Police drawing blood from DWI suspects.

[mek42]

Dalworthington Garden's Police Chief Bill Waybourn disagrees, saying his officers receive medical training as blood technicians. "Going to a nurse or a hospital would have been very difficult, and its a simple, simple, task medically speaking," said Chief Waybourn.

People really don't know they're being recorded even when the tape is openly running, do they?  I can just see the arrestee's attorney, "So it would have been very difficult to take my client to a medical facility?"  Chief: "Yes."  Attorney: "So if my client had a heart attack while in custody he would have likely died?"

Here in NY refusing a breathalyzer test is equivalent to pleading guilty to the DWI charge.

[MicroBalrog]

Here in NY refusing a breathalyzer test is equivalent to pleading guilty to the DWI charge.

Wouldn't this be open to challenges?

[LadySmith]

The police can take your blood, but hey, they can't take your grill.
So I guess things aren't that bad yet.

[Firethorn]

Here in NY refusing a breathalyzer test is equivalent to pleading guilty to the DWI charge.

Wouldn't this be open to challenges?

In many cases, it's a 'for the GOOD OF THE CHILDREN!!!!'.  After all, any alcohol when you're driving is bad, after that, any inaccuracies are moot.

If you want to contest it, I'd go for an independent study - get a group of people, have them drink varying amounts then draw blood & breathalize at various times.

See how close the results match.  Personally, as I don't drink and drive, not even one, I don't have to worry about it.

Of course, the cops have fun with grandpa - he can't blow hard enough to satisfy the machine.  So they have to haul him to the hospital - where all the staff greet him by name, and yes, he walks like that because of spinal damage from an accident and polio as a child.  His BAC comes up .000

Personally, I think the .08 thing is about the minimum you want the standard.  We don't NEED to catch those with BACs around .08 to save a significant amount of lives.  We need those at .16 and up much more so.  To put it another way - Some fatal crashes happen even with 100% sober people.  I don't have the statistics, but I don't think that .08 people are involved in that many more.  99.99% of the fatal/serious injury/farked up situation crashes/vehicle homocides I've heard about had people over .15/.16.  Many north of .2.

Get the serious DUI types off the road first.  Figure out a punishment/rehab that stops them from driving drunk.  Do a blood test just to be on the safe side until an independent study comes up about the accuracy of the breath tests - I've heard that many officers will give the instructions wrong to get a higher reading.  Still requires alcohol in the system though.

[MicroBalrog]

Wouldn't this be open to challenges?

By this I mean, 5th Amendment challenges.

[ilbob]

Wouldn't this be open to challenges?

By this I mean, 5th Amendment challenges.

most of our constitutional rights have long been eliminated in favor of making things easier on government.

[wmenorr67]

Wouldn't this be open to challenges?

By this I mean, 5th Amendment challenges.

In most if not all states by having a drivers license you give implied consent to have your BAC tested.

[grampster]

"Personally, I think the .08 thing is about the minimum you want the standard.  We don't NEED to catch those with BACs around .08 to save a significant amount of lives.  We need those at .16 and up much more so.  To put it another way - Some fatal crashes happen even with 100% sober people.  I don't have the statistics, but I don't think that .08 people are involved in that many more.  99.99% of the fatal/serious injury/farked up situation crashes/vehicle homocides I've heard about had people over .15/.16.  Many north of .2." (firethorn)

Your stats are pretty accurate.  I read an article about a year ago someplace that had the percentage at about 97% of alcohol involved injury/death accidents were above .15 bac. and nearly all of these were chronic alcohol abusers.

While I'm not an advocate of drinking and driving, the .08 bac is way too low in relation to the punishment that is meted out.  In most cases, the monetary fines, insurance premium increases, the requirements to attend alcohol schools run by zealots, and loss of drivers license is more severe punishment that is received by dangerous felons.
To impose this draconian punishment at .08 is more than unreasonable and causes more disrespect for the law.  The percentage of people driving with suspended licenses are bemoaned by the zealots without giving any though to why people are forced to drive on suspended ops because of draconian punishment for relatively minor alcohol offenses.

Common sense was thrown out the window regarding drinking and driving.  First offense at .08-.10 perhaps should get one a fine, .10-.15 a heavy fine and perhaps a few days of humiliating public service.   .15 and above should be treated as .08 is now.

No, I've never been arrested for DUI.  I was in LE and have a good deal of experience dealing with drunk drivers.

[MechAg94]

I agree with Grampster and Firethorn.  I think the law was written by MADD and others who really are mad and insanely emotional over this issue.  I have seen too many discussions where someone with a personal loss starts throwing out ridiculous emotional arguments about executing all drunk drivers and such.  I agree that we should throw the book at truly drunk and dangerous drivers, but these days we go after people are not even buzzed and people who are trying to sleep it off in their car.  People have gotten DUI convictions when their car wasn't even running.  Possession of the keys was implied intent to drive or something like that.  That is beyond ridiculous.  Why don't they just pass a law that being alive is a misdemeanor and cops just randomly stop by a few houses every day and issue citations.  The money will be used for education after all so it is for a good cause. 

Firethorn, if you can find the link that has that statistic, I would really appreciate it. 

[Firethorn]

but these days we go after people are not even buzzed and people who are trying to sleep it off in their car.

We see people driving with far more impairment every day, perfectly legally.  Didn't get a good night's sleep?  Equivalent* to around a .05.  Talking on a cell phone?  Worse.  Have a cold?  You shouldn't be driving.

  People have gotten DUI convictions when their car wasn't even running.  Possession of the keys was implied intent to drive or something like that.  That is beyond ridiculous.  Why don't they just pass a law that being alive is a misdemeanor and cops just randomly stop by a few houses every day and issue citations.  The money will be used for education after all so it is for a good cause. 

People have been convicted of DUI when they were found asleep, in their car, in the parking lot of the bar they got drunk in.  The police had to wake some of them up.  The cars were dead cold.

I call that a violation - even though I don't approve of getting drunk, they at least didn't drive.  I don't care about them having the 'ability' to drive.  You want to go that far, you might as well go into somebody's house, see the car keys handing off a hook/on the table somewhere, and the occupant is drunk.  DUI time, after all they had the means!

Firethorn, if you can find the link that has that statistic, I would really appreciate it.

It's not a real statistic, it's a personal observation.  Though the following link has some interesting observations.  For example, it points out that while we've gotten alcohol related fatalities down, non-alcoholic ones have gone up.  Sounds a lot like the gun grabbers who look at firearm homicides rather than looking to reduce the overall homicide rate.  Also, gotta love the whole 'alcohol related' part.  There's no determination if the alcohol was a contributing factor, if present it's assumed to be the fault.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/drinkinganddriving.html

What I have never seen, but what I would like to see, is a statistic showing accident likelihood on the basis of miles driven, at what given alcohol level.  Including zero.  The problem we have now is that we don't have any good figures at how many people drive at around .08% and simply never get caught because they don't give the cops any reason to stop them.

We can't automatically assume an accident that is alcohol related is alcohol caused.  I've had some accidents.  Every single one of them was when I was stone cold sober.  Heck, I got run off the road recently by a turning tractor(he didn't see me, I didn't see any turn signals, so I was going to pass when he went to make a left).  It was around noon, dry roads, etc...  If I'd been drinking, I could see it being worse - slowed reactions making it so that I hit the tractor rather than evading into the ditch.

So, you figure out the sober accident rate per mile, the over .06/.10/.14/.18/.22 accident rate, the associated fatality rate(potentially more fatal accidents with drunks, more fender benders with cars).

By all means, if you can get enough data, graph it all out.  With six categories(don't forget sober), you should be able to extrapolate a reasonably accurate curve.  Heck, use exact figures if you have them.

I'd be willing to bet that .08 would end up being 'statistically insignificant'.

*Different people are impaired differently by the same BAC level.