"If you don't know about it, then you're a victim of your own ignorance." DC DUI law

Status
Not open for further replies.
Keep about 1/4 oz of Everclear in a small blister-bubble or such in your car. If you get pulled over, put it in your mouth and keep it in your cheek. If he wants you to blow in the little tube, crush it (spilling the Everclear) and blow.

Let's see how many convictions he gets when his brethalyzer shows you at three or four times LD50

It dont work that way, brother. First, you get a minimum of a fifteen minute deprivation period. Second, I make sure your mouth is empty. If its not, you get a refusal, and you go to jail. Third, if you were to blow that high, the breath test would be deemed a "No Sample, and the whole thing would be repeated, as it would be obvious you were not that drunk.

DUI Laws are a very good thing, and they are pretty foolproof when it comes to the tests administered.
 
It dont work that way, brother. First, you get a minimum of a fifteen minute deprivation period. Second, I make sure your mouth is empty. If its not, you get a refusal, and you go to jail. Third, if you were to blow that high, the breath test would be deemed a "No Sample, and the whole thing would be repeated, as it would be obvious you were not that drunk.
It was an amusing thought anyway.
 
Yes, it is entertaining. Youd be amazed the crap people try to pull on the Intoxylyzer. Ive found more weird crap in folk's mouths...pennies, dope, rocks, glass, etc, all because they heard it will make the test invalid.
 
"Even one drink can get you in trouble in D.C.," said Thomas Key, a lawyer who successfully defended a client who had a blood alcohol level of .03. "They might not win a lot of these cases or prosecute them, but they're still arresting people."

And this is where the police cross the line between being a body that enforces laws to one that acts as judge and jury.
 
It sounds to me like it's an update of the old speed trap. $400 for the diversion program and you don't have a DUI on your record......I'd be interested to know who gets that $400.

Jeff
 
Sorry all, but I'm going to have to go against the grain here. As I understand it, the cop was well within his rights to arrest the woman, regardless of how much she had to drink, and here's why. He was able to pull her over because she was driving at night with her headlights out, that warrants a traffic stop if the officer so chooses. Now most police officers will not just 'pull someone out of their car, cuff them, and throw them in the back of a squad' for not having their headlights on as this woman stated. All stories are one sided, remember that. My guess is that when the PO went up to the womans car, he smelled the alcohol on her, giving him probable cause to give her a field sobriety test on the spot. Given the combination of alcohol on her breath (after she originally told him she didn't 'really' have anything to drink, and then changed her story) and her lights out while driving at night, I may well have done the same thing in his position. Furthermore, she failed multiple parts of the field sobriety test, whether or not this should be considered 'fair' is negligible, the PO felt that she was intoxicated, and took the correct action. It doesn't matter what your BAC is according to the law, the law leaves the descretion up to the offcer and the reason for that is different people react differently to alcohol in their bodies, i.e. tolerance. Some people can function just fine at .06 or .07, and some people can't at .03 or .04, there are many other factors besides tolerance but the point is, just because she had a low BAC does not mean that it didn't affect her, she could have been very impaired (key word impaired) from a BAC of .03. She won't admit the fact that she was impaired while driving and get help, insted she wants to fight the charge and (basically) call a seasoned police officer an incomptent piece of ???? in the process. Shame on her. :cuss:
(zipping up flame suit...)

BTW, 1 drink can get you in trouble in most any state, I believe the law is called DWI (driving while impaired) as opposed to DUI (driving under the influence). Basically what I was trying to say earlier - this law puts you at fault if you are impaired, not if you are over the legal limit. But like is fairly common, I could be wrong.
 
Sorry tater, this looks to me like a simple "revenue-enhancement" scheme rather than a public safety issue.

Or, if we want to go your way, let us do road blocks and lock up everyone who has had too much coffee, or anyone who has taken a cold pill, or some cough syrup, or didn't get much sleep last night because of a sick baby, etc. etc. etc. I bet you could make an argument that all of these people are 'impaired' in some way.

Only perfect people, in perfect condition, get to drive I guess (or get to own guns?).
 
"Why?" Bolton remembers saying. "I passed all your little tests."

She got busted because she wasn't properly subservient.

Corey Buffo, the DMV's general counsel, explained that the agency drops its procedures only after a case goes to trial and is dismissed on its merits. "Our burden of proof is lower" than the Superior Court's, he said. "Not enough evidence for them may be enough evidence for us." Yesterday, the DMV decided not to suspend her privileges and issued her a warning instead.

Where was her due process here? The DMV can decide on their own she is guilty and punish her without trial. And you guys think this is OK?
 
patrol120, my problem with your final comment is that it's hard for me to believe that somebody who can't safely control their vehicle while below 0.08 could control a vehicle at 0.00.

If you stopped them for apparently-impaired driving, and they're below 0.08, I don't think booze had much to do with the problem.

And I'm speaking as one who--not often--has been in the conditon of, "But, oshiffer, I gotta drive! I'm too drunk to bleepin' walk!" :D But, me having safely made it home, never a DWI.

Regardless, 0.01 is purely a revenue-raising deal. The solution is to make it highly publicized. The loss of revenue to the various trendy places in Georgetown will create enough political pressure to bring change.

Art
 
I've been to training on the BAC DataMaster machine, and the margun for error is .005%. So, it is entirely possible that a result of .01 is acually somewhere between .005 and .015.

As for impairment below .08%, I don't think that it is impossible, depending upon the person and that person's drinking experience. We've got an atorney floating around here that we swear wakes up in thmorning at a .08, and works his way up through the day. Yet, at the same time, this guy is capable of apperaing to be absolutely sober, in terms of co-ordination and such. By the same token, I had some juvenile cases where, juding by the video of the stop, you would expect a test rult well beyond a .08, due to coordination and such.
 
Yes, it is entertaining. Youd be amazed the crap people try to pull on the Intoxylyzer. Ive found more weird crap in folk's mouths...pennies, dope, rocks, glass, etc, all because they heard it will make the test invalid.
When the police first started using radar for speed limit enforcement, people did such things as put ball bearings in their hub caps and tied strips of aluminum foil to their car's antenna.

Pilgrim
 
Furthermore, she failed multiple parts of the field sobriety test, whether or not this should be considered 'fair' is negligible, the PO felt that she was intoxicated, and took the correct action.
When I trained for DUI enforcement, I was taught there was no such thing as passing or failing the field sobriety tests. As a result, I never put in my arrest report that so-and-so passed this test or failed that test. I reported instead what the driver did in taking the tests, i.e., he almost fell down. Or, he didn't follow instructions in performing the test.

The evaluation of a driver's degree of intoxication included his behavior before I even asked him to get out of his car for the field sobriety tests. I often encountered intoxicated drivers who couldn't find their driver's license in their wallets even though it was plainly visible to me. They would look past it, around it, and dig deep into their wallet to produce a credit card or a social security card. This observation went into my arrest report.

The point to be made is there is no single observable behavior that automatically leads the officer to conclude that an arrest is warranted. All those behaviors are recorded in the arrest report and through testimony in court causes the jury to decide the driver was under the influence and his driving was impaired.
 
I'd be tempted to pop a Listerine pocketstrip before I blew just to make life more difficult for the cop.

I wouldn't recommend this. I have a friend who was riding as a passenger during a normal traffic stop with a designated driver. While the officer was busy running the driver, he put a piece of chewing gum in his mouth and was instantly foricibly removed from the vehicle and choked until he spit out whatever it was he was "attempting to swallow". Once the police found out it was just gum, the hauled him in for PI. He was after all, out of the vehicle. :rolleyes:
 
In Virginia 0.08 is DWI and 0.05 is DUI under the per se rules (all that must happen is you blow the number for a conviction).
I do know someone who was stopped in Denver CO and charged with DUI. In CO that is drunk driving.
Virginia said 'not a problem' and they kept their drivers license since DUI is the lesser charge.
Luckily this was the only lesson required to stop the problem.
 
What happened afterwards?

Not much. He spent the night in jail and something like a fifty dollar fine. PI is extremely common apparently. Almost impossible to fight and certainly not worth more than the fifty dollar fine to fight. I know of a couple of folks who have gotten picked up on them walking home no more than a couple of blocks from a local bar. It doesn't seem to make much sense since the police keep talking about wanting to stop or curtail DUIs.
 
I know of a couple of folks who have gotten picked up on them walking home no more than a couple of blocks from a local bar. It doesn't seem to make much sense since the police keep talking about wanting to stop or curtail DUIs.
Seems strange to me too.

We received a new sergeant at our sub-station once. He wasn't newly promoted, but new in the sense that he hadn't worked that sub-station before. He asked me why weren't we arresting all these drunks that were walking about?

I answered that there were a lot of them, and the 37 mile trip to county jail to book them tied up a deputy for an hour and a half. So, as a result the deputies took the stance that if the drunk wasn't sleeping in the streets or puking on the mayor's wife we let them be.

When I worked graveyard shift, I took to parking in front of the 'wetback' bar just prior to closing. I parked in plain sight so the patrons would see me when they left. They would see me, put their car keys in their pocket, and walk home. That was just fine with me. Another benefit of my action is the amorous patrons decided it wasn't worth fighting over the few remaining bar hogs who were hustling their favors.

Pilgrim
 
I like your common sense approach to the situation, Pilgrim. Makes sense to me.
Biker :)
 
When the police first started using radar for speed limit enforcement, people did such things as put ball bearings in their hub caps and tied strips of aluminum foil to their car's antenna.

Some people still hang blank cds from their rear view mirror to foil police lasers...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top