Pulled Over after Drinking and Driving

[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

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.

[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.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

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.

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

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

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?

[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.

[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: