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

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.