To blow or not to blow...

In my younger days I drank a lot of beer. Never much cared for liquor
or wine. My rule of thumb was to never drink until after dinner.
Having eaten, I could seemingly drink all the beer I cared to and
hardly feel it. Then I'd go to bed and sleep well - and wake up
feeling fine the next day.

I always walked back to where I was staying - or took a taxi. The
police never bothered me.....

Like the man said, YMMV.

David Johnson

On Feb 7, 3:29*pm, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
wrote:
Dallas wrote:
I would say never take a field test as those are completely subjective.

Many States automatically suspend your driver's licence for refusal to take
an alcohol test. *From a constitutional point of view, I don't understand
why the 5th Amendment doesn't come into play here. *Doesn't one have the
right to refuse all alcohol tests on the basis of self incrimination?

My thinking here is that if there was a good chance you are going to be
over the limit, it would be better to suffer whatever penalty they handed
out for refusal to take the test, rather than actually have a DUI on your
record.

I believe most states, if not all, consider driving a privilege rather than a
right. *In North Carolina, you give up that privilege if you refuse a
breathalizer. *Yes, you might avoid a DUI, but I doubt you're going to enjoy
walking everywhere for the next year. *Then there's the matter of the fee they
charge to reinstate your license.

I've got to say, it's just not worth it to drink and drive. *After many a night
with my head in the bowl praying to the porcelain god, I've come to certain
conclusions: *1) *getting drunk is fun. *2) *Being drunk isn't... when you get
right down to it. *3) *Recovering from a drunk is bloody awful. *Given those
three facts, it seems to me that there just isn't enough reward to justify tying
one on.

Now, I am not a teetotaler. *I am not above enjoying a beer or a good single
malt scotch... but I either drink at home or I let somebody else drive me if I'm
feeling a buzz.

And frankly, I've had a life that has been more enjoyable with a clear head than
with a befuddled one.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Yeah, a life free from drinking has been wonderful for me since I
quit.

I had a friend who had a tube connected to his van after he got
convicted of DUI. He couldn't drive for a year, had to go through long-
term rehab, and when they finally gave him back his privilege to drive
his van wouldn't even start until he blew into a tube and the result
was alcohol-free. I think he had to blow into the tube like maybe
every half hour while the motor was running, too. This was in Georgia.

Ricky

Dallas wrote:
Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. and blood test.

With respect to your certificate, I was wondering what the best course of
action would be if you had imbibed a couple of cocktails and you were
pulled over and suspected of DUI.

If you THINK or KNOW that you are impaired, shut up, sit down and dont
blow when they take you to the station. Do not answer questions or
perform any tests for the video camera and mic in the field or at the
station - it is all used as evidence against you to prove you were DWI.

By the time you "flunk" a field sobriety test, the average person is
well past 0.08-0.10 (varies by state).

You WILL have your license administratively suspended. Count on it. But
its still cheaper in the long run than a DWI.

I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Its my opinion.


For example, a friend of mine blew just above the limit during a traffic
stop. Her advice to people is to never "blow". It took several hours to
get her to the station and by that time, she contends, that she would be
below the legal limit.

I would say never take a field test as those are completely subjective.

Actually, they aren't. There are certain components of a field test that
cannot be faked or suppressed. Nystagmus is one. And the field test is
simply getting video and audio evidence at the time of apprehension. Its
not about probable cause. They had probable cause when they pulled you
over, for whatever reason that was.



Many States automatically suspend your driver's licence for refusal to take
an alcohol test. From a constitutional point of view, I don't understand
why the 5th Amendment doesn't come into play here. Doesn't one have the
right to refuse all alcohol tests on the basis of self incrimination?

Yes you do. But the courts have held that driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a
right. And the continued PRIVILEGE of operating a motor vehicle and
maintaining a license come with conditions attached. Yes, you have the
constitutional right to refuse to provide evidence against yourself. You
also should understand exercising that right may (will) result in the
administrative loss of that privilege. Keep in mind you are being taped
and recorded from the moment the cop turns on his lights to pull you
over. Every thing you say/do is being recorded, so you may unwittingly
provide enough evidence against yourself without a Breathalyzer test.

There is one situation where you can refuse, but alcohol tests are taken
anyways. If the officer calls the DA, and an affidavit is presented to a
judge, a warrant to obtain your specimen with or without your consent
can be issued. Harris (Houston,TX area) County does that already on
major holiday weekends. They arrange central booking, and drive the
suspect downtown immediately, if they refuse to blow, they have a judge
on call in house, and a nurse in house to obtain blood. They call it "no
refusal weekends". Its held up in court.

The other situation is when an allegedly impaired driver seriously
injures or kills another while operating a motor vehicle. You can
refuse, but the law permits a compulsory draw. You can bleed the easy
way or the hard way. But they will get the specimen.

My thinking here is that if there was a good chance you are going to be
over the limit, it would be better to suffer whatever penalty they handed
out for refusal to take the test, rather than actually have a DUI on your
record.

The DUI/DWI will cause more harm than the penalties associated with
DWI/DUI refusal. The best solution is to designate a nondrinking driver,
and avoid the situation altogether, but being a responsible pilot type
you already knew that, right?

On Feb 8, 1:11*pm, Dallas wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:42:18 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
They are quite effective else all the DUI convictions would have been thrown out.

Wikipedia seems to indicate that breathalyzers are prone to significant
error. *One might be smart to demand a blood test instead.



Wikipedia IS prone to significant error.


From Wikipedia:
SNIP

Gee, doesn't it amaze you that all of the DUI lawyers out there
haven't found this info and jumped all over it?

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
On Feb 8, 1:11?pm, Dallas wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:42:18 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
They are quite effective else all the DUI convictions would have been thrown out.

Wikipedia seems to indicate that breathalyzers are prone to significant
error. ?One might be smart to demand a blood test instead.



Wikipedia IS prone to significant error.


From Wikipedia:
SNIP

Gee, doesn't it amaze you that all of the DUI lawyers out there
haven't found this info and jumped all over it?

They already have.

Why do you think there won't be anyone prosecuted based solely on a
borderline breathalyzer test?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:50:27 -0800 (PST), Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Wikipedia IS prone to significant error.

:- )


--
Dallas

On Feb 10, 9:50*am, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Gee, doesn't it amaze you that all of the DUI lawyers out there
haven't found this info and jumped all over it?

One defense that I know attorneys have used is that claim the
defendant burped before the test thereby invalidating the results.
Perhaps who get DUIs, don't hurt people, and have attorneys don't
usually get convicted. In California the first DUI is usually reduced
to a wet-reckless anyway.

-Robert

Dallas wrote:


Many States automatically suspend your driver's licence for refusal to take
an alcohol test. From a constitutional point of view, I don't understand
why the 5th Amendment doesn't come into play here. Doesn't one have the
right to refuse all alcohol tests on the basis of self incrimination?

The way it works in nearly every state is that alco tests are consented
to as a condition of license issuance.

The strategy on refusing the test depends on:

1. What you expect your BAC to be.
2. What state you are in.
3. What state issued your license.

Some states require warning you of the consequences of the refusal.
Some don't. Some allow you 20 minutes to try to contact counsel,
some don't.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:55:37 -0500, Ron Natalie wrote:

The way it works in nearly every state is that alco tests are consented
to as a condition of license issuance.

I could argue that loosing your privilege to drive constitutes a penalty.
Refusing to incriminate yourself by declining an alcohol test results in
the application of this penalty. Therefore, you are being penalized for
exercising your 5th amendment right of non incrimination.

It sounds non constitutional to me.

--
Dallas

On Feb 15, 7:37*am, Dallas wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:55:37 -0500, Ron Natalie wrote:
The way it works in nearly every state is that alco tests are consented
to as a condition of license issuance.

I could argue that loosing your privilege to drive constitutes a penalty.
Refusing to incriminate yourself by declining an alcohol test results in
the application of this penalty. *Therefore, you are being penalized for
exercising your 5th amendment right of non incrimination.

It sounds non constitutional to me.


That's OK if it will strop drunk drivers...

Cheers