DUI is impairment to the slightest degree, BAC is secondary. Alcohol effects everyone differently. Best for the individual to decide which is more important.

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
DUI is impairment to the slightest degree, BAC is secondary. Alcohol effects everyone differently. Best for the individual to decide which is more important.

There must be objective indications that a person is actually impaired in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is "under the influence" of an alcoholic beverage or any other drug. Without those objective indications, you've got nothing.

I've arrested a number of offenders that have refused to provide biological samples for testing after having observed behaviors and physical symptoms of intoxication. They were filed on for DUI and convicted. Just watching someone walk out of a bar, get in their vehicle and drive without doing anything else indicative of DUI isn't sufficient. You need more, including some kind of articulable facts that would justify a stop for further investigation. Without those, there's no factual basis for either a detention or arrest.

One beer or one drink, just like taking one prescribed/controlled dose of medication does not in and of itself prove the user was impaired. You need objective evidence to prove the impairment in this particular instance and it's got to be sufficient to meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" requirement for conviction.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:

There must be objective indications that a person is actually impaired in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is "under the influence" of an alcoholic beverage or any other drug. Without those objective indications, you've got nothing.

I've arrested a number of offenders that have refused to provide biological samples for testing after having observed behaviors and physical symptoms of intoxication. They were filed on for DUI and convicted. Just watching someone walk out of a bar, get in their vehicle and drive without doing anything else indicative of DUI isn't sufficient. You need more, including some kind of articulable facts that would justify a stop for further investigation. Without those, there's no factual basis for either a detention or arrest.

You need objective evidence to prove the impairment in this particular instance and it's got to be sufficient to meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" requirement for conviction.

This. I've always operated under the standard (and taught others) that you're DUI investigation should stand on it's own, and the BAC is just another piece of evidence. In other words, if you are hoping for a good BAC to make your arrest stick, it was weak to begin with.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
Carrying a firearm and driving motor vehicles both require the "operator" to be responsible and accountable. I'm not a big drinker, but having a single beer or glass of an alcoholic beverage does not equate to being under the influence. Police officers are trained to understand this principle and ought to apply it to themselves voluntarily. If they can't, are stopped, and shown to be under the influence, they should be held accountable administratively as well as criminally.

I am currently in the midst of a case where a first responder is being held administratively responsible for operating a vehicle while under the influence, and he refused all tests, so no BAC evidence at all. Jury still convicted him, primarily based on his actions shown on the dashcam and in-car audio (driving, violations, statements to the arresting officer, etc.).

Just don't drink when you're carrying. Or better yet, carry always and don't drink when you're doing so. LEOSA offers some exemptions to state law but that's minutia and who wants to have their name on case law? In reference to the above question, we've always arrested our own for DUI, et al.

There must be way more to the story, the article is way to brief.

When I get access to a computer ,I will research a bit.