I wanted to thank everybody for their help with the question I posted about OUI/DUI and the 1999 Volvo lights. Wanted to let you all know we reached a plea agreement today (I figure everyone wants to know “the rest of the story”). The defendant pleaded guilty to OUI Refusal (mandatory jail time in Maine) and I agreed to delete the language about a prior OUI conviction. He’s suspended for a year, has to pay $1000 fine, and serve four days in jail.
The issue about the lights comes up frequently, and I lost a motion once where the defendant claimed her car (a SAAB) was on automatic lights. The judge granted the motion, and later I learned the judge also drove a SAAB. SO, this time around, I figured it was better to get a partial plea then perhaps lose everything.
Again, thanks for the input. I’ve enjoyed reading all your comments. And remember, have a designated driver!
Suzy Que
Doesn’t seem like a steep enough penalty if this isn’t his first offense…
FoDaddy, why are you trying to hold someone accountable for their actions? Don’t you know that its not the way things work anymore? You will get chastised now because there are many here that feel drinking and driving is ok and a cop has no right to pull you over, and/or they have a guilty consistence because they have done it before themselves.
It all Depends on who you ask, many on this forum feel that the whole Dui should have been thrown out for some goofy reason. Why would you refuse a breathalyzer if you weren’t above the limit? Maybe zero tolerance is the answer.
So Mr. Volvo got a slap on the wrist, and will probably drink and drive again and maybe kill some one. Then he will get a few years in prison and be free.
I wonder how our pro DUI people on this message board would feel if they got hit by a dui driver and ended up in a wheel chair? Would they think differently?
If I need a lawyer and I am guilty, I will plead guilty. I man up to my actions.
I hope no one is “Pro DUI”. But it disgusts me that the state governments keep applying what I would call “feel good legislation” to keep lowering the legal limit for BAC. Some states have it as low as .05 now, which is pretty much a glass of wine for a smaller person. If the trend continues, people will have to worry about using mouthwash and getting a DUI.
Lowering and lowering the legal limit does not IMHO prevent any crashes or keep anyone except paranoid people that have had 2 beers from driving. It’s the repeat offenders that normally cause the mayhem, and the people that regularly drive with a BAC that’s way past the legal limit. And look at how well prohibition worked at keeping people from drinking, our current drug laws keeping people from using, etc. I’m not saying that someone that has had a couple of drinks isn’t impaired by comparison with an awake, alert person that got plenty of rest, had a calm day, no drama in their life, and isn’t texting, fiddling with the radio, eating, or just driving angry. But you can’t legislate every problem out of existence without taking away some basic freedoms that the majority of us are mature enough not to abuse.
All you’re doing with lowering the legal limits is needlessly penalizing the people that don’t cause problems, and hurting small business owners such as bar and restaurant proprietors. Zero tolerance is idiocy. If you want to legislate and punish, impose stiffer penalties for repeat offenders or people driving that are very impaired, not throw a life-wrecking DUI at someone that had 3 beers.
The best policy is to consume no alcohol if you are planning to drive. That simple, are you that dependent on alcohol that you must have a drink or two?
The problem is drivers that have had a few drinks do cause problems, there was a case in Indianapolis where a 21 year old that had a .bac of .05 ran a red light and killed two paramedics. She was not charged with anything, That was a life wrecking DUI now wasn’t it…
I am excercising my drive to defend-
The five human drives-
Drive to Acquire: It’s the desire to collect material and immaterial things, like a car, or influence.
Drive to Bond: Desire to be loved and feel valued in our relationships with others.
Drive to Learn: Desire to satisfy our curiosity.
Drive to Defend: Desire to protect ourselves, our loved ones and our property.
Drive to Feel: Desire for many emotional experiences, such as pleasure or excitement.
Many argue that there is a sixth human drives in many people, and that is The drive of Self Intoxication. I am not sure why I don’t have that drive, but I don’t.
You act like your life wouldn’t be worth living if you couldn’t drink 3 beers and then drive, Is drinking that important to you? I am concerned about you, you seem like a smart level headed person. Please consider what I am saying.
If I had 3 beers I would be in no way be fit to drive, Thats because I don’t ever drink, And I take driving very seriously.
Would you want the semi driver next to you on the highway to be driving at .07?
BTW Using mouthwash and getting a DUI is Bull… I use mouthwash and have taken a breathalizer 20 minutes later and blew a 0.0
Thanks @oblivion for taking the time to clearly state my concerns. All the info I’ve seen puts the great majority of the DUI danger on the drunk, typically very drunk, driver. We’ve turned a DUI arrest (let alone a conviction) into a life changing event. We must be VERY cautious about extending that to a much larger fraction of drivers. It then turns into something like the 55 mph speed limit - millions broke the law, only a few got caught, huge amount of effort to very little real benefit.
The best policy is to consume no alcohol if you are planning to drive.
Ok…
The problem is drivers that have had a few drinks do cause problems
Drivers who have not had any drinks at all cause problems too.
a 21 year old that had a .bac of .05 ran a red light and killed two paramedics.
Are you suggesting that no one who is completely sober has ever run a red light? If so, there are an awful lot of drunks in my town. It is possible to be a bad driver without being a drunk driver.
You act like your life wouldn’t be worth living if you couldn’t drink 3 beers and then drive
Who is acting like that? Point me to anywhere on this entire forum where anyone at anytime has said their life would not be worth living if they couldn’t drink 3 beers and drive.
If I had 3 beers I would be in no way be fit to drive
Good for you for recognizing that and choosing not to drive after you drink. Oh, wait…
Thats because I don’t ever drink
Ah, the teetotaler wants to educate the rest of us about the dangers of demon liquor. How do you know you wouldn’t be fit to drive if you never drink and therefore don’t know what you would be like after 3 beers?
Would you want the semi driver next to you on the highway to be driving at .07?
I would rather a good driver next to me at .07 than a teenaged driver who is texting and putting on makeup and chair-dancing to the radio and focusing 90% of her remaining attention on the 3 boisterous friends she has with her, yes.
Your entire argument is a shining example of the black and white fallacy. For you, either you’re completely sober, or you’re completely drunk. That’s not how real life works.
I, personally, wouldn’t drive immediately after downing 3 beers either. But if I had 3 beers between noon and 8pm at a barbeque where I was also eating and playing lawn sports, I’d be completely sober when I got behind the wheel. Those 3 beers don’t stick with you forever, you know.
The problem with current DUI regulations is that they fail to take into account false positives. I, personally, know someone who was charged with a DUI despite being completely sober at the time of his wreck. Extensive injuries and the drugs emergency physicians use to treat them can cause false readings on the enzymatic blood alcohol test. That happened to the person I know, he was charged based on the blood test taken after the drugs were administered, and then when he got a lawyer who got a biochemist expert witness and who started making noises about massive lawsuits, they suddenly dropped the charges.
So not only is the test flawed, but they know it’s flawed, and are prosecuting people anyway, presumably in the often-realized hopes that the person will not be lucky enough to hire a lawyer savvy enough to question the test.
Those of us who have a problem with DUI laws as they are now are not arguing that we should allow drunks to freely roam the nation’s highways. If you would bother to read and comment on more than the two DWI-related threads on this forum, you would see that most of the regular posters here are very safety-conscious, often taking it to, frankly, absurd extremes, so to argue that drunk drivers are perfectly fine and should be allowed would be completely out of character for us.
We’re simply arguing that we should not pretend sober people are drunks for the purpose of putting another notch on some prosecutor’s belt.
The semi driver next to you is not allowed to have .02.
I have a poor opinion of anyone who would drive while intoxicated but I occasionally drive home after having a beer with my dinner. What would my BAC be? Surely that wouldn’t be considered drunk.
The years have taken their toll on my back and legs and on 2 occasions I have been observed “staggering” by someone who apparently saw me walking to my car and reported me as driving drunk. On both occasions the officers who stopped me were less than cordial and in return I quickly insisted that they get their equipment and test me as I refused to walk a line or stand on one leg as either would be difficult if not impossible for me. On both occasions a breath analyzer was eventually brought out and ZERO was registered.
Too often police officers become caught up in the “us against them” game and they consider anyone they stop as “them.” Their attitude has drastically reduced my respect for their authority.
@oldtimer11
Yes, thats my point. Why are the alcohol standards higher for CDL drivers? there is a reason for it, Why does it not extend to everyone.
“I refused to walk a line or stand on one leg as either would be difficult if not impossible for me”
+1
I have balance problems, and someone observing me trying to stand on one foot, or attempting to slowly “heel-toe” a line might conclude that I was intoxicated, even though I was stone-sober. If I am ever stopped on suspicion of DUI, I will demand a breathalyzer test in order to confirm my sobriety.
@rodknox
The years have taken their toll on my back and legs and on 2 occasions I have been observed "staggering" by someone who apparently saw me walking to my car and reported me as driving drunk. On both occasions the officers who stopped me were less than cordial and in return I quickly insisted that they get their equipment and test me as I refused to walk a line or stand on one leg as either would be difficult if not impossible for me. On both occasions a breath analyzer was eventually brought out and ZERO was registered. - See more at: http://community.cartalk.com/discussion/2292958/thanks-for-the-input-on-the-volvo-lights-and-oui-dui#latest
First off, I feel for you and your back pain, I have fits at times and can only imagine what it would be to carry that burden.
So you were stopped and got a breathalizer and you were ok. Thats my point, you have no worries.
Having a beer with dinner? Thats not going to put you over .08 or .05 for that matter, unless you are a real lightweight.
I would rather a good driver next to me at .07 than a teenaged driver who is texting and putting on makeup and chair-dancing to the radio and focusing 90% of her remaining attention on the 3 boisterous friends she has with her, yes.I totoally agree with you there.
Your entire argument is a shining example of the black and white fallacy. For you, either you’re completely sober, or you’re completely drunk. That’s not how real life works.
----The gun control argument works that way, and there are far many people killed by drunken drivers than guns, and 50percent of firearm deaths involve alcohol…
I, personally, wouldn’t drive immediately after downing 3 beers either. But if I had 3 beers between noon and 8pm at a barbeque where I was also eating and playing lawn sports, I’d be completely sober when I got behind the wheel. Those 3 beers don’t stick with you forever, you know.
----I agree with you there. You are a responsible drinker, you have no reason to fear a dui if what you say is true.
The problem with current DUI regulations is that they fail to take into account false positives. I, personally, know someone who was charged with a DUI despite being completely sober at the time of his wreck. Extensive injuries and the drugs emergency physicians use to treat them can cause false readings on the enzymatic blood alcohol test. That happened to the person I know, he was charged based on the blood test taken after the drugs were administered, and then when he got a lawyer who got a biochemist expert witness and who started making noises about massive lawsuits, they suddenly dropped the charges.
—So not only is the test flawed, but they know it’s flawed, and are prosecuting people anyway, presumably in the often-realized hopes that the person will not be lucky enough to hire a lawyer savvy enough to question the test.
Those of us who have a problem with DUI laws as they are now are not arguing that we should allow drunks to freely roam the nation’s highways. If you would bother to read and comment on more than the two DWI-related threads on this forum, you would see that most of the regular posters here are very safety-conscious, often taking it to, frankly, absurd extremes, so to argue that drunk drivers are perfectly fine and should be allowed would be completely out of character for us.
—Im jumped to conclusions because some people here seemed to feel sorry for the drunk driver. There is one poster here that says its legal to drink and drive, and he was stopped while he was as high as a kite.
Ah, the teetotaler wants to educate the rest of us about the dangers of demon liquor. How do you know you wouldn't be fit to drive if you never drink and therefore don't know what you would be like after 3 beers? - See more at: http://community.cartalk.com/discussion/2292958/thanks-for-the-input-on-the-volvo-lights-and-oui-dui#latest
Well first of i do know what its like to have 3 beers in a row, I don’t drink now, but that doesnt mean I havent drank in the past. However when I did drink, I never drank and then drove, EVER.
I feel you should be 100% behind the wheel, maybe thats because I drive a CDL vehicle, maybe its because my job is not forgiving to mistakes. I don’t know. My view also applies on cell phones, but were not talking about cell phones right now.
As far as me education everyone on the dangers of demon liquor as you say…personally I could give a rip if you chose to drink a case of beer a night so long as you don’t endanger me or anyone else.
I will try to educate people about the dangers of drinking and driving, I have seen the innocent people maimed, I have walked thru the pool of blood, I have seen the dead children, I have seen the drivers who caused all this who thought they were “just fine” to drive. At .07 you are 10 times more likely to be in a wreck.
Maybe that’s why I feel so strongly. I care about people, including everyone here. Most of you are all good people, but even good people can kill behind the wheel. If I was driving and had 2 drinks and was legally sober, if I was on a wreck, even if it wasnt my fault, and the other person got hurt or killed, i would have a hard time living with myself knowing I wasn’t 100% behind the wheel.
I do agree we need to do something about the above .08 crowd before we even think about worrying about lowering the limits.
The gun control argument works that way, and there are far many people killed by drunken drivers than guns, and 50percent of firearm deaths involve alcohol.....
The vocal gun control debate consists of histrionic anti-gun idiots on one side and “the gubmit’s comin’ to get me” lunatics on the other. I’m not sure why you’d want to model your debate style after either side, frankly.
I agree with you there. You are a responsible drinker, you have no reason to fear a dui if what you say is true.
Unless of course I get into a wreck and am badly injured. But no, I have no reason to fear a DUI, and if someone is genuinely DUI I believe in throwing the book at them. However, .04 is not impaired driving just because MADD says it is. MADD is composed of angry mothers, not biologists. If you want to know impairment levels, ask a scientist, not an activist.
Im jumped to conclusions
Clearly.
because some people here seemed to feel sorry for the drunk driver.
I doubt any of the regulars here would feel sorry for an actually drunk driver. Plenty of us will feel sorry for the sober driver who was railroaded by an overzealous law enforcement community so that they could get their DUI bust stats up.
There is one poster here that says its legal to drink and drive, and he was stopped while he was as high as a kite.
Link?
I will try to educate people about the dangers of drinking and driving
Fine. Educate them. But to be blunt, don’t be such a jackass about it. You’ve been pretty obnoxious around here.
At .07 you are 10 times more likely to be in a wreck.
That’s a quote from a PIRE study. PIRE is an anti-drug and alcohol group. The study was conducted by a PIRE employee and funded by MADD. That is not an unbiased study.
So you were stopped and got a breathalizer and you were ok. Thats my point, you have no worries.
Ah, but let’s get back to the original issue, OK? That is one of probable cause. How would you feel if you got stopped every single night (or even multiple times) on your way home because the cops were on a fishing mission? Although the lawyer is using the law to try and get their client off on the OUI charge, the law fundamentally exists to protect your freedoms. If the cops were given the latitude to stop anyone at any time in the interest of purging society from drunk drivers, do you think it would end there? I’ve got nothing to worry about by being stopped either but that doesn’t mean I’m willing to live in a police state.
Don’t think it can come to that? Just read today’s articles on the random stop blood testing in AL for drugs and alcohol. You got nothing to hide so stop and give us some of your blood…
Before you climb back up on your high horse, let me tell you that my mom was killed by a drunk driver 2 days before I was to graduate from high school. So don’t lecture me on the evils of alcohol and driving. That’s not the original question. The issue was one of being pulled over without probable cause.
Absolutely agree. To me its no different than coming to your door and searching your house. Or maybe to some, that’s ok too, but a little look back at what the British were doing a few hundred years ago is why these protections were written in in the first place. Of course then look what the British are doing now with their cameras on every street corner, sensors in the roads, signal search trucks going up and down the streets, and on and on with restrictive rules. Its almost like they lost the war and the Germans took over. Maybe that’s ok with some but not me.
sobriety checkpoints are certainly an unreasonable search. I don t know how the supreme court saw otherwise. to paraphrase ben franklin, …he who would choose safety over liberty is deserving of neither.
it s the same with the right to bear arms, people interpret the 2nd amendment in an intellectually dishonest way, knowingly, because they don t agree with it. the fact is that without it, we have no way to defend the rest of our rights.
believing these things does not make me a fanatic, it simply puts me in agreement with the founders of this great nation.
Link?
Bottom of the page, read asecular’s comments, he is pro driving high/drunk. He is probably not part of your click here so you may have not read his comments.
Fine. Educate them. But to be blunt, don't be such a jackass about it. You've been pretty obnoxious around here.
Just because you don’t agree with me doesnt mean you have to call me names.
At .07 you are 10 times more likely to be in a wreck.That’s a quote from a PIRE study. PIRE is an anti-drug and alcohol group. The study was conducted by a PIRE employee and funded by MADD. That is not an unbiased study.
The MADD people are mad because they are tired of losing people to drunk drivers. I am surprised that you are against an organization that is trying to prevent drunk driving. There have been studies that have upheld thier studies.
Why are cdl drivers held to a higher standard? Is there a reason for that?