To blow or not to blow...

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:47:12 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
:

On Feb 7, 12:16*pm, 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.


In California a failure to blow results in an instant suspension of
your driver's license.

Yep.

Then law enforcement may arrest you and can
take a blood sample without your concent.
-Robert

Doubtful.

On Feb 7, 4:47*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:47:12 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"

Then law enforcement may arrest you and can
take a blood sample without your concent.
-Robert

Doubtful.

No, its true. Failing a field sobriety test is reasonable cause to
arrest you for DUI. Accepting the operation of a motor vehicle is (by
Cal vehicle code) concent to a blood test. Its pretty common for the
CHP to arrive at the hospital with a guy in handcuffs for force a
blood test.

"CVC 23612.a.1.A


A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to
have given his or her consent to chemical testing
of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of
determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood,
if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed
in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. If a
blood or breath test, or both, are unavailable, then
paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) applies. "

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:58:57 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
:

On Feb 7, 4:47*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:47:12 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"

Then law enforcement may arrest you and can
take a blood sample without your concent.
-Robert

Doubtful.

No, its true. Failing a field sobriety test is reasonable cause to
arrest you for DUI. Accepting the operation of a motor vehicle is (by
Cal vehicle code) concent to a blood test. Its pretty common for the
CHP to arrive at the hospital with a guy in handcuffs for force a
blood test.

"CVC 23612.a.1.A


A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to
have given his or her consent to chemical testing
of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of
determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood,
if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed
in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. If a
blood or breath test, or both, are unavailable, then
paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) applies. "


I suppose, if the LEO has grounds for arrest (suspect smells of
liquor, appears drunk, etc), drawing blood without consent may be
justified, but the LEO's probable cause is going to come under heavy
scrutiny if the case should go to trial. And if the arrest can be
shown to be unlawful, the LEO could become the focus of a legal action
himself.

People who drink and drive are fools. Get a taxi...

Dallas wrote in
:

Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. and blood test.

What a terrible waste of a great subject header!

Dallas wrote:
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.

Short of being either Steven Seagal or Chuck Norris, comply with the
officer's requests and take a field test.

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.

It doesn't matter what she "would be" at the station; she was over the
limit during the field test, and since she was driving immediately
prior, it stands to reasonable reason (:P) that she was over the limit
while driving, ergo DUI.

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

They're objective, Dal. Blow in the one end and the chemical indicator
bits react with the alcohol bits. More than a certain concentration -
DUI. The only real defense is to argue either a manufacturing fault with
the field tester, or that the test was improperly performed /
misinterpreted, both of which are difficult if not impossible to prove.

Many States automatically suspend your driver's licence for refusal to take
an alcohol test.

I've never heard of this specifically, I do know that refusing to
perform a field test results in a comfy ride to the station in the back
of a cruiser for a breath or blood test, which then becomes the official
test record.

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?

You have the right to refuse all alcohol tests. Note that holding a
driver's license, on the other hand, is not covered under the Constitution.

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.

If there's a good chance you'll be over the limit, you shouldn't have
begun driving and/or flying, Dal. Simple as that.

TheSmokingGnu

On Feb 8, 9:16*am, Dallas wrote:
Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. *and blood test.

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. So either the roadside breath test will return a negative, or
there's something wrong with it and the evidenciary breath/blood test
back at the station/hospital will clear up the misunderstanding [I'm
assuming that the states are similar to NZ in that a roadside test is
just a screening test, and for evidence a controlled test must be made
on special equipment, or blood test taken].

In my opinion. 12 hours bottle to throttle, I don't care if it's got
wheels or wings, they'll both kill you given the chance, or worse,
somebody else. If you drinking, the only driving you should be doing
is the porcelain taxi variety.

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

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:29:27 -0500, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

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.

Yeah, my days of driving the porcelain bus are over too...

The problem is you can blow positive without feeling a buzz and you really
have no way of knowing the alcohol content of that top shelf margarita that
the friendly bartender made for you at the restaurant.

--
Dallas

You have one chance to beat the rap (from an old police dep't doctor
and assistant coroner)... If you know you are going to blow over the
impaired limit (it's not just drunk that is a threat to your airmans
certificate, it is being impaired also)

First do not take the field sobriety test... Do not get out of the car
and walk for the officer.. When they order you out of the car, comply
but immediately sit down on the ground, don't talk to the officer,
don't answer questions, do not stand or walk as they demand... Be
pleasant... Don't resist anything, but do not give them an objective
measure to claim you failed the field sobriety test...
This will make them wonder if you are a mental and they will spend
some time trying to convince you to cooperate... when you do not it
will force them arrest you for suspicion of DUI, take you to the
station and attempt to get a breath test there... Again be pleasant,
don't talk (keep your mouth shut so they can't stick a flashlight
sniffer by your lips - turn you face away when he sticks that
flashlight in it)... When that fails they will have to get a bench
warrant to take you to the hospital and have blood drawn some states
may differ... This all takes time... Your hope here is that by the
time this all transpires your alcohol level will have metabolized off
enough (one ounce per hour) to put you below the intox level and give
you a fighting chance in court...
Fighting the case will cost you from $5K to $10K, or more... If you
beat the rap and keep your airmans certificate, learn from your
expensive education and never, ever, drink again.... Which is what you
should have done in the beginning...

Now, having given you the method, I have strong doubts that you will
actually do this... Because having enough booze in your blood to make
you a DUI impairs your judgement and makes you 'think' you can talk
your way out of it you can't and it is really amusing to watch the
drunks try...

denny
btw, I hate drunks... They should all run into a telephone pole and
put themselves out of their misery...

On Feb 7, 10:30*pm, Dallas wrote:

The problem is you can blow positive without feeling a buzz and you really
have no way of knowing the alcohol content of that top shelf margarita that
the friendly bartender made for you at the restaurant.

Your problem may soon be solved. Several states are looking into
similar laws...

"Pennsylvania: Proposal Mandates Ignition Interlocks for All Cars"
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1672.asp