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.

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

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:

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

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.

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:

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

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.

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

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."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.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.