[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

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?

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.