Author Topic: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test  (Read 3897 times)

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

jefnvk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,478
  • I'll sleep away the days and ride the nights...
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2007, 06:19:49 PM »
I worry more about the hard line.  Me at 0.08 is going to be a lot different than a 90lb girl drunk for the first time and some 300lb alcoholic.

Either way, I leave guns and cars out of the equation whenever there is any question on legality.
I still say 'Give Detroit to Canada'

One of Many

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2007, 05:57:39 AM »
No two people react the same way under identical circumstances, even when sober. People react differently to various medications; the most common reaction is considered the norm, and all medications list a range of possible side effects; some people don't seem to suffer from side effects, while others are severely affected. Alcohol is a medicinal product that has adverse side effects when used in excess; each person will have a different threshold for what is considered excess, and a different reaction to that excess.

BAC testing is a means to lump everyone into a common class, and apply one standard to a widely variant outcome. There is a statistical method that determines what the most common alcohol level that produces an adverse effect is. It would be impossible for the justice system to treat each and every case involving the use of alcohol independently of all other cases. As long as ONE standard is applied equally to every person, no favoritism is being shown, even if the reading of the instrument may be variant between two people with the same consumption during the same time period.

I do not sympathize with people that drive after drinking alcohol, and get arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. I have had close relatives killed by a drunk driver hitting them head-on on the highway; I have also had close relatives drive under the influence of alcohol, and have numerous accidents because of alcohol (including driving into the side of a building that "just jumped out in front of them"). It is obvious that people that want to drink and drive think there should be no restrictions, and just as obvious that people that do NOT want people driving after drinking think that the restrictions are too lax. What we have is a compromise, brought by political expediency; that is not likely to change, so people just have to learn to deal with it. Inaccurate testing devices are just a loophole for people driving under the influence, that may allow them to avoid serious legal consequences for their irresponsible actions. They will eventually pay some consequences for their actions; no one will escape the final judgment, and there aren't any loopholes in that court.

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2007, 06:08:00 AM »
If I had my way, there would be zero tolerance for drinking and driving. Any alcohol whatsoever would/should be a violation IMO.

Moondoggie

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 523
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2007, 08:26:26 AM »
I doubt that many, if any, rely solely on the portable breathalyzer as evidence of BAC.  It's only a tool to gauge if a more accurate test is called for.  It's one step above the field sobriety tests along the path of "probable cause".  Believe me, if you're near/over the limit, a moderately experienced and sober officer has no problem determining that alongside the road.

In our jurisdiciton, the suspect goes to the ER for a blood draw.  The blood sample (2 tubes) goes to the state lab.  One of the tubes is preserved in case the defendant wants an independent lab test of the specimin.  Due process is preserved.

Amazingly, my department's PBT's yeild a reading in the field that is almost identical to the blood specimin.

BTW, in several states, it is illegal to possess a firearm with ANY alcohol in your system.

Driving is a privelege....follow the rules and respect the rights of the others on the road and you won't have a problem.  I suspect that those who defend the rights of the drunk driver would have a change of heart if they had to experience a loved one being killed/maimed by a drunk driver.

Known from coast to coast, almost!

slzy

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2007, 04:48:29 PM »
don't drink and drive. one less thing to worry about.

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2007, 05:19:13 PM »
let the appeals begin

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,859
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2007, 06:52:42 PM »
Of course we don't want people endangering others on the road-but there's something to be said here in line with the thread title about having a standard for a crime like DUI that is arbitrary and unfair.  DUI's rightly carry a heavy social stigma-because of that, the penalties should be administered as impartially as possible. 

If you think the rule should be that only a .00000 bac is acceptable, I say argue for that.  But being against any alcohol in a driver's bloodstream is not a good reason to support a .08 rule that is enforced by inaccurate equipment.  The result will be that you have people who are in fact following the law, and who intend to follow the law, end up getting the new scarlet letters on their rapsheets.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34,595
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2007, 07:32:58 PM »
If I had my way, there would be zero tolerance for drinking and driving. Any alcohol whatsoever would/should be a violation IMO.
And there for but for the grace of God go we....  Cheesy

Personally, I think there should be a difference between driving with alcohol in your system and driving impaired.  They are not the same thing to me.  Even a split limit that would allow a lesser penalty would be better than ZERO TOLERANCE.  Zero Tolerance has worked so well in our schools after all.  At this point, enforcement is so screwed up that people who are actually trying to sleep it off in their car can be arrested for DUI without even the engine running.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't. 

How many drunk drivers who actually cause accidents are only at 0.08?  I haven't ever seen statistics that show wrecks or something similar versus BAC. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34,595
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2007, 07:55:01 PM »
If DUI were really about public safety, you would see cops hanging out at bars and giving voluntary breathalyser tests to people as they leave.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Euclidean

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2007, 07:59:53 PM »
If I had my way, there would be zero tolerance for drinking and driving. Any alcohol whatsoever would/should be a violation IMO.

Riles, a big part of me agrees with you.  I carry in my wallet, and have now for several years, the remains of a black balloon released at Tyler's funeral.  He was 14 years old.  Over six hundred people attended his funeral, the small church was standing room only.  Cause of death, his own father, drunk, and behind the wheel.

We all loved Tyler.  I loved Tyler, I'll admit it.  I won't tell you all he was a saint or perfect, but he was a genuinely decent person who had triumphed over an absolutely horrible set of circumstances.  He died the most gorey, horrific, pointless, meaningless death imaginable.

That was almost 5 years ago.  The man that killed him has not spent one, not one, night in jail.  When he finally does go to jail, he will get a light sentence because he has an expensive attorney on his side, and the man will be a model prisoner because jail will force him to sober up, and he'll get parole early on.  He's a different man when he's sober.  Of course, he'll be right back on the sauce again, and driving, once he gets out of the cooler.

When he's out of jail, he terrorizes members of my family in ways I can't even begin to enumerate, such as vandalizing his own son's grave.

In my heart of hearts I must confess I hate the son of a bitch.  Not very Christian of me is it?  But I can't forgive him.  A hypocrite am I.

Right after this happened, for about six months, I made a knee jerk reaction.   DUI penalties were all too lenient all of a sudden.  The BAC should be lowered so ridiculously low the only way people could drink would be at home or if they had someone else drive them.  The truth is though, it's not right to rake a whole bunch of other people over the coals just to get revenge on this piece of human filth.  Come to think of it, even if such an effort to change the laws did succeed, it wouldn't even affect him, so the whole thing is asinine.

It took a while.  You have to understand, I don't drink and I never plan to start.  People don't believe me when I tell them I have never imbibed a beer.  But I gradually began to meet people who do drink a beer every so often and the little light went on in my head that you know what, some people happen to like it, and they also happen to be able to enjoy it without causing any problems for anyone else.

But I also have to face the fact that the reason Tyler is getting any justice at all is because his dad was drunk as a skunk.  I know first hand we can't just throw up our hands and say it's okay to endanger people in this manner.

And then I just get mad as hell.  All I can see is that stupid son of a bitch laughing through his yellow teeth.  He's shown no remorse, all he cares about is not going to jail.  He blames his son's death on the family.

So I have to admit my own feelings on DUI are less than rational.  I'm not the person you should turn to for an objective, informed opinion.  But more level headed people should probably consider the ramifications of any effort to make enforcement of DUI laws more lax.

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2007, 08:40:55 PM »
If you think the rule should be that only a .00000 bac is acceptable, I say argue for that.  But being against any alcohol in a driver's bloodstream is not a good reason to support a .08 rule that is enforced by inaccurate equipment.  The result will be that you have people who are in fact following the law, and who intend to follow the law, end up getting the new scarlet letters on their rapsheets.

Just have to be a bit pedantic today, but there are people who will register positive amounts of alcohol even if they haven't had a drop for months.

I'm almost the definition of a lightweight - I drink, on average, about four drinks a year.  I feel the effects of even one drink fairly heavily.

Still, 15 minutes to a half hour later and I'm fine.

The impairment an average person has after one drink* is generally so low that it's swamped by other differences like have they taken any cold medication, did they get a good nights sleep, are they worrying about a test, did they get into a fight with family/significant other, etc...

Having a solid level is good for criminal court systems - otherwise you can run into problems like with the cop who 20% of his arrests blew .000 - but he arrested them for DUI anyways(He'd just say that it was 'illegal drugs').  A majority of his cases ended up being thrown out or failing.  He ended up suspended and resigning.  What he used to do would be to follow people who left a bar/party and pop them for DUI - no matter what.  I could of stopped at a bar to pick something up or talk to a friend(not drinking a drop), then leave, and he'd decide to arrest me for DUI while I'm in the parking lot.

It shouldn't be based purely on the officer's word.  I know the BAC isn't perfect, but at least it can be measured.

Heck, my grandfather has occasionally had fun with the cops, he's handicapped and they've tried to get him for DUI a couple times as due to his handicaps he has no chance of passing a DUI test(he can barely walk as it is), and can't blow hard enough for the breath test.  So they haul him in for a blood test - all the medical personnel in the county know him by name, and he knows them.

*I'd prefer this to be adjusted to body weight and sex, but ah well.

Quote
At this point, enforcement is so screwed up that people who are actually trying to sleep it off in their car can be arrested for DUI without even the engine running.

Truth.

Quote
If DUI were really about public safety, you would see cops hanging out at bars and giving voluntary breathalyser tests to people as they leave.

Actually, free rides home would be even better.  Heck, there's bars that'll stick a mini-motorcycle in your trunk, have an employee drive you home, then use the motorcycle to get back to the bar.

Personally, I'd almost argue for taking a cab to the bar - that way you aren't tempted to drive home.

Quote
Right after this happened, for about six months, I made a knee jerk reaction.   DUI penalties were all too lenient all of a sudden.  The BAC should be lowered so ridiculously low the only way people could drink would be at home or if they had someone else drive them.  The truth is though, it's not right to rake a whole bunch of other people over the coals just to get revenge on this piece of human filth.  Come to think of it, even if such an effort to change the laws did succeed, it wouldn't even affect him, so the whole thing is asinine.

I've read somewhere that the vast majority of DUI related accidents have people far above .10, much less .08 or below.  Part of the reason most states set it to that level is that studies couldn't find a statistically significant increase in accidents with BACs below that.  IE they can't even be sure that it increases the risk of accidents.  People get into accidents even stone cold sober.  Much like how lung cancer happens even when people don't smoke, so you can't blame every case of a smoker getting lung cancer on the fact that they smoke.

Soybomb

  • New Member
  • Posts: 35
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2007, 09:43:58 PM »
Quote
If I had my way, there would be zero tolerance for drinking and driving. Any alcohol whatsoever would/should be a violation IMO.
I'm quite the opposite, I think I should be allowed to drive while I'm enjoying a beer.  What would you gain from prosecuting me if I'm not the slightest bit impaired by a beer?  Shouldn't you worry more about the guy thats not paying attention because he's thinking about the fight he had with his wife the last night, the person stressed out from work, the person who worked a late shift and is about to fall asleep, the people talking and not paying attention, the soccer mom watching her kids to be sure they're eating, the person on the cell phone, etc?  We've become nearly as unfoundedly scared of alcohol as we have as guns.  Don't drive if you're impaired, past that why worry what I've been drinking?

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #13 on: November 04, 2007, 02:03:20 AM »
If you don't break any traffic laws, you haven't actually committed any crime.  Throw the book at folks who actually hurt someone else, hit those who violate traffic ordinances with the same punishment sober violators get and otherwise quit prosecuting objectively safe drivers who exceed an absolutely arbitrary number.

Study after study shows that 90+% of actual bodily harm accidents are caused by serial drunk drivers with BAC's that far exceed even .10, much less MADD's histrionic .08%.  Most drivers with a drink or two never cause any harm at all and never will, they are simply not impaired due to individual tolerances.  The accidents by such folks involved mirror those by sober drivers who are merely sleepy or distracted by cell phones, children, passengers and the like.

Heck, most accidents, fatal and non, are caused by sober drivers who have multiple previous sober accidents on their records.  They are just bad drivers.
"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34,595
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #14 on: November 04, 2007, 08:55:50 AM »
I can agree with that.  There are a number of people who still get multiple DUI offenses even though the penalties are tougher these days. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

SkunkApe

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #15 on: November 05, 2007, 02:34:08 AM »
The DUI exception to the Constitution:

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09#a162


Paddy

  • Guest
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #16 on: November 05, 2007, 05:21:38 AM »
The DUI exception to the Constitution:

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09#a162



The hyperbole and tortured 'logic' on that page are off the scale. Forget about Islamic extremism, a nuclear Iran or North Korea, MADD is the greatest single threat to our freedoms?

There is no Constutionally protected 'right' to drive.  Driving is a privilege you accept SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS.  You don't want to be subject to those conditions?  Fine, don't drive.  It's that simple.

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2007, 06:17:33 AM »
Study after study shows that 90+% of actual bodily harm accidents are caused by serial drunk drivers with BAC's that far exceed even .10, much less MADD's histrionic .08%.  Most drivers with a drink or two never cause any harm at all and never will, they are simply not impaired due to individual tolerances.  The accidents by such folks involved mirror those by sober drivers who are merely sleepy or distracted by cell phones, children, passengers and the like.

Yep.  Which is why I don't support lowering the limits any further.  It's like complaining about that guy who zips through a school zone at 75mph - and people arguing that the proper response would be to lower the speed limit from 25 to 15 mph.

Hitting the guy for going 60 over rather than 50 over doesn't change the penalties much, but you're going to be swamping the system  with people doing 5-10 over, with no appreciable gain in safety.  Might even be more dangerous as drivers become frustrated and act dangerously/impolitely.

Quote
Heck, most accidents, fatal and non, are caused by sober drivers who have multiple previous sober accidents on their records.  They are just bad drivers.

Agreed.

Len Budney

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,023
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #18 on: November 05, 2007, 06:22:52 AM »
There is no Constutionally protected 'right' to drive.  Driving is a privilege you accept SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS.  You don't want to be subject to those conditions?  Fine, don't drive.  It's that simple.

You couldn't ask for a more perfect argument for road privatization. If government owns the roads, one can twist the logic of private property to argue that driving without a license is "trespassing," which is what Riley's statement above boils down to. The trouble, of course, is that the property was either stolen outright (using eminent domain), or purchased with stolen funds (using taxation). They're only "property" in the sense that a drug-dealer's "turf" is "property."

--Len.
In a cannibal society, vegetarians arouse suspicion.

atomd

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2007, 08:34:27 AM »
MADD is a bunch of liars and hypocrites. For example, last year they supported a ballot question that would allow the granting of up to almost 3000 new liquor licenses in Massachusetts because......the people who wanted the licenses donated a ton of money to them. They even participated in a radio ad that gave their support to the question. Once their hypocrisy hit the news, they backed out and said they had a "neutral" stance on the bill. News story: http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/10/05/liquor_sellers_hit_madds_ties_to_supporters_of_wine_measure/

That's not all though. They regularly solicit alcohol retailers and distributors for donations but also run their own biased "sting operations" on the same places they ask money from. They submit their findings to the newspapers who publish them. There are people out there who claim that if they don't donate, they are scared that they might just end up with some bad press because of it. Even their literature is full of misinformation. Of course hardly anyone will say anything bad about them because they will get torn apart by the media. It's only a matter of time before they get themselves into trouble though.

zahc

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,871
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #20 on: November 05, 2007, 11:50:34 AM »
Since the majority of accidents are caused by sober drivers, I think driving sober should be illegal.
Maybe a rare occurence, but then you only have to get murdered once to ruin your whole day.
--Tallpine

SomeKid

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 437
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #21 on: November 05, 2007, 12:03:53 PM »
Riley,

You may not have a written write to drive, however, you do NOT give up rights to partake in driving. If the linked article is accurate, and some states deny right to jury trials (among other abuses) there is a problem there.

Solution.

Set a limit. .08, .1, .15, it doesn't matter. You break the limit, you spend 12 hours in jail (sobering period, could be 8, could be 16, you get the idea). You get a ticket (not a summon, but a ticket, like a speeding ticket.) You can pay the fine, or contest in court, with the same rights etc as normal. Amount can be determined by how wasted you were, and the # of offenses.

What if you damage someone else's property? Say a fence? Pay all the victims expenses. In double.

What if you injure a person, but it does not even leave a scar? Pay all their medical bills. Pay a huge chunk to them as damages. Pay fines. Spend a month in jail, preferably some kind of work camp.

What if you injure someone severely/kill them? Treat it like 1st degree murder, if convicted, execution is the punishment.

This is a pretty fair system. It deals with repeat offenders, but also keeps first timers from being battered. What do y'all think?

Strings

  • Guest
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #22 on: November 05, 2007, 12:36:43 PM »
Riley, you amaze me sometimes.

 It's not about a "right to drive". It's about rights being taken away: and he does list a whole bunch that *I*, personally, don't want to give up...

 There's also the fact that, if you leave the bar and climb into the back seat of your car, you can still get nailed for DWI... if you've got your keys on you. Nevermind you're in the back seat to sleep it off, therefor acting responsibly...

Thor

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,230
  • US Navy (retired)
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #23 on: November 05, 2007, 03:35:27 PM »
Having been overseas to many different countries and having partied in every one of them, where I see the problem is the absolute lack of cabs and/or other public transportation. I'd happily take a cab if they were readily available and reasonably (read: FAIR) priced. However, they aren't in either case. People that use public transportation have also become a target of the criminals. The US needs to change a LOT of things in regards to drinking and driving. For instance, being in the back seat of one's vehicle to "sleep it off". WHY should that even be considered a crime?? It gets cold in MN. Hell, as long as a person doesn't have the intent to drive, then the vehicle should even be able to be running and have the heat going. MADD is to drinking & driving as the anti-gun lobby is to gun owners.
" a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand." - Lucius Annaeus

for Military, Vets, & Supporters, check out:
USMILNET

Conservative Discussion Forum


Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
Re: DUI - an arbitrary standard and, now revealed, an inaccurate test
« Reply #24 on: November 05, 2007, 07:24:15 PM »
For instance, being in the back seat of one's vehicle to "sleep it off". WHY should that even be considered a crime?? It gets cold in MN. Hell, as long as a person doesn't have the intent to drive, then the vehicle should even be able to be running and have the heat going. MADD is to drinking & driving as the anti-gun lobby is to gun owners.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's not on a public road system it shouldn't matter to the police.  So the guy sleeping it off in the bar's parking lot should be just fine.  Even if he is parked on the road, as long as he's legally parked and not operating the vehicle(in the back asleep ISN'T DRIVING!!!!), he should be good.

Now, the fact that he feels the need to get so smashed he can't drive home and ends up sleeping in his car is a different concern.

A little common sense is needed, I most certainly agree.  Worst case?  Give the guy a ride home in the police car.  He did the right thing - didn't go driving while impaired.  Don't penalize him for it.