Is this myth or fact about DUI ???

Question

Okay, I just answered a question about DUI's on here and it brought a rumor I had heard to mind. I heard to carry around a bottle of hard liquore in your car. If you ever wind up getting pulled over and have been drinking immediatley get outta the car before the cop can approach you. Be very obvoius about doig this and take the UNOPENED bottle, open it and start chugging it. If this would work it probably only would if the cop had a dashboard cam as otherwise he could lie but from what I have heard there is then no way for the cop to prove you were not sober before you drank the bottle in front of him. You'll probably still get arrested for drinking in public or something like that but it's better than a DUI. Any truth to this? Also, I don't drink and drive and am not looking for a free pass so don't lecture me as I don't need a lecture. I was just curious if this was true or not. As ridiculous as it sounds it seems to make sense.

Yeah, I heard this rumor on the internet or something, sounded ridiculous but seemed like somewhat or a logical argument. Just wanted to mention something, in Illinois and there's a wealthy suburb west or northwest of Chicago that is like number 1 in duis. They have tons of money as a city and tons of money comming in from dui fines and don't have cams. Lots of people say so its the cops word against a person and not the cameras word. The paper did a story a while back and many people who blew under the limit as in having like one drink with dinner were given duis even though they were not above the legal limit

Answer 1

Complete myth. It's very easy to determine a level of sobriety/intoxication at the time of the stop. Merely chugging some alcohol will eventually create a rise in BAC, but not for some time. As for having a dash cam around if that happened, I'd welcome it because it will show your intoxicated behavior from the time you got out of the car. It would put a nail in the coffin of a " I wasn't drunk while driving" defense. Not to mention taking you through all the FST's and seeing someone fail them.

Also, a criminologist can very easily explain absorption rates and how it would affect someone.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

You still get charged with the DUI, it is an old and obvious ploy. You get arrested, you do a breath test, you fail, now YOU have to prove that the alcohol level in your system is the result of your drink from the bottle. Takes time for the alcohol level to rise or lower. Your guzzling the bottle and taking the test a few minutes later will not disturb the reading that much.

Your question did remind me of an incident years ago. One of the officers working a shift with me pulled over a drunk. The guy opens a bottle in the car and starts drinking it. The officer gets him out, he's drunk about a quarter of the bottle. The officer charged him with an Open Container in the car, Public Intoxication, and Reckless Driving. He simply did not bother with the DUI charge. The judge was not amused by the driver's ploy and the fines the guy got hit with were far higher the the DUI fine would have been.

Answer 4

That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard! If you're pulled over by a cop and you get out of the car before he gets near you, he's gonna be standing behind his door with his gun drawn so fast you wont believe. Then he'll call for back up. And you'll have to get on the ground because he's threatening to shoot and you'll never have the chance to drink your alcohol. I really don't think that would be a very smart idea and I know there are ways to figure out approx how much your BAC will be affected by a certain amount of alcohol, so if you had a significant amount of drinks before that, they can prove you are way over the alcohol content that amount of liquor would have been.

DUI's aren't really that horrible... I've had one, yeah they suck, but it could be a lot worse (like getting shot)

Answer 5

I tell you what....I think its plausible. But it would depend on the State. For instance, In Florida, we arrest based on "indicators" from the driving patterns and the sobriety exercises...THEN we ask you for a breath sample....but its NOT part of our probable cause..... I've seen people get arrested for DUI and then blow under the legal limit....but it doesn't matter, they're still arrested for DUI based on the above. In Michigan, they arrest based on the breath samples....most patrol officers have a portable preliminary breath test device and just stop you for whatever reason and stick that damned thing in your face and tell you to blow. NOW, in THAT instance, if you were to get out of the car, (hopefully you don't get shot or tased in the process) and chug that liquor...it would ABSOLUTELY create a reasonable doubt as to whether you were actually impaired while you driving.....you probably wouldn't beat the ride to jail, but YOU MIGHT beat the charge by way of a jury trial. Good question though!

Answer 6

The legal limit (0.1 or 0.08) is a "presumption" of intoxicated. This means that even if you pass every field test for being drunk given by the officer, if you blow or bleed a 0.1, or whatever the limit is in your state, you are considered impaired.

On the other hand you can blow or bleed a 0.03 but if you can not pass the field tests (barring a physical disability) you can be convicted of being impaired.

Now if I pulled you over and observed you drinking as you described I would administer field sobriety tests immediately. Alcohol consumed orally takes about 12-15 minutes to enter the blood stream and have an affect. By the time I got your breath or blood you'd be nailed.

Do you really think you can tip up a bottle of liquer and guzzle it?

Answer 7

Myth. If the office had you take a breathalizer on the spot - which they can do - and you blow above the legal limit it's proof that you had pleanty of alchol in your system before you drank in front of him. It takes awhile for the blood to absorb it. Also, depending on how much he let you drink before he wrestled the bottle away and the time it takes to get you to the jail for a test the amount you swigged still wouldn't be enough to alter the results. Plus there is always the road side tests and what you just drank wouldn't have time to effect that outcome either so if you failed that it will be proof enough that your level was acccumulated prior to the stunt in front of the officer.

Answer 8

Myth.
A Breathalyzer measures the amount of alcohol in your lungs, not in your mouth or stomach (that's why breath mints don't work). The alcohol gets to your lungs through your blood. This takes time. If you are not drunk, you could chug a whole quart of Jack Daniels and still blow a 0.00 ten minutes later.
If you were to do as you suggested, the officer would breathalyze you, find you intoxicated, and not only would you get a DUI, but you would also be cited for drinking in public.
If you refuse the Breathalyzer, your license would be suspended anyway.
Either way, we win, you lose.

Answer 9

Myth. You would be taken into custody and given a breathalyzer test. You would not be allowed to eat or drink anything before this was done. They would be able to tell that you've been drinking because of the rate the liver metabolizes the alcohol. Guzzling a bottle would not have the same reading as drinking over time.

Answer 10

MYTH! First of all: ALL police cars have a dash camera. Second not only would you be put on the ground at gun point for jumping out of your car and start drinking, but you would still go to jail for DUI and now being Drunk in public! This is a MYTH and oh yeah don't try this by any means you could get HURT!!!!!!