Drunk driving?

Question

I heard about this local case today on the news.
The police pull over a driver at 1ish in the morning for speeding.
The officer notices a strong smell of "intoxicants" (NOTE: That's what they said; "intoxicants", but there is nothing to suggest it's anything more than the smell of alcohol), and does the sobriety tests including the breathalyzer.
After the tests, everyone agrees that the driver was NOT legally drunk. He was close, but NOT legally drunk.
So he ends up pleading guilty to negligent driving, and is sentenced to 40 hours of community service, has to attend alcohol and drug abuse classes, and has to attend some kind of meeting with victims of drunk driving.
My question is this: why should this driver have to do ANYTHING but pay for a damn speeding ticket?
What is the purpose of setting legal limits for drunk driving if the legal system can ignore them, and punish drivers who have not surpassed those limits?

Answer 1

Because the legal system is easily able to get away with infringing on peoples rights when it comes to alcohol and driving, because no one wants to stand up and say that it's okay. There are people who are not fully educated on the issue, and make rash generalizations. Look at the answers you got from luisamapacha, you got me, Jamie g and more.

The states should make their restrictions and laws clear, and follow through on their declared intentions. This person was either responsible or smart. He either cut himself off and waited a few hours before driving, or limited his drinking to ensure that he would be safe to drive. If he was trying to get blasted and didn’t care about driving under the influence, he’d have been well OVER the legal limit. If the states don’t wish for people to drive a car even after a single drink, they should set a zero tolerance law, and enforce it - .0000001 is too high. That Listerine you gargled with puts you over the legal limit.

They set a limit of .08 in most states after years and years of research about consumption of alcohol, impairment, reaction times, and all sorts of things. According to the research, .07 is not enough of an impairment to affect the driver. And .08 is a specific level of alcohol in the bloodstream, so different people require different amounts of alcohol to reach that limit – so it’s not to say that a 300 pound guy and a 90 pound woman can have the same amount to drink and still be legal. It’s saying that 1 beer might put a 90 pound woman over the limit, while a 300 pounder who drinks a lot might not reach that limit until his third or fourth beer.

I agree with you – the person should have been charged with nothing more than a speeding ticket. He either didn’t hire a lawyer, had a really bad lawyer, or there’s more to the story than you’re being told.

Answer 2

As you can see, there is a push to lower the limits even more. First, we had to start enforcing the laws, with the limits usually .10. Then, we had to lower the limits to .08. Now there is a push to make the limit .05 or lower. All of this in spite of the facts that the great majority of the alcohol caused accidents were caused by drivers over .12.

Why? It is about money and control. There is a bunch of people that don't drink, and don't think that others should drink. (These same type of people caused the 18th amendment, and we all see what a great success that was.) If you attempt to debate their proposals, you are told about the terrible DUI deaths (even though the cases they use have limits way above the current limit) and that if you oppose the change that you must be worse than a baby killer. The politicians don't want to be seen as 'soft on crime', and really enjoy the extra money they get from the DUI arrests.

We have basically resolved the DUI problems from the 1970's, when it was seen as no big deal if someone drove drunk. People no longer see it as cool if someone drives home and can't remember how they got there. Police no longer follow someone home. But if we declare that we have 'solved' the DUI problem, then MADD and all of the groups making money off of this would lose their money.

Yes, people still drive drunk. Yes, people still get hurt and killed. We have changed society and people that drive over the limit are punished. Can't we feel good about actually doing something good, and move on without going overboard?

Answer 3

I would assume that whatever jurisdiction this is has, like California, TWO laws criminalizing driving with alcohol in the system. One is a law making it illegal to drive with .08% blood alcohol or greater. That offense is pretty much determined by the test (though there are arguments concerning whether the test is valid). The other is variously called driving under the influence, or driving while impaired, or driving while intoxicated. If alcohol in your system has ANY effect upon your driving, you violate this law even if the test is under .08%. This is, of course, a more subjective test which will depend upon the officer's testimony concerning the defendant's physical condition. (By the way, I don't know of any state in the Union which prohibits driving with ANY alcohol in your system if you are at least 21 years old.)

So, in a case where somebody is "close" to a .08% the prosecutor may still be able to prove DUI. A defendant who smelled of alcohol and whose driving was impaired could very well risk being convicted to DUI with a high BA reading, especially if the field sobriety test suggested impairment. (In California, there is a presumption that a person over 21 with a BA UNDER .05% is not under the influence, but even that presumption can be rebutted.)

A good attorney will discuss this matter with his client, and give his best advise as to whether the defendant should go to trial and risk a DUI conviction, or should plead to some lesser offense. It appears that in this case the defendant and his attorney decided that the risk of conviction was high enough to make a plea to a lesser offense the best choice. It is only a dumb lawyer who would take a probable loser to trial without letting his client know the risks.

Answer 4

He would be required to attend those because chances are, next time he won't be under the limit. And though he was not charged with the DUI, there are lesser charges like Driving while Impaired (called different things in different states) and is the reason several states are looking to decrease the legal limit further, since you are impaired at significantly lower levels.
I don't think anyone should drive after having even one drink. Why take the chance.

Answer 5

I bet he didn't even get the speeding ticket, just the dui part. That's because that makes way more money than a little speeding ticket. If the law says you're drunk at .08, THAT should be the limit before dui charges come up. I know someone who was in classes with people who blew .02 and .04. What's up with that? Change the law to have .02 be the limit if that's what the convictions are coming up at. But it's all about money. The fines, the classes, the attorneys, the insurance. Government wants to squeeze as much money as possible.

Answer 6

Well, if I read this right... his Breathalyzer results where below the legal limit ! Example, in California a .08 BAC is the limit, but perhaps he blew a .06 BAC.

Therefore he can't be charged with a DUI, but can be charged with reckless or negilgent driving... they did NOT "ignore" the "legal limits", they merely charged him within the guidlines as set by the State.

SO, to your QUESTION... he got MORE than the speeding ticket because in ALL 50 States it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle with ANY alcohol in your system. He didn't reach the level for a DUI charge, but met the level for Reckless Driving.

JUST FYI... if next time he blows a .08, he MAY get charged with a second (habitual) alcohol offense.

Answer 7

I was almost killed by a drunk driver in 95 as far as im concerned anyone with any alcohol in system should permanently lose licensee. why? because even if they aren't legally above the limit chances are they drink and drive alot and all it takes is just that one time, one time they had that extra drink and kill someone!!! The guy that hit me on highway had been given several dui's yet was still driving if he would of been stopped my life would be alot different now, he walked away without a scratch 12 years later i still struggle with constant pain.

Answer 8

Not a lot more than a pint is the prohibit Everyone is distinct however a pint is in most cases approximately the marker. It was once in the direction of two pints however they decreased it. It's unlucky that they can not discover a strategy to experiment if you are inebriated instead than the certain quantity of alcohol on your method. So many humans get banned for riding within the morning when you consider that they nonetheless have alcohol in there ststem despite the fact that there sober.

Answer 9

Since you do not possible have ALL of the facts any judgment made would be incomplete.

Based on what you said, it appears to me that he was found guilty of negligent driving not for DUI/DWI. The judge (rightly so) found that alcohol contributed to the offense and ordered classes to teach this person the impact his moronic decisions can have.

I hope this guy learns from this experience and stops drinking and driving before he kills someone.

Answer 10

When ther is any case of drunk or rash driving, And you need help. I would like to recommend http://www.keepmylicence.com/ because thry are best road traffic lawyers in Glasgow & Scotland.