like Aramike in my view.

Automated cars with mandatory onboard breathalyzer test to activate the overide would save many lives and keep many drunks away from innocents.

Hopefully next time tho they will catch you when it becomes clearer how much you drank or next time you will do the right thing and not drink and drive.

[Letum]

Haha, I can't let that go by. How old are you? I thought you were still young? :O:


Ah! 'young' is relative.
Perhaps I should have said, back when I was foolish...
or perhaps that leaves me open to worse matters of relativity.

[CaptainHaplo]

Ok Zachstar - so should every vehicle have a breathalizer? I don't drink - should I be so inconvienenced to satisfy your sense of whats ok? Don't think so.

What your suggesting is that every person, drinker or not, be driven nuts by some automated gadget that gets to decide whether or not I get to drive my car.

Maybe the person needs to get caught once first before thats a mandatory thing? Well it only takes one time to kill someone.

There has to be a better option than that. Cmon, your a smart fella - consider what is reasonable for every person, and come up with some ideas to solve the problem. I have a few if you care to bandy them about reasonably.

Now if we fully automated cars - just tell it where you wanna go and let it do the driving -that would work, but people wouldn't use it even if it was possible.

Somebody perfect that Star Trek transporter.... but what happens if the red shirt ensign at the controls is drunk????

Edit - don't drink and transport!

[OneToughHerring]

That's exactly my point. I believe that programs such as "Stop, Test, Arrest" are a violation of civil rights.

I have no problem with stopping someone for cause (myself included) and testing them for alcohol consumption if there are reasons to suspect its use. I do have a problem with being stopped just because I was on the road.

The point wasn't that I had been drinking. Even had I not had a drop, I would have been pulled over. I think that's wrong.

Here it is quite common for the police to do raids against drunk driving by randomly stopping drivers for breath tests. Would this be terrible out of question in the States? I don't quite understand why. The whole point of raids like this is to catch the drunk drivers who drive 'normally'. They are still dangerous, no matter what they themselves might think.

[Zachstar]

So far the courts have ruled in favor of stops so its not so outrageous here.

This is not banning guns. Few actually mean to kill when they are behind the wheel drunk. But often enough it results in terrible accidents that often involve harming innocent people.

Unlike the drunk who in my view choose to ruin his life by drinking and driving. The innocent did not.

And unlike banning guns. The cops cant come to your house to test you. They can only do so on public funded ways. Driving on them is a privilege not a right.

[Aramike]

Zachstar, you seem to be having trouble wrapping your noodle around a simple concept: I was not drunk. Any alcohol does not necessarily equal drunk, or dangerous. If your high-horse is safety of other drivers, how come you're not railing out against fatigued driving?

If have any alcohol and driving is so damned dangerous, the legal limit would be zero, nada, zilch. People at .06 (or even .08) aren't the ones out the killing people.Almost sickening to see the defense he gets here. I guess y'all would be screaming tho if he hit someone.If I were to hit someone while legally sober than the cause would be something other than alcohol.This kinda defense indicates to me that we really need to automate cars. Decades of tough drunk driver enforcement has failed to phase people like Aramike in my view.Failed to phase people like me from what, exactly? Driving sober, safely?Hopefully next time tho they will catch you when it becomes clearer how much you drank or next time you will do the right thing and not drink and drive. You know how I know they won't catch me driving drunk, ever?

I don't do it.

Now please hop off your high horse as I have no idea how you could possibly suggest that I was too drunk to drive, when a POLICE OFFICER decided I was fine. Were you there?

[Aramike]

I dunno what to say about that. Yeah, you're right, while he was attending to you, he could have missed a really intoxicated driver. At least you didn't get tased, bro. :haha:

He wouldn't tase me ... both the deputy and I got along just fine.

[Aramike]

So far the courts have ruled in favor of stops so its not so outrageous here.

This is not banning guns. Few actually mean to kill when they are behind the wheel drunk. But often enough it results in terrible accidents that often involve harming innocent people.

Unlike the drunk who in my view choose to ruin his life by drinking and driving. The innocent did not.

And unlike banning guns. The cops cant come to your house to test you. They can only do so on public funded ways. Driving on them is a privilege not a right.
You're right ... however, those people that are out there, dangerously risking lives aren't blowing a .06 BAC ... usually its a lot higher.

.06 isn't drunk. Certain people (such as yourself) seem unable to comprehend that simply consuming alcohol does not make one drunk. It is the consumption of enough alcohol to significantly impair you, hence the reason for legal limits. I agree that should someone be on the road significantly impaired due to alcohol, we should throw the book at them. That being said, I'm not going to take the easy way out and state that any alcohol consumption should result in the same thing.

[Aramike]

In an ideal world, drink driving would not be a crime. The crime would be bad driving, which has many possible causes - being drunk, stupid or tired to name a few. People would have enough personal responsibility not to drive while intoxicated because they would know it impairs their driving ability.

Unfortunately, most people do not possess this level of responsibility. Unlike the other causes of bad driving, drunkeness can be detected, measured and a limit set that is arbitrary but fairly accurate in gauging impairment of driving skill. It is therefore pragmatic and logical to legislate against it.I'm not so concerned about the limit. What gets me is the arbitrary stopping and testing of people for that limit. Doing so removes resources from being used to combat those who are actually a threat to kill someone.

Think about it - while the cop testing someone who's sober, there is certainly someone who's intoxicated out there.

[owner20071963]

No matter What,
Anyone Driving under the Influence Of Drink Or Drugs,
Should be locked Up,Period,
and Throw away the Key,
Why?
Getting behind any Motor with Drink Or Drugs,
Within a 24hr period consumed?
Is Lethal,Like A Gun,
12 months ago in a small town near me,
Some Idiot backed out of his Drive fast,
late for work,Hungover,
Drove over his Neighbours child,
2yr old Girl,
Killed,
Consuming any of the above?
Gives you a Right to Drive???
To do so in any 24hr Period,
No matter how good a driver you are?
Makes me Sick,
Zero Tolerence Worldwide,
Will be implemented,
To save Our Children,
from those who Take,
and get behind a Wheel,
Lets hope anyone Consuming Alcohol,
Drugs & Driving in a 24hr period?
Get Caught & Jailed Hard Time,
If Your Daughter was Killed like that?
What would You Do?
Finally to the Person who started this thread?
Shame on You Sir,
Try Alcohol free drinks in the Future,
before you Drive.

[sunvalleyslim]

Having arrested over 4,000 people for "Driving Under the Influence" in the course of my employment.,I am truly gratified to see so many of you take the course of action that is "Don't Drink and Drive". There is no number that can substantiate whether or not someone is "Under the Influence". Some people are intoxicated at .05% and some only show symptoms at .20%. The problem for the officers is that they have to testify that you were in fact under the influence below the "number.....08%". Very hard to get by a good defense lawyer when you talk about someones objective symptoms. And he says " Officer, did you ever meet my client before this night." That question now opens up all avenues of questioning. "Is his speech always slurred?" "Does he always have bloodshot eyes?" Have you seen him walk before tonight?"
Yes numbers are always arbitary, but the question begs, "What about probable cause?" Folks lets set the record straight. In the U.S. of A. there needs to be probable cause. I never rode around saying "Lets stop that A__hole just because."
I mean to tell you that a great "DUI Officer" will "Always" come up with probable cause.......:D :D When and only when the suspect is indeed "DUI". Theres no place for "Hummers" (that is below the limit)......:salute::salute:

[Zachstar]

You're right ... however, those people that are out there, dangerously risking lives aren't blowing a .06 BAC ... usually its a lot higher.

.06 isn't drunk. Certain people (such as yourself) seem unable to comprehend that simply consuming alcohol does not make one drunk. It is the consumption of enough alcohol to significantly impair you, hence the reason for legal limits. I agree that should someone be on the road significantly impaired due to alcohol, we should throw the book at them. That being said, I'm not going to take the easy way out and state that any alcohol consumption should result in the same thing.


Lets keep this simple. You drink a can of beer you don't belong on the road because no matter how much you trust yourself it does have an affect on you.

You don't have my respect. You tried to make this a topic of your so called rights (Funny how it becomes an issue when you are involved eh?) instead of how lucky you got for not being arrested.

I'm not about to comprehend anything from you! Not in the face of friends killed due to drunk drivers who say they just had a few cans. People like you in my view are a road danger because in my view yall view that a few cans is fine and if someone stops to test you about it. OMG WTF cops violate mah civiL rights !!!11!! Is all we hear instead of "Damn, maybe next time I will pass and drink soda or water instead. Glad to see the police out protecting the lives on PUBLIC roadways"

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

This is a true story, and it happened tonight.

On my way home with my wife from a friend's house (who lives about 15 minutes away), we were pulled over by a Milwaukee County deputy. Now, in the interest of full disclosure in order to properly make my point, we had been drinking throughout the evening. Julie (my wife) was clearly in the bag from her wine intake while I was quite evidently sober. In fact I had consumed a six pack of Miller Lite over the course of about four hours, with no other alcoholic beverages.

Now, Wisconsin is one of I believe 14 states which does not allow for checkpoints which can allow for law enforcement to randomly test drivers for sobriety. As such, an initiative called "Stop, Test, Arrest" has been gaining steam. Essentially, this initiative allows for law enforcement officers to practically stop any vehicle they spot merely for the purpose of testing its driver for sobriety.

This is what happened to us.

The legal limit in Wisconsin is currently .08. Now, I guarantee that I was stone-cold sober at the time, and the law would agree with me - I blew a point-oh-six. I had not been driving in any way erratically, nor was a violating any traffic laws. And yet I was forced to PROVE that I was not breaking any laws, and once I had done so, I was free to go.

So, the question is this: should ANY US law-enforcement be allowed to require drivers to PROVE that they are operating legally, without respect to any probable cause regarding an illegal activity such as Operating While Intoxicated?

Given that everything is as you said (as you agreed, you were in the "sober zone" rather than "stone cold sober"):

1)It is deontologically improper, no question about it - your rights were infringed to your detriment (though a small one).

However, when we get into the depths of deontology, even a "probable cause" (what is probable anyway? 10%? 50%? 90%? Or whoever happens to be the most probable "available target" compared to the background probability?) stop or arrest is an infringement of your rights if ultimately you did nothing wrong.
For that matter, even if your BAC is 0.3 and you are clearly weaving all over the place, it does not necessarily follow you will hurt someone, so restricting your rights there, deontologically speaking, is wrong.

2) On the other hand, you may also be deontologically wrong for driving, even with a BAC of 0.06.


Sure, maybe in the previous test your driving really didn't differ until BAC hit .12, but can you really be sure it is the same that night? Maybe your tolerance was subtly lowered because it is late at night (presumably your test was in daytime and your mental state was close-to-optimum except for the alcohol in the comparison test) and you are tired to start with (and thus the point where significant degradation by alcohol started sooner).

In that case you drove in an elevated risk situation - the "may" covers the scenario where you really aren't affected in any significant way by BAC0.06.

Of course, a similar logic applies if you drove while tired or in anything else that may have significantly affected your mental readiness.
And of course, to counter that, you had a right of freedom to freely move. Further, in the event of an accident, UNLESS it is one you could have avoided if only you were in better mental readiness, you are morally guilty of no more than taking an elevated risk, not for the accident itself . Though legally you are f*cked of course.

3) However, in the end, the law can only be written in a way that compromises between:


your various rights
your elevated risk to others using a utilitarian balance
the practical limitations in our ability to determine all the reasons an accident's.

When the smoke cleared, 0.08 was the compromise decided by the people for the law.

4) Similarily, the "Stop, Test and Arrest" enforcement policy is a compromise between your rights (of not being stopped) and the rights of others - in this sense, even the Probable Cause thing is but a utilitarian compromise, so not having it is NOT necessarily wrong in a utilitarian sense.

5) In conclusion, given that the damage to a stopped person is very small compared to the potential harm, the policy and law is probably justified. In your particular case:


Sure, maybe based on superficially available evidence, the probability of you being significantly impaired is very small, and the probability of that impairment actually harming someone even smaller. However, the potential harm is arguably so great, and the inconvenience to you so small by comparison, that even a small probability should be guarded against, and so he was substantiated in pulling you over.
As he moves in to get you ("little fish"), of course he has to take an elevated chance that he would miss a "bigger fish" while working with you. He evaluates the probabilities and decides to get you. His gamble turned out to be wrong, but that's arguably less an indictment of the policy than the officer's individual judgment and ability. If he had better situational awareness, he might have noticed the second car and stopped you both.
Or it may just be a bad roll of the dice which hit both you and the officer - a policy inevitably has some leakers, and you were in one of them. Without getting a larger overview of the statistical probabilities, an indictment of the policy based on your one disappointment may be subjective and premature.

Almost sickening to see the defense he gets here. I guess y'all would be screaming tho if he hit someone.

This kinda defense indicates to me that we really need to automate cars. Decades of tough drunk driver enforcement has failed to phase people like Aramike in my view.

Automated cars with mandatory onboard breathalyzer test to activate the overide would save many lives and keep many drunks away from innocents.

Hopefully next time tho they will catch you when it becomes clearer how much you drank or next time you will do the right thing and not drink and drive.

Before you get too disgusted, OK, let's say he had an accident. In that case, regardless of legality, he will only be morally responsible IF not only was there some degradation, but also that the degradation CAUSED him to be unable to avoid the accident. If what hit him was something even a F1 driver on his best day won't be able to avoid or even mitigate anyway, then he's still not morally responsible for the accident, even if he drank all the way to .3 and still drove. He took a stupid risk, but that's all.

Of course, in reality we can't cut it that fine, and the compromise that society agreed on, 0.08, became the law.

No matter What,
Anyone Driving under the Influence Of Drink Or Drugs,
Should be locked Up,Period,
and Throw away the Key,
Why?
Getting behind any Motor with Drink Or Drugs,
Within a 24hr period consumed?
Is Lethal,Like A Gun,
12 months ago in a small town near me,
Some Idiot backed out of his Drive fast,
late for work,Hungover,
Drove over his Neighbours child,
2yr old Girl,
Killed,

Nice rhetorical tactics. While it is a sad story, can you prove, to a reasonable confidence, that if only Idiot didn't drink last night (or wasn't under the time pressure of being late for work for that matter), he WON'T have ran over that 2-year-old girl?

I don't know the details of the case, but what if 2 year old girl wasn't even in LOS because she was so short. Then he can't have avoided her anyway.

If Your Daughter was Killed like that?
What would You Do?

I would react differently, but it won't be for objective reasons.

[Aramike]

Kazuaki, good post. I'm going to digest it further prior to responding. Best post in the thread!You don't have my respect. You tried to make this a topic of your so called rights (Funny how it becomes an issue when you are involved eh?) instead of how lucky you got for not being arrested.For one, I couldn't care less if I have your respect. Personally, I don't respect you either - mainly because I've never seen you share a point-of-view that is supported by anything other than runaway emotionalism.

As far as this misguided notion about how your having friends killed by drunk drivers is related to the topic, please link to the cases that involve a drunk driver that wasn't actually legally drunk, or the cases where someone with .06 BAC was responsible. I bet you any BAC in such cases isn't even close.

I'm sure you feel quite special about your moral "high ground", but thankfully society has chosen to listen to intellectuals regarding these issues, rather than those who tend to lean towards emotional self-satisfaction.

Statements like "you drink a can of beer you don't belong on the road" is silly and not very well thought out. Where's your outrage against drivers impaired due to fatigue? Should we also make the statement, "if you don't get a solid 8 hours of sleep, you don't belong on the road"? Or, "if you had too hard of a days work and are tired, you don't belong on the road"?

Your "outrage" is illogical, and as such I have no respect for it (nor do I really care). Although, due to it's odd extreme nature, I suspect it has more to do with previous differences we've had than anything else.

As far as whether or not it suddenly became an issue due to it involving myself, who are you to know what my stance on this was previously?

Which explains my lack of respect. Have a great night! :|\\

[Aramike]

Okay, I do want some clarification on your point, Kazuaki - specifically part 5. You mention probability as far as my case is concerned. My question is, all things being equal, if the only identifiable circumstance that causes any probality of one being impair is that person simply being there (meaning, as far as the deputy knows, he's just taking a shot in the dark, as was the case. The fact that I was stopped was completely random.), do you believe it's still justifiable?

Also, you do lay a convincing argument for programs such as Stop, Test, Arrest being justified, but there's another side of the equation that bears examination: what about effectiveness? If by randomly pulling drivers over without an identfiable reason for doing so (other than simply that they are there), doesn't that tie up resources from being able to pull over those who are providing an identifiable reason? For instance, while the officer is sitting in his squad confirming my license information, two clearly dangerous drivers pass. Had the deputy been looking for an identifiable reason, he would be more likely to remove an actual impaired driver from the road. Instead, he had to thank me for my time and wish me a good rest of my evening.

As such, I believe the effectiveness of such programs should factor into their justification. Any thoughts?

Also, again I'd like to say good post. It was well-thought out and written, and was specifically the kind of opinion I was soliciting when attempting to start this conversation. And, it is certainly far more interesting that the bloated outrage some have shown towards me for driving home legally sober. :smug:

[PeriscopeDepth]

Just like a legal right to stop you and ask for ID, cops are in their right to be able to stop you to make sure you're sober at any time AFAIC. They're job is to keep everybody safe, even if it does inconvenience others.

I have the luxury of having a girlfriend who doesn't drink, and I myself NEVER drive after drinking even when I know I could get away with .04 or whatever. Whenever you drive a car you hold multiple strangers' lives in your hands, and should take it seriously. Yeah, I could get away with a few beers and driving. But why not just play it safe?

PD

[Contact]

Aramike, you got caught for drinking and driving.. :) It actually doesn't matter if you feel you can drive safely after having a beer or two, but if alcohol tester shows you have exceeded limits which were allowed - be prepared to face consequinces of the law :DL

Of course you can't blame cop cuz he's doing his job. You can blame only yourself here.. :)

You can still think in positive way: maybe because you was stoped you have avoided a serious accident on your way home if you weren't stoped :)

Here in Lithuania most of the accidents happens because of driving drunk and overspeeding. Couple of years ago Lithuania was in the first place in EU by killed people in accidents because of very same thing. So our government took radical matters to fight this madness.

For light drunk level (0.4 - 1.5)you will get a fine for 1000-1500 LTL with driver license confiscation for 1-1.5 years

For medium drunk level (1.5 - 2.5): Fine of 2000-3000 LTL with driver license confiscation for 2-3 years

For heavy drunk level (2.5 and more): Fine of 2000-3000 LTL with driver license confiscation for 2-3 years

If drunk driver made an accident where people were injured or property was damaged: Fine 4000-5000 LTL with driver license confiscation for 3-5 years or 15-30 days in jail with permanent driver license confiscation.

For repeated drink and drive violation you will say goodbye to your vehicle and license confiscation for 3-4 years.

If cops has confiscated drivers license for a year or longer he will have to retake exams.

So lets be wise and responsible drivers on the roads :shucks:

[Letum]

Aramike, you got caught for drinking and driving..[...]


You should read posts carefully. He did not get caught for anything.

[Rilder]

Maybe the police officer was just having a slow night and bored out of his brains and just wanted to be friends. :rotfl:

Also hello from Wood County. :)

[CaptainHaplo]

Actually - random traffic stops without cause ARE illegal here in the states. There HAS to be some reason to stop someone who is operating a motor vehicle in full visual compliance with relevant law. Now as one gentleman in the know stated - if they find out your over the limit - "finding" probable cause isn't hard. You just are too drunk to remember you swerved over the line or ran off the road a bit back there. You were speeding, or going way to slow for traffic safety.

I don't agree with that tactic - but it does happen. In fact, there ARE abuses by law enforcement in many districts. I know of one in particular that got into alot of trouble because he got his hands on a "spare" radar gun and had it calibrated to read about 8mph faster than it should. He never had a problem writing plenty of speeding tickets to meet his quota (you know - that thing they swear they dont have...). He also had a higher number of DUI arrests than anyone else - it was later learned his breathalizer was also "tweaked" by a couple of hundredth points. However, there are bad eggs in every profession, and thankfully in most areas they are in a very small minority.

Did the cop make a bad stop if it truly was random? Sure. But don't blame him. As Aramike stated - the cop admitted he thought it was a stupid policy. Good for that guy - and I hope he stays off the skyline.

If the policy had been "pull anyone you see operating in a manner you feel demonstrates impairment" - the guy would have no doubt gotten one of the drivers that went past as he sat with Aramike.

As far as "OMG if you have one beer you need to wait 24 hours before you drive" - let me first suggest you wait 24 hours after you smoke a crack pipe before posting that kind of thing. *That is NOT intended as a personal insult - but rather a turnabout to show the ludicrious nature of the statement.*

In an ideal world, for some alcohol wouldn't exist. For others, it would kick more and be cheaper (or free). For almost all of us though, we would want it to not IMPAIR brain functions and timing when it came to things like driving. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. Thus, we do the best we can.

Drunk driving is a crime, as it should be. It can kill, but so can just getting in your car and getting on the road. Should we sue goodyear every time a tire pops and someone is hurt? How about when it rains and a car hydroplanes? Should the surviving victims or their family sue God? Want to solve drunk driving? Outlaw POV's (Personally Owned Vehicles). Thats the only way you will ever stop it as long as alcohol is available to people.

Though I personally wouldnt have a problem with stiffening the punishments for DUI, sooner or later your going to have to accept that you have to do one of three things.

1: Legally define the limit at which point an operator of a motor vehicle is intoxicated beyond the ability to safely operate said vehicle.

2: Remove all access to motor vehicles to all people in case some of them might want to get drunk and go for a drive.

3: Remove alcohol from society.

Now - #3 has been tried before, and US history has shown how ineffective that was.

Number 2 is a vast overreach to fix the problem and would violate the rights of everyone for a relatively few bad apples - thus its not happening.

So that leaves #1 - and that has been done, by every state in the Union. You may not agree with the limit set, but then if your not happy with it, work within your state to change it through the processes available.

Instead of getting on here berating someone who made a choice you don't agree with - get involved and work on the problem, helping to improve the situation where you are so maybe less people get killed on the roads where you are. THATS how you can make a difference.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Why is it that whenever this topic comes up, no one ever discusses the main problem with drunk driving, namely that many of the drivers involved in DD accidents suck at driving even when they are sober? That's why new drivers are so often the offenders.

There are a lot of good arguments in this thread, even for unprovoked traffic stops(something I normally abhor), but I don't think that any of the ideas presented will have an acceptable result.

Obviously, there should be a legal limit, and officers should obviously be allowed to stop someone if they have probable cause. I think everyone can agree on that, even if they want the legal limit to be .00;)

But why not start simple, and address the problem of inadequate driver licensure requirements? Nobody here has never met a crappy driver, or been frustrated by one on the road. I'm willing to bet that everyone here has either caused an accident, cut someone off, gaffed up merging on the freeway, ran a stop sign, red light, whatever....., failed to use a turn indicator, changed lanes within x feet of an intersection, etc....etc...

Imo, we need stricter licensure requirements in the form of driving tests.
Difficult obstacle courses(timed, of course) or even driving simulators would serve well. We could even require that some tests be taken after consuming a six-pack within an hour, to be provided by the testee. That is, unless they object on the grounds that they do not drink for whatever reason, in which case their license should note that, and they are under penalty of lifetime license revocation if they are found driving with even a low BAC for being lying bastards.
There is no reason that any able-bodied person cannot learn to drive well, even after drinking. It just takes practice.

This type of action would reduce regular traffic accidents as well as alcohol-related ones. The caveat, of course, is that the state must only administer the tests (or better yet, accept certifications from private driving schools), and provide practice vehicles (or simulators) in a safe environment only for those who have no access to a vehicle.
Drivers should be free to obtain their training on their own, or else this system might exclude lower-income indiviuals who cannot afford training. Similarly, it should avoid training provided by the state, because that is fiscally unfeasible.

I cannot overstate the importance of difficult, performance-based licensure requirements. The harder a driver has to train to obtain licensure, the better off everyone is. Drunk or not, every driver in this country should be able to drive from point A to point B without hitting anything.

We should change the meaning of DUI from Driving Under Influence to Driving Under Incompetence.

[Letum]

^ Most of what Undersea said! :up:

[Captain Vlad]

I personally believe that stopping a person who's displaying no sign of dangerous or illegal behavior is a violation of a U.S. citizen's civil rights. If they're weaving erratically or otherwise driving strangely, or if the cop observes speeding or some other violation, that's one thing. If they're just saying 'Lets give that guy a Field Sobriety Test cuz at random...no.'

Have issues with ID checks, too, for the same reason.

I think both are generally illegal in my state anyway.

[geetrue]

What about stopping people for any reason, not just testing for alcohol?

First try to understand what the police, sheriff or highway patrolman see on an almost daily or weekly schedule of drunks that cause accidents. The bloody scenes and loss of life that can't be erased from the human mind is what they have witnessed. So give them a little leaway on why they care about seat belts or alcohol.

I wrote a letter to the major of San Diego when I lived down there back and proposed that police check points be set up to check for the people in gangs (over 90,000 gang members in LA alone) that run around with guns and drugs in their cars, especially that close to Tijuana.

A letter came back personally from the major that indicated they also wanted to do this, but after checking with the legal department it is considered to be against the law in the State of California (and perhaps all of America) to be a police state.

I suggested that they barb wire an entire football field to put all of the people they catch into till they could be duly processed. The major agreed with this plan too, but again the legal department disagreed due to a state law that says every prisoner must have a matress.

The jails are so full now that they are not considering, but are actually going to let over 30,000 prisoners go free early in the State of California due to it's budget problems.

So the bottom line is even bad guys have rights in the good ole USA.

[Letum]

So the bottom line is even bad guys have rights in the good ole USA.

And you think this is a bad thing for a country to have?

[GoldenRivet]

my view on this is simple.

1. Never drive if you have had 3 or more beers (assume 12 oz bottles)

2. The police have no right to stop you unless you prove to be suspect of some wrong doing... ie a body dragging behind your vehicle, or a trunk popped open revealing a bound and gagged hooker, or your unable to maintain lanes etc

[Onkel Neal]

I personally believe that stopping a person who's displaying no sign of dangerous or illegal behavior is a violation of a U.S. citizen's civil rights. If they're weaving erratically or otherwise driving strangely, or if the cop observes speeding or some other violation, that's one thing. If they're just saying 'Lets give that guy a Field Sobriety Test cuz at random...no.'

Have issues with ID checks, too, for the same reason.

I think both are generally illegal in my state anyway.

Quite obviously, a policeman can always find "probable cause" to stop you, at any point he wishes, my friend. Years ago I was stopped in a small town for "crossing the middle line", which was 100% not true. But that's what the officer claimed and he used this fiction as probable cause to stop me and have me get out of the car, walk a line and say the alphabet backwards (which is simple). In the end he let me go with a verbal warning. Talk about covering up :roll: Like I said, I do not drink.

I would have been perfectly ok with being stopped for a random sobriety check, I'm not ok with false claims about my driving to use as probable cause. :nope:

If a cop wants to stop you, he will find a reason to do so, so I don't have any problem with routine traffic stops to look for drunks, felons, and illegal aliens (although the cops here look the other way when it comes to illegals).

[Zachstar]

my view on this is simple.

1. Never drive if you have had 3 or more beers (assume 12 oz bottles)

2. The police have no right to stop you unless you prove to be suspect of some wrong doing... ie a body dragging behind your vehicle, or a trunk popped open revealing a bound and gagged hooker, or your unable to maintain lanes etc

Wrong on both counts.

Any beer recently ingested impairs your ability to drive. No matter how safe or how much you trust yourself. It is not YOUR highway. It belongs to the taxpayers. Don't like it? Pull a tea party but don't use any road to get there as that is obviously socialism! You may be under the limit but you are morally impaired in my view.

The police have the duty to protect folks and the courts have ruled for that time and time again. Folks who constantly complain about the constitutionality of the stops conveniently fail to note the numerous court rulings on the subject. The police CAN stop you and test you if even the slightest question on your ability to safely operate the vechicle. And frankly I do not believe Arm was driving "Stone Cold Sober" I think his check was valid but a random bit of bad luck for the rest of us in my view that he tested under the limit at the time and was not drug away to jail to face harsh fines.

[Captain Vlad]

Quite obviously, a policeman can always find "probable cause" to stop you, at any point he wishes, my friend.

Sure he will. But he'll at least have to think about his cover story, and the police need as many reminders as possible that they work for us.:03:

They don't need blanket permission to search anyone anytime they feel like it. Pretty soon those random searches stop being so random, and it's not always a high probability of illegal activity being found that motivates that...that's one of the better reasons to ensure that such things stay illegal...so that private citizens have some legal retaliation should the police begin to abuse their powers.

[owner20071963]

Some may gripe at my last post,
No Personal intent,
But Drinking and Driving in Any Way,
Even 8 hrs later,
Is Lethal,
In Any Country,
Over here you would get Life,
Period,
If You Hit a Person with Drink while Driving,
You are Guilty,
I've arrived at a lot of Accidents,
Most are induced by Drink,Drugs,Tiredness,
My Job?
I'm in the Rescue Service,
My Final comment here,
Never Ever,Ever,Ever,
Drink And Drive,
It Kills.

[Aramike]

Wrong on both counts.

Any beer recently ingested impairs your ability to drive. No matter how safe or how much you trust yourself. It is not YOUR highway. It belongs to the taxpayers. Don't like it? Pull a tea party but don't use any road to get there as that is obviously socialism! You may be under the limit but you are morally impaired in my view.

The police have the duty to protect folks and the courts have ruled for that time and time again. Folks who constantly complain about the constitutionality of the stops conveniently fail to note the numerous court rulings on the subject. The police CAN stop you and test you if even the slightest question on your ability to safely operate the vechicle. And frankly I do not believe Arm was driving "Stone Cold Sober" I think his check was valid but a random bit of bad luck for the rest of us in my view that he tested under the limit at the time and was not drug away to jail to face harsh fines.Somehow I bet you would like that ... people being hauled off to jail not for breaking a law but rather disagreeing with your point of view.

Frankly, I believe people with the stark emotionalism you display should not be allowed to publically post an opinion (sarcasm) - but hey, the law protects you, right?

Again, enjoy your high horse and moral self-gratification. The good news here is that most people won't even think of condemning someone for NOT BREAKING a law.

By the way, suggesting that you wish that I hadn't tested under the limit is STUPID, because that means you wish I was driving OVER the limit, which I was not. By saying that, it means that you wish I was on the road over the legal limit and therefore would be arrested for breaking a law.

Now, why exactly would you wish that I would break a law? Especially considering that doing so would involve me putting others at risk. Hmm ... seems like you don't give a damn about the "innocents" you proclaim concern for, as you would seem to wish that I would NOT be on the road while over the limit.

Busted.

Your insistance on this issue is absurd, albeit entertaining.

[Aramike]

my view on this is simple.

1. Never drive if you have had 3 or more beers (assume 12 oz bottles)

2. The police have no right to stop you unless you prove to be suspect of some wrong doing... ie a body dragging behind your vehicle, or a trunk popped open revealing a bound and gagged hooker, or your unable to maintain lanes etcThe problem with point one is that it is incomplete: three or more beers on what time period? If someone has 3 beers over the course of 8 hours, their BAC is likely to be zero (depending on when the last drink is consumed).

There are fairly accurate scales regarding drinks-to-BAC, and I personally recommend sticking to them.

As far as point two goes, I agree completely.

[Aramike]

Vlad, Letum, and Undersea ... I either agree with your points or find them to be quite provocative.

Appreciated.

[Zachstar]

What?

Of course you wish to try to twist this into some battle over your "rights"

In case you have not got it yet. I 100 percent do not believe you were under the limit during the duration of the drive but merely got tested at the wrong time. The weakness of modern tests.

In my view you WERE putting others at risk so my issue is you putting them at risk in my view despite your continued attempts to twist this otherwise.

Yes I would rather hear about you paying a big ass fine and having your license suspended. The damage to your life would have been a big incentive for you to never pull this crap again. Alas you will likely do it again and the chances of you being caught are not good enough in this country. Just like the many others who feel that they can drive with "Just a little" (Except in your case it was nowhere near a little)

Lets keep it clear the only life I don't give a damn about is yours because it was YOUR choice to drink and drive so you give up any sympathy at that point.

How many more have to die Arm? How many more lives destroyed before people like you start turning down the beers until you get home and stop with the views that you can drive safely with just a little? When does the excuses stop?

[Tchocky]

No c*nts on me, drugstable.

[Aramike]

In case you have not got it yet. I 100 percent do not believe you were under the limit during the duration of the drive but merely got tested at the wrong time. The weakness of modern tests.Unfortunately for you, I have gotten your point. And your unqualified assessment of modern testing versus the qualified assessment of the test itself, and the police officer on the scene leads me to believe you are grandstanding.

It's actually quite hilarious.


In any case, your "belief" stands up to NO scientific reasoning whatsoever, and is clearly nothing more than a "you drank alcohol, therefore you are bad" type of argument. That's emotionalism at its finest.Yes I would rather hear about you paying a big ass fine and having your license suspended. The damage to your life would have been a big incentive for you to never pull this crap again. Alas you will likely do it again and the chances of you being caught are not good enough in this country. Just like the many others who feel that they can drive with "Just a little" (Except in your case it was nowhere near a little)No where near the little? I was under the legal limit. In ADDITION, the officer who pulled me over felt I was fit to drive.

Do you have ANY basis for your opinion? Were you there unknown to me? Or are you just the blowhard you're making yourself out to be?Lets keep it clear the only life I don't give a damn about is yours because it was YOUR choice to drink and drive so you give up any sympathy at that point.I am unconcerned with your sympathy as, due to my not being arrested, I broke no laws and require none.

Again, on this issue you're nothing more than a blow hard. And, you're one that does not have my sympathy.How many more have to die Arm? How many more lives destroyed before people like you start turning down the beers until you get home and stop with the views that you can drive safely with just a little? When does the excuses stop? And yet again, you fail to convince me (or any other logical mind) that I did anything wrong to begin with, as proofed by my being PROVED legal.

And besides, who the hell are you to act as though you were there and knew the circumstances of the situation (ie, whether or not I was a danger to anyone else)? You're nothing more than an egotistical blowhard who doesn't give a DAMN about the innocents you profess to care about, as PROVEN by your previous statements. You have yet to furnish proof of your "friends" killed by "drunk" drivers at .06, or even .10 BAC.

Unlike you, I REALLY care about those innocents. I said very early on in this thread that I support stiffer penalties for truly impaired drivers. Also, I support the same penalties for those who show signs of impairment due to fatigue, a point which you conveniently ignore.

Grandstanding perhaps? Indeed. In fact, you're doing nothing BUT grandstanding. It's quite humorous.

Buh bye.

[Rilder]

Voting for subsim drinking party in Wisconsin. :arrgh!:

[Onkel Neal]

You need to calm down and stop making this personal.

What?

Of course you wish to try to twist this into some battle over your "rights"

In case you have not got it yet. I 100 percent do not believe you were under the limit during the duration of the drive but merely got tested at the wrong time. The weakness of modern tests.

In my view you WERE putting others at risk so my issue is you putting them at risk in my view despite your continued attempts to twist this otherwise.

Yes I would rather hear about you paying a big ass fine and having your license suspended. The damage to your life would have been a big incentive for you to never pull this crap again. Alas you will likely do it again and the chances of you being caught are not good enough in this country. Just like the many others who feel that they can drive with "Just a little" (Except in your case it was nowhere near a little)

Lets keep it clear the only life I don't give a damn about is yours because it was YOUR choice to drink and drive so you give up any sympathy at that point.

How many more have to die Arm? How many more lives destroyed before people like you start turning down the beers until you get home and stop with the views that you can drive safely with just a little? When does the excuses stop?

[Contact]

Hehe, I would say drink and drive in GTA4, in RL get a cab if you plan to have some beverages :)

[Fincuan]

And yet again, you fail to convince me (or any other logical mind) that I did anything wrong to begin with, as proofed by my being PROVED legal.

You're missing quite a few peoples' points here by sticking to the legal defense. "Legal" only depends on the country or state your at, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a person's ability to drive. It can and will be impaired with any amount of alcohol in your blood. Besides you said yourself that the limit at your place was .08 and your level was .06, so I'd say that proves very well you weren't sober and the policeman didn't shoot that far off the target by stopping you. Up here that close a result would land you waiting with the officers to deliver another test to see which way the level is going(the limit here is 0.05).

Here's what good old Wikipedia says on the effects of alcohol:

Blood alcohol content between 0.06 - 0.10:
Effects on behaviours:

Blunted Feelings
Disinhibition
Extroversion
Impaired Sexual Pleasures


Impairment:

Reflexes
Reasoning
Depth Perception
Distance Acuity
Peripheral Vision
Glare Recovery

[Schroeder]

the limit here is 0.05.
Same here. (for beginners and people under 21 years it's 0.0)


Here's what good old Wikipedia says on the effects of alcohol:

Blood alcohol content between 0.06 - 0.10:
Effects on behaviours:

Blunted Feelings
Disinhibition
Extroversion
Impaired Sexual Pleasures


Impairment:

Reflexes
Reasoning
Depth Perception
Distance Acuity
Peripheral Vision
Glare Recovery

If you have a BAC of more than 0.03 here and you are involved in an accident then you have a real problem. BAC over 0.03 are known to have an effect on once ability to drive. The willingness to take risks raises and the car handling is not as accurate as it is at 0.0. Or so the lawmakers say.
Source (since these are German rules it is unfortunately in German):
http://www.finanztip.de/recht/verkehr/03prom.htm

[Aramike]

Voting for subsim drinking party in Wisconsin. :arrgh!:Heh, good idea!You're missing quite a few peoples' points here by sticking to the legal defense. "Legal" only depends on the country or state your at, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a person's ability to drive. It can and will be impaired with any amount of alcohol in your blood. Besides you said yourself that the limit at your place was .08 and your level was .06, so I'd say that proves very well you weren't sober and the policeman didn't shoot that far off the target by stopping you. Up here that close a result would land you waiting with the officers to deliver another test to see which way the level is going(the limit here is 0.05).The legal defense is the only defense that matters. Anything else is just opinion, some of which is qualified, while others are not. Besides, had I been driving in any way erratically the officer could have preventing me from continuing to drive, despite the test result.

[Aramike]

Blood alcohol content between 0.06 - 0.10:

Effects on behaviours:

Blunted Feelings
Disinhibition
Extroversion
Impaired Sexual Pleasures
Impairment:

Reflexes
Reasoning
Depth Perception
Distance Acuity
Peripheral Vision
Glare Recovery
This is where some critical thinking must come into play. At .06 these effects are extremely mild if not non-existant in many cases. Even someone at .10 may only face slight effects, albeit stronger than lower BAC levels.

In any case, someone at .06 will often be more capable of driving a car than somone who's moderately fatigued. Both individuals (in this state, anyway) are legal to drive.

As such I am curious as to the reason for the outrage against someone at .06 versus someone who's simply tired? Clearly, safety and capability aren't REALLY the concern - at least, not completely. I believe that there has been an outright attempt and demonizing alcohol by politically motivated organizations such as MADD.

Look, if these people REALLY wanted to solve the problem, they wouldn't be after people with low BAC levels. Another point that seems to be ignored here is that people at .06 aren't the ones out there killing other people.

Penalizing those who are at a minimal risk the same as those who are at a dangerous one is counter-intuitive, in my opinion.

Also, something to consider is the law with respect to OTHER drugs. Let's say someone had a prescription for Vicodin, took a pill and drove. Is that illegal? The answer is yes and no. Yes if that person is found to be impaired, no if that person is not. Food for thought.

[Fincuan]

Frankly the legal side that important to me here, since it's easily proven that you were within the legal limit and that's it, but the moral side of it. The fact is that your blood alcohol level was at 0.06, and legal or not another fact is that that kind of level does have an effect on the average Joe's driving abilities.

"Driving irractically" isn't an effect alcohol has one one's driving abilities, it's only a result of the effects. Especially with little traffic your(as in any driver's, not necessarily Aramike's) driving can look perfectly fine outside, driving a car isn't very difficult after all, until you miss that one pedestrian or run a red light and have a collision thanks to a slower reaction time and misjudging the distance. Yes it affects your brain even at 0.06, and slowing down your reaction time is only one of the effects. Here the we have several cases of the police stopping people, who were driving perfectly well until that, because of a broken headlight or slight speeding, only to find that their blood alchol level is around 0.3 - 0.5. Personally I'd probably be passed out at those levels, so apparently training helps here too...

edit: You posted the last one while I was typing. No time to answer that one now, maybe later.

[Platapus]

I think we have beaten this horse to death.

Aramike clearly has his viewpoint. I don't think he will change, nor will he change anyone else's opinion. That's ok, everyone is entitled to their viewpoint on this issue.

It is really not worth getting personal. :nope:

[Aramike]

I think we have beaten this horse to death.

Aramike clearly has his viewpoint. I don't think he will change, nor will he change anyone else's opinion. That's ok, everyone is entitled to their viewpoint on this issue.

It is really not worth getting personal. :nope:You're right: it's not worth getting personal. Also, I won't change. I will continue to follow the law. If they were to make the legal limit 0, I'd follow that as well (even though I'd disagree).

[Aramike]

only to find that their blood alchol level is around 0.3 - 0.5. Personally I'd probably be passed out at those levels, so apparently training helps here too...Passed out? Dude, you'd be dead.

[Tribesman]

As such I am curious as to the reason for the outrage against someone at .06 versus someone who's simply tired?
Perhaps its because no one has written that they were pulled for being tired but were not really tired , so there is nothing to be outraged about on the tired front is there .

[Aramike]

Perhaps its because no one has written that they were pulled for being tired but were not really tired , so there is nothing to be outraged about on the tired front is there .I have written it in a theoretical sense.

Besides, you want to guess the percentage of drivers on this board that regularly drive moderately fatigued? I'd bet 80%.

As such, where's the outrage?

[CaptainHaplo]

While a bit off the subject - driving fatigued occurs constantly. However, there is no way a cop can prove that someone is simply to "tired" to be driving. No easy test for that one.

Plus, often being pulled results in a shot of adreniline for the subject, so they are now alert - until they resume their drive that is.

The only facet where fatigue driving is dealt with is in the trucking industry as far as I know. Unfortunately, its way too easy to run 2 logbooks....

[OneToughHerring]

Passed out? Dude, you'd be dead.

Just awhile ago they found a woman I think who had driven her car around for some distance and eventually driven into a ditch. She had 0.7 level of alcohol. She didn't die.

Especially with the 'experts' (see: Drunks) the tolerance for high levels of alcohol is pretty amazing. It's all due to the fact that their livers develop a higher ability to burn off alcohol. Eventually though their livers will collapse due to the strain and this may lead to death.

I've heard stories about surgery patients who have been anesthesized for an operation only to get up and ask the doctor to give them something stronger. Really, some of these people have to be put out with like an elephant tranquilizer.

This is one reason why the level for DUI is very vague, the tolerance to alcohol is very different from person to person.

[Aramike]

Just awhile ago they found a woman I think who had driven her car around for some distance and eventually driven into a ditch. She had 0.7 level of alcohol. She didn't die.

Especially with the 'experts' (see: Drunks) the tolerance for high levels of alcohol is pretty amazing. It's all due to the fact that their livers develop a higher ability to burn off alcohol. Eventually though their livers will collapse due to the strain and this may lead to death.

I've heard stories about surgery patients who have been anesthesized for an operation only to get up and ask the doctor to give them something stronger. Really, some of these people have to be put out with like an elephant tranquilizer.

This is one reason why the level for DUI is very vague, the tolerance to alcohol is very different from person to person.That's a good point. It's a very similar principle to drugs such as morphine - a dose that would instantly kill a healthy individual is often perfectly safe for someone in immense pain.

.5 does usually mean death, but you're right - not always.

[RickC Sniper]

Aramike, you should not have issues with the policeman who was just doing his job. It is apparant you disagree with the law allowing random pull-overs to give sobriety checks. If you want the law changed write your representatives.

You were legal by .02. That is cutting it extremely close, and if you have no way to test yourself before you get behind the wheel I think you will
eventually misjudge your level of sobriety. For most people, this close call you had would cause them to reconsider their habits.

But you have stated you will not change.

You are playing Russian roulette and I hope you stop before you hurt someone.

[Aramike]

Aramike, you should not have issues with the policeman who was just doing his job. It is apparant you disagree with the law allowing random pull-overs to give sobriety checks. If you want the law changed write your representatives.

You were legal by .02. That is cutting it extremely close, and if you have no way to test yourself before you get behind the wheel I think you will
eventually misjudge your level of sobriety. For most people, this close call you had would cause them to reconsider their habits.

But you have stated you will not change.

You are playing Russian roulette and I hope you stop before you hurt someone.See, this is what happens when people don't read everything. :stare:

First off, I had no issues with the cop whatsoever. Him and I both expressed frustrations at the policy.

Secondly, I used very commonly accept charts in calculating my BAC. It was on the low end of .06 or high .05 - which is specifically what I tested at. It's not like I just looked into the sky, closed my eyes, and said "feels like I'm at .06."

Indeed, I'm not going to change ... I will continue to never operate a motor vehicle legally drunk.

And finally, why does EVERYONE keep ignoring the fact that it isn't people who are at .06 BAC - .08 BAC out there killing people?

[roman2440]

I have some points I agree with and others I don't.

1) The police officer absolutely 100% has to have some probable cause to pull him over. Outside of states that allow marked DUI checkpoints, you have to have some probable cause or observe some fault of the law to be able to legally pull someone over.

That said, it isn't hard to get probable cause for a traffic stop if you want to. I'd reckon you follow anyone, no matter how careful, at somepoint they'll miss some minor traffic law - say go 1mph over the speed limit, cross a line where you aren't supposed to, heck even something as simple as dirt on your registration tab making it hard to read can be used as an excuse to pull someone over legally. It doesn't have to be anything truely dangerous or threatening, it just has to be something that is illegal or otherwise suspect.

I suspect the police office in Aramike's case did have some reason for pulling him over beyond just "stop, test, arrest" - it just didn't come up when the officer smelled alcohol on his breath, and Aramike failed to ask the officer why he pulled him over, and instead focused on the whole "stop, test, arrest" policy.

If for some reason the officer did not have a valid cause for pulling you over, and when pressed about such a cause said it was policy, then that is very clearly a violation of civil rights. But like I've said, its most likely that it didn't really come up at the time of the traffic stop due to the smell of alcohol in the car (although it should have come up, and if you asked about it they'd have to provide an answer and it couldn't be tied to the alcohol he smelled, it'd have to be something he observed prior to the stop).

2) The "stop, test, arrest" policy is valid, assuming a valid and legal reason for the traffic stop. In Aramike's case the officer smelled alcohol and so rightly proceeded with the STA policy. Again such a policy does need to have some sort of probable cause that leads into it (which may or may not be related to the causation required for the traffic stop) - and in the case being discussed in this thread, that causation for administering the BAC test was definately there.

Personally I agree with it, especially in the late evenings when people are commonly drunk on the roads.

3) I whole-heartedly agree with legal limits and for them to be set as low as they are.

See us human beings have proven as a group to be incapable of properly determining when we are sober enough to drive safely. I'd argue that such limits would be unneccessary if accidents related to drunk drivers didn't happen so often, but despite all the publicity about how its bad to drink and drive, despite all of the common sense people should have, it happens, and it happens a lot. The reason it happens is it is a judgement call, and people tend to vary greatly when called upon to make judgements about things. If you then set the limit at or near the level of actual impairment for the group as an average you run into a few problems.

One is those people with lower tolerances are going to be impaired while still under that limit - this is not ideal and encourages such people to drive drunk. Two is that people have to guestimate where they are at (since portable BAC tests are not practable as of yet) and so if they end up low balling their guess they could easily go over said limit and still think they are ok to drive.

While arbitrary limits are not ideal by any means, they are necessary for proper enforcement and to give people an idea of where they can be in a legal sense. And if you are going to have the limits at all, then they've got to be where they are to be able to be effective for the vast majority of the population and for them to be easily understood (could you imagine the calamity of you started making BAC limits a sliding scale?).

I realize that some people have got to have their drinks - but for god sakes how hard is it to plan ahead a bit? And to rely on something as imprecise as x drinks in y hours = z BAC is almost akin to playing russian roulette. Yes you were right at .06 that time, and maybe you'll be right one 100% of the time, but let me tell you the average person isn't going to get that right every time. And the consequence for failure very well can result in the death or dismemberment of other people.


One last note about the incident in particular - in Wisconsin the limit for you might be .08, however if you've had 3 priors it actually is .02, and if you had been under 25 or operating heavy machinery it would be .00. So kudos for not being the dumb arse whose gotten 3 priors and keeps on drinking and driving, but if you had been that person, no matter how you viewed yourself, you would've been legally DUI even at .06.

[Aramike]

Umm, where are you getting that there as a smell of alcohol in the car?

The officer specifically told me that I was randomly stopped as part of the STA program.Yes you were right at .06 that time, and maybe you'll be right one 100% of the time, but let me tell you the average person isn't going to get that right every time.I can only be responsible for my own actions. What the average person does, they are responsible for.And the consequence for failure very well can result in the death or dismemberment of other people.Indeed, possibly in the case of an epic failure. People at .08 aren't killing people.

[VipertheSniper]

People at .08 aren't killing people.

You're typing that now for the 5th time or something... but that doesn't make it true, and you have yet to show proof. Heck one evening I was having 2 or 3 beers, can't remember that exactly right now, and although I surely would've been under the limit, I didn't drive, because on that day those 2 or 3 beers made me feel very drunk.

[Aramike]

You're typing that now for the 5th time or something... but that doesn't make it true, and you have yet to show proof. Heck one evening I was having 2 or 3 beers, can't remember that exactly right now, and although I surely would've been under the limit, I didn't drive, because on that day those 2 or 3 beers made me feel very drunk.How, per se, does one show proof of a negative (something not happening)?

The burden of proof would be on the person claiming that something IS happening.

Also, as another poster pointed out, there is a difference between whether or not alcohol was present in someone in an accident and whether or not the presence actually contributed to the accident. In 2006, a whopping 55% of ALL alcohol-impaired fatalities were by drivers with a BAC of .15% - nearly twice the legal limit. That's amazing considering that, below that level you have drivers at .14, .13, .12, .11, .10, .09, .08 ... all illegal, no doubt the vast majority, that are only commiting 45%

And, none of these figures account for whether or not the accident would have occurred despite alcohol. While impaired drivers indeed disproportionately cause highway fatalities, the vast majority of accidents involve people who are not under the influence. Nearly 20% of fatal road accidents involve fatigue, even.

This is partly why .08 is the limit rather than, say, .05. The proportional contrasts between accidents involving people at .06 and people who haven't drank at all is negligible.

Again, I am completely against drunk driving, and believe the penalties should be harsh (on a scale with regards to *how* drunk). However, I am unwilling to make the stretch to believe that drivers with ANY amount of alcohol are dangerous - at least not moreso than drivers in general

[Aramike]

Heck one evening I was having 2 or 3 beers, can't remember that exactly right now, and although I surely would've been under the limit, I didn't drive, because on that day those 2 or 3 beers made me feel very drunk. If it made you feel "very" drunk, than you were most likely over the limit. I'm a pretty big guy and 2 or 3 beers have little noticeable effect on me.

Oh, and I should point this out - I'm not a heavy drinker by any stretch. I don't touch hard alcohol EVER. Only beer. I love me some beer. :rock:

[CaptainHaplo]

Aramike, face it - you have sinned against your fellow man, and thus should be flogged in the street. After that, other horrible things should happen to you - all because you fail to understand that while the LAW says your ok - and the LAW was put in place by SOCIETY - apparently those on here who see things differently are the ones whose thoughts really matter.....

Instead of beating up on this guy - why don't all of you who are so blasted outraged start putting forth some efforts to change the things in society you don't like?

Its called a government "OF the People, BY the People, FOR the People" for a reason. Unfortunately - its easier apparently to get on here and fuss at one guy who did something you don't agree with, than it is to pick up the phone and call a local organization of MADD or SADD or similiar and ask what you can do to help. Its easier to berate a fellow community member WHO DID NOTHING WRONG UNDER THE LAW - that it is to write a letter to your State Congressman or Governor and be a voice to make things better.

Until you folks get a grip on respecting the law - regardless of whether or not you agree with it - you have no hope of doing anything positive. By respecting the law - which Aramike did - you can also exert influence on that law to change it to what you think is more appropriate.

Or - in other words - quit your fussin, get of your arses and act if you really give a damn.

[Aramike]

Aramike, face it - you have sinned against your fellow man, and thus should be flogged in the street. After that, other horrible things should happen to you - all because you fail to understand that while the LAW says your ok - and the LAW was put in place by SOCIETY - apparently those on here who see things differently are the ones whose thoughts really matter.....

Instead of beating up on this guy - why don't all of you who are so blasted outraged start putting forth some efforts to change the things in society you don't like?

Its called a government "OF the People, BY the People, FOR the People" for a reason. Unfortunately - its easier apparently to get on here and fuss at one guy who did something you don't agree with, than it is to pick up the phone and call a local organization of MADD or SADD or similiar and ask what you can do to help. Its easier to berate a fellow community member WHO DID NOTHING WRONG UNDER THE LAW - that it is to write a letter to your State Congressman or Governor and be a voice to make things better.

Until you folks get a grip on respecting the law - regardless of whether or not you agree with it - you have no hope of doing anything positive. By respecting the law - which Aramike did - you can also exert influence on that law to change it to what you think is more appropriate.

Or - in other words - quit your fussin, get of your arses and act if you really give a damn.Very succinct and right on the money. I appreciate it. :salute:

[roman2440]

Some statistics from the STA program:
http://www.county.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cntySheriff/content/042609TaskForceResults.pdf

Specifically that there were 225 traffic stops, and of those 152 citations were written.



If indeed the only reason they cited for pulling you over was as a random traffic stop, then indeed he violated your civil rights, in Wisconsin at least. Some states allow this, some don't. Those that allow such a thing do so on the basis that you know the traffic stop is there, and thusly you are knowingly heading into an area where you could randomly (or otherwise) be stopped.

As far as I can tell WI is one of those states that does not. I imagine that if you got a ticket for DUI from this (say you were wrong and were above .08 BAC) that you could've had it thrown out.

I totally agree that DUI checkpoints (and this STA program if implemented in the way you describe - that is that they pull people over without at least first observing some violation) are abominations and should be done away with. The logical macro extension of DUI checkpoints is checkpoints to check on other things in public places, and eventually leads to the police state. I cannot think of what I'd have to fear as a law-abiding citizen today, but I do not know what the future holds.

That doesn't mean you can't saturate an area with police and follow lots of cars - and pull over any that you can catch with even the minorest of violations. Thats fine - at least the initial point of contact was related to something they have established control over and agreed upon rules. Its not ok to just pull someone over because they happened to be there. We have due process for a reason.


As for the smell of alcohol in the car, you stated your wife was smashed drunk - so even if you didn't have any alcohol on your breath, the officer is sure to be able to have probable cause due to your wife. Again that wouldn't give him legal basis to conduct the traffic stop, however, if he did have a good legal basis for the traffic stop, he definately had probable cause to request BAC testing.

[CaptainHaplo]

Roman - welcome aboard!

Also - you have a very good point on the testing - once he got close enough to the car there was reason to test. I didn't even consider that portion. The stop itself, being "random" - probably was questionable under the law technically - but so few people care about what rights they really have that they won't question - thus allowing those rights to be slowly taken.

If your as sharp as you appear in picking up the reason to test - you will make a great addition to the GT community. Again - welcome aboard!

[Aramike]

Some statistics from the STA program:
http://www.county.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cntySheriff/content/042609TaskForceResults.pdf

Specifically that there were 225 traffic stops, and of those 152 citations were written.



If indeed the only reason they cited for pulling you over was as a random traffic stop, then indeed he violated your civil rights, in Wisconsin at least. Some states allow this, some don't. Those that allow such a thing do so on the basis that you know the traffic stop is there, and thusly you are knowingly heading into an area where you could randomly (or otherwise) be stopped.

As far as I can tell WI is one of those states that does not. I imagine that if you got a ticket for DUI from this (say you were wrong and were above .08 BAC) that you could've had it thrown out.

I totally agree that DUI checkpoints (and this STA program if implemented in the way you describe - that is that they pull people over without at least first observing some violation) are abominations and should be done away with. The logical macro extension of DUI checkpoints is checkpoints to check on other things in public places, and eventually leads to the police state. I cannot think of what I'd have to fear as a law-abiding citizen today, but I do not know what the future holds.

That doesn't mean you can't saturate an area with police and follow lots of cars - and pull over any that you can catch with even the minorest of violations. Thats fine - at least the initial point of contact was related to something they have established control over and agreed upon rules. Its not ok to just pull someone over because they happened to be there. We have due process for a reason.


As for the smell of alcohol in the car, you stated your wife was smashed drunk - so even if you didn't have any alcohol on your breath, the officer is sure to be able to have probable cause due to your wife. Again that wouldn't give him legal basis to conduct the traffic stop, however, if he did have a good legal basis for the traffic stop, he definately had probable cause to request BAC testing.Good post, roman. Actually, I'd looked up those same stats the night of the incident. While the raw numbers are impressive, I believe it's a situation of whether or not the ends justify the means (which is the reason I started this thread, as I thought the discussion would be interesting. Some people, including yourself, have made it so).

The reason for the STA program is due to checkpoints not being permitted in the state. Essentially, Sheriff David Clarke (who's a Democrat sheriff, a former Republican mayoral candidate, and altogether an odd (http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/34180154.html]odd) fellow (http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/34180154.html) and company are attempting to circumvent the restrictions on checkpoints in the state. A discussion on whether or not this was right or wrong was my goal and unfortunately some people took it as an opportunity to get personal.

As far as the car smelling like alcohol due to my wife, good hypothesis based upon details, although I still don't believe it was an issue.

Finally, like Haplo said, you're definitely a good, thoughtful addition to the GT community. Welcome aboard!

[GoldenRivet]

It is not YOUR highway. It belongs to the taxpayers.

Are you implying that i dont pay my taxes?

under Obama's administration i pay more than my fair share of corporate and personal taxes... i pay all of that money so drunk, crack head, pot smoking inner-city trash can afford to buy their "Twenty Twos", their alcohol, and their drugs and then proceed to drive intoxicated all over the roads - that i own as a tax payer.

The police CAN stop you and test you if even the slightest question on your ability to safely operate the vechicle.

Zach... did you even read my post or did you just smell a right wing conservative and automatically launch into Al Gore mode and start ranting about global warming and corporate criminals and big business and tea parties?

like i said - cops have no right to stop you UNLESS you exhibit suspicion of wrong doing. (ie... dead body dragging behind the car, failure to yield, speeding, cant maintain lanes... blood all over the vehicle etc etc)

my view on this is simple.

1. Never drive if you have had 3 or more beers (assume 12 oz bottles)

2. The police have no right to stop you unless you prove to be suspect of some wrong doing... ie a body dragging behind your vehicle, or a trunk popped open revealing a bound and gagged hooker, or your unable to maintain lanes etc

Before Zachstar has any further aneurysm perhaps i should clarify my post just a tiny bit so that even he can understand it:

MY personal limit for myself is

1. If I have had more than 3 beers (assuming 12 oz bottles) over a period of 30 minutes per bottle - i hand the keys off to someone else. *** In many many cases... i have handed off the keys after stomaching only ONE beer. but generally 3 "6 point" Texas beers over a 90 minute period is my personal limit.

as for #2... I maintain that the police have no right to stop you UNLESS YOU PROVE TO BE SUSPICIOUS OF WRONG DOING.

sorry Zach... i have been a victim of hit and run in a head on collision by a drunk driver that caused injury to my passenger and myself... i know first hand what it is like to face life threatening danger from someone who is driving drunk.

i have never been guilty of it myself... i have far too much to lose - nor would i ever endanger others on the public highway system.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I think you are misunderstanding what ZS said, GR. I think I can translate it more clearly. I speak liberalese. Translations are in bold.


Wrong on both counts.
Shutup.

Any beer recently ingested impairs your ability to drive. No matter how safe or how much you trust yourself. It is not YOUR highway. It belongs to the taxpayers. Don't like it? Pull a tea party but don't use any road to get there as that is obviously socialism! You may be under the limit but you are morally impaired in my view.
You're a greedy bastard who doesn't want to share. I'm a taxypayer, you're just one of those rich people who takes money from us. Obviously, you are against all taxes. I don't agree with you, so you have a moral deficiency*.

The police have the duty to protect folks and the courts have ruled for that time and time again. Folks who constantly complain about the constitutionality of the stops conveniently fail to note the numerous court rulings on the subject.
I hate lawyers, but I have no idea what they do or why so many are in congress. But I love lawmakers:yeah:
The Constitution is written in Greek.

The police CAN stop you and test you if even the slightest question on your ability to safely operate the vechicle.
I should be the police.

And frankly I do not believe Arm was driving "Stone Cold Sober" I think his check was valid but a random bit of bad luck for the rest of us in my view that he tested under the limit at the time and was not drug away to jail to face harsh fines.

I have never read "The Gulag Archipelago", so I do not know that I would make a great NKVD agent. Or KGB agent. Or whatever. I'm a liberal so simply changing the name of something is equivalent to changing policy for me.
--------------------------------

*In Liberalese, moral has a dual meaning. When used by the religious right, it can be called any number of things (see: derogatory terms) When used by a liberal, it means: I spent ten seconds wondering about inequality in society.

[roman2440]

The reason for the STA program is due to checkpoints not being permitted in the state. Essentially, Sheriff David Clarke (who's a Democrat sheriff, a former Republican mayoral candidate, and altogether an odd (http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/34180154.html]odd) fellow (http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/34180154.html) and company are attempting to circumvent the restrictions on checkpoints in the state. A discussion on whether or not this was right or wrong was my goal and unfortunately some people took it as an opportunity to get personal.

Finally, like Haplo said, you're definitely a good, thoughtful addition to the GT community. Welcome aboard!

Thats the rub, even if you had been smashed drunk and above .08 BAC, the whole stop would have been illegal and wrong if the officer did not observe some violation prior to the stop. If indeed this is the way they are operating then they are wasting a lot of time - any citations they put forward would be illegal and easily thrown out.

This kind of attempt to circumvent legal process could be entirerly wrong - but it wouldn't be hard to 'fix'. Just change the MOP to include a requirement to observe some fault (no matter how minor) prior to conducting the random traffic stop. Sadly this would deepen the inefficiency of such a policy, but it is neccessary to maintain the civil rights of the people being pulled over.


Thanks for the complement, I've been a lurker for some time and just decided to weigh in recently.


As for those that make this a personal crusade, lay off. The original question is whether or not this was a violation of civil rights, and no matter how evil or vile or dangerous an action taken is, its not an excuse to throw civil rights out the door. Regardless of whether Aramike was stone cold sober or smashing drunk, or anywhere in between, the police are required to follow the law and cannot stop him without some reason.

How Aramike determines if he is sober enough to drive or not isn't really in question - it doesn't matter for the sake of this discussion. If anything it would be tangental to the issue of the validity of arbitrary legal limits in terms of the reason we have to set such limits where they are (speaking to whether or not an average person is capable of properly determining when they are sober enough to drive). Even if he had failed to properly gauge his BAC and happened to be above .08 we still could be having this same conversation about the traffic stop.