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

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-d...accidents.html

Also look at this.

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

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

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.

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 ;)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Not "one drink", one 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.

[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:

I wonder...

http://www.tournorfolk.co.uk/wells/w...risdancing.jpg

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.

Exactly. :up: