To blow or not to blow...

"Dallas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 20:54:15 -0800 (PST), James Sleeman wrote:

I'm not in the US. But I'd have to say, blow.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you wouldn't be
so ignorant, foolhardy, self absorbed, and dangerous as to get in the
drivers seat when you're anywhere near, let alone over the limit
anyway.

Well, here's the problem in the U.S. - Mothers Against Drunk Driving
(MADD)
has successfully lobbied to lower the original level of .10% down to .08%,
and is actively working to lower it even further.

To many people this is just a few glasses of wine with dinner. I fail to
see how lowering the legal limit has any effect, other that to cast a
wider
net ruining many people's lives who were most likely not impaired to begin
with.

That said, that is our current law. I guess the only way to safeguard
your
certificate is to skip that second glass of wine with dinner.

--
Dallas

Many jurisdictions have always defined .08 as legal impairment, and several
are now using .05 as the threshold for issuing 24 hr roadside suspensions
and some use or are advocating adoption of the .05 level as legal
impairment. IMHO a 24 hr roadside suspension (which may also include a
towing and taxi bill) is what I would call a 'near miss incident', they are
often used by police who do not wish to charge you for what they estimate
may be .081 or border-line impairment.

IMHO a driver who takes a drink MUST be very careful of the quantity they
are consuming and that the only way to do this is to count your drinks
carefully. Mixed drinks can be an unknown quantity and in general should be
avoided, particularly if they are being poured by a generous host. IMHO the
only safe alcohol to drink is bottled beer as the product has a known
alcohol level and it is possible to count units and time accurately (give
yourself a margin of safety). Drink lots of water to quench thirst and
prevent dehydration and hangover.

A lawyer who does a fair amount of DUI work told me that the most dangerous
thing to consume is wine as it is normally served in larger glasses which
contain more alcohol units than a beer or shot and make it difficult to
count your drinks. Companions will also frequently 'top up' your glass
which also makes counting more difficult. The lawyer claimed that the
majority of his business was due to wine.

IMHO, alcohol and nicotine are the most problematic drugs in use in our
culture, cigarettes should be eliminated and alcohol consumed very
carefully.

YMMV, happy landings.

IMHO a driver who takes a drink MUST be very careful of the quantity they
are consuming and that the only way to do this is to count your drinks
carefully. Mixed drinks can be an unknown quantity and in general should be
avoided, particularly if they are being poured by a generous host. IMHO the
only safe alcohol to drink is bottled beer as the product has a known
alcohol level and it is possible to count units and time accurately (give
yourself a margin of safety). Drink lots of water to quench thirst and
prevent dehydration and hangover.

A lawyer who does a fair amount of DUI work told me that the most dangerous
thing to consume is wine as it is normally served in larger glasses which
contain more alcohol units than a beer or shot and make it difficult to
count your drinks. Companions will also frequently 'top up' your glass
which also makes counting more difficult. The lawyer claimed that the
majority of his business was due to wine.

IMHO, alcohol and nicotine are the most problematic drugs in use in our
culture, cigarettes should be eliminated and alcohol consumed very
carefully.

I once read a letter from some guy to his local PD, asking if he could borrow a
breathalyzer for the weekend to get a feel for what legal intoxication actually felt like.
Basically, his reasoning was that the body has no intrinsic way to measure BAC
numerically, and ruling on a numeric value that nobody could really measure was like not
equipping cards with speedometers, but rather a crib sheet with times and distances, and
coding the sheet "OK" "you might be speeding" and "definitely speeding" depending on the
time/distance. He does have a point, I guess.

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 Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:16:34 -0600, Dallas
wrote in
:

I guess the only way to safeguard your
certificate is to skip that second glass of wine with dinner.

That, or wait for it to be metabolized before taking to the road. Take
a stroll in the moonlight and wait it out.

"Dallas" wrote in message

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?

I don't think so, because driving on the roads is a licensed privelage, not
a right.


-c

On 2008-02-07 12:16:27 -0800, Dallas said:


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.

How about just not drinking and driving and avoiding the whole problem?




--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

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?

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