quote:

Originally posted by George43:
In Texas the max BAC if carrying is 0.0.

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
Go ahead, refuse to take any tests. Refuse to make any statements. A telephonic search warrant from a Superior Court judge takes minutes. Then a licensed phlebotomist draws your blood sample, with or without your consent. If there is a significant delay, the BAC at the time of arrest can be determined by rate of elimination. FST and breath test refusal almost always guarantees a nights stay in jail. And you will probably lose your operators license to mandatory suspension, face insurance increases, etc.

If a state allows a driver to elect a blood test instead of a breath test, take it. Blood analysis is more accurate than breath. Note that the results of the blood test may be used as evidence.

Or cooperate, get a defense attorney and take the case to court (about $10,000 is the going rate for a trial).

Prescribed medications that may impair driving are always marked with warnings that they may cause impairment. Impairment is impairment. Prescribed medications may not readily be identified by HGN depending on the medication, but a DRE can identify them by category. A DRE must follow a multiple step evaluation process to determine the category of drugs in a persons system. Blood tests can support the DRE evaluation.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
I used to work for a flight training outfit that specialized in instrument training. Some of the instructors would gather for pizza and beer at a nearby place, after work.

One day we get the bright idea of seeing how much beer it would take to render a pilot incapable of flying precisely (answer: not very much at all!).

We shared a few pitchers of beer along with our pizza, then walked back to our training facility and ran some scenarios in the simulators. Piss poor performance, even from those who had just had a couple of glasses of beer.

Very soon after I got my license I participated in a study a psychologist I had written some software for was doing. Fly a pattern in his Franca sim, have some drinks, fly it again. I had very little instrument experience (probably just the minimum for the private license) and the most recent was flying a Cub, just about as far from instrument anything as you can get. Even after a warm up before the sober pattern, I still was over controlling and getting fixated rather than keeping a decent scan going. I did much better after the drinks.

quote:

Originally posted by Copefree:
I know a guy from high school that got two DUIs and in both cases his BAC was below .08.

I think if the LEO determines that the person is too “intoxicated” to drive, regardless of BAC level, they can arrest for DUI.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
I used to work for a flight training outfit that specialized in instrument training. Some of the instructors would gather for pizza and beer at a nearby place, after work.

One day we get the bright idea of seeing how much beer it would take to render a pilot incapable of flying precisely (answer: not very much at all!).

We shared a few pitchers of beer along with our pizza, then walked back to our training facility and ran some scenarios in the simulators. Piss poor performance, even from those who had just had a couple of glasses of beer.

Very soon after I got my license I participated in a study a psychologist I had written some software for was doing. Fly a pattern in his Franca sim, have some drinks, fly it again. I had very little instrument experience (probably just the minimum for the private license) and the most recent was flying a Cub, just about as far from instrument anything as you can get. Even after a warm up before the sober pattern, I still was over controlling and getting fixated rather than keeping a decent scan going. I did much better after the drinks.

The experiment I referred to above took place while I was working at a training facility at Chicago's Midway airport. We operated a bunch of simulators, a great tool for efficiently teaching instrument flight procedures.

Based on my experience, instructing with simulators for many hours, I would question the basis of your statement that you did much better after a few drinks. Yes, you probably did better, but unless you're a functioning alcoholic, it's not likely that the performance improvement was due to the drinks. You most likely did better because of the practice and familiarity that you gained prior to the later attempt (after the drinks).

quote:

Originally posted by KevinCW:

I had a chance to get full on crocked and get in the simulator car ( think the coolest video game you played, that moves, bumps, really blows air from tthe vents, etc....) I actually beat my times from a 0.00 up to and just past nearly twice the legal limit.... After .16 it went downhill VERY FAST.

It's scary to see the data first hand.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott in NCal:

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
Go ahead, refuse to take any tests. Refuse to make any statements. A telephonic search warrant from a Superior Court judge takes minutes. Then a licensed phlebotomist draws your blood sample, with or without your consent. If there is a significant delay, the BAC at the time of arrest can be determined by rate of elimination. FST and breath test refusal almost always guarantees a nights stay in jail. And you will probably lose your operators license to mandatory suspension, face insurance increases, etc.

If a state allows a driver to elect a blood test instead of a breath test, take it. Blood analysis is more accurate than breath. Note that the results of the blood test may be used as evidence.

Or cooperate, get a defense attorney and take the case to court (about $10,000 is the going rate for a trial).

Prescribed medications that may impair driving are always marked with warnings that they may cause impairment. Impairment is impairment. Prescribed medications may not readily be identified by HGN depending on the medication, but a DRE can identify them by category. A DRE must follow a multiple step evaluation process to determine the category of drugs in a persons system. Blood tests can support the DRE evaluation.

Just curious , Cooperate and get a defense attourney: Why cooperate ? I wouldn't do that if i was suspected of any crime. That telephone warrent for the blood draw can be challenged on probable cause - reasonable suspicion. So can the original stop. Refusing the field sobrity , or a BAL test that was never done cant be used against you. Why would a more definitive test , blood v breath, be of any advantage to the accused ?
Most prosecutors are lazy, a DUI lacking any blood level, field sobriety test observations, with probable cause issues, throw in some conflicting witness statements and maby catch the arresting officer in a mistake , a aggressive, experienced defense lawyer might get a lesser charge or even get it dismissed.
As for the nite in jail, the $10 000 plus cost, loss of DL, insurance premiums , humilation, career and marriage problems, that all was in play when the decision was made to drink and drive, don't do it.

quote:

Like I said above, take the test, don’t take the test. You’ll get convicted at trial either way.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Like I said above, take the test, don’t take the test. You’ll get convicted at trial either way.

Seems that a some LE and Prosecutors always want to make their job easier.
Why not just let 'em in to your house too without a warrant?
If you haven't done anything then what do you have to fear.
DO NOT RESIST.
We don't need no stinkin' Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott in NCal:

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
Go ahead, refuse to take any tests. Refuse to make any statements. A telephonic search warrant from a Superior Court judge takes minutes. Then a licensed phlebotomist draws your blood sample, with or without your consent. If there is a significant delay, the BAC at the time of arrest can be determined by rate of elimination. FST and breath test refusal almost always guarantees a nights stay in jail. And you will probably lose your operators license to mandatory suspension, face insurance increases, etc.

If a state allows a driver to elect a blood test instead of a breath test, take it. Blood analysis is more accurate than breath. Note that the results of the blood test may be used as evidence.

Or cooperate, get a defense attorney and take the case to court (about $10,000 is the going rate for a trial).

Prescribed medications that may impair driving are always marked with warnings that they may cause impairment. Impairment is impairment. Prescribed medications may not readily be identified by HGN depending on the medication, but a DRE can identify them by category. A DRE must follow a multiple step evaluation process to determine the category of drugs in a persons system. Blood tests can support the DRE evaluation.

Just curious , Cooperate and get a defense attourney: Why cooperate ? I wouldn't do that if i was suspected of any crime. That telephone warrent for the blood draw can be challenged on probable cause - reasonable suspicion. So can the original stop. Refusing the field sobrity , or a BAL test that was never done cant be used against you. Why would a more definitive test , blood v breath, be of any advantage to the accused ?
Most prosecutors are lazy, a DUI lacking any blood level, field sobriety test observations, with probable cause issues, throw in some conflicting witness statements and maby catch the arresting officer in a mistake , a aggressive, experienced defense lawyer might get a lesser charge or even get it dismissed.
As for the nite in jail, the $10 000 plus cost, loss of DL, insurance premiums , humilation, career and marriage problems, that all was in play when the decision was made to drink and drive, don't do it.

Like I and others said, enjoy having your mom drive you back and forth for the year after you refuse the test. An “aggressive attorney” won’t get you out of that. Two facts to be had. Did the officer ask for you to take a test, and did you say no. And that is the name of that tune. There’s no middle ground, no wiggle room, no hardship license.....no nothing. Plus you’ll probably be out $10k and get convicted anyway. But wait there’s more. Every time you get behind the wheel in that year, you go straight to jail for 7 days. And the third time you get caught, you’re a convicted felon. Yep, totally worth not taking that test.

Do you really want to walk for a year on a slim chance of “maybe”? I lost ONE DUI trial in 20 years on the road. One out of a couple of thousand.

The hilarious part is listening to the phone calls from the jail during implied consent when they are given time to call an attorney. The conversation is always the same “hello this is John Smith. I got picked up for DUI.....take the test and call your office on Monday...Hello? Hello?...I think we got cut off”. Every DUI attorney I have ever known tells people to take all and any tests. I guess internet law and actual law differs.

I have yet to meet a “lazy” DUI prosecutor. Frankly, your post sounds like a infomercial for a sleezy law firm that also throws in a guarantee to meet Bigfoot.

Like I sai above, take the test, don’t take the test. You’ll get convicted at trial either way.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Oh noes!!! More false anger and angst.

If you guys would simply not drink and drive, you wouldn’t have to go to all this scheming. If you do drink and drive, you get what you deserve.

I can’t really figure why it’s so hard to understand or why anyone would scheme so hard to legitimize and defend the habit of driving drunk. Get caught, get convicted.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
The DWI lawyers all say not to take any tests.
They are ALL rigged to convict you.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott in NCal:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott in NCal:

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
Go ahead, refuse to take any tests. Refuse to make any statements. A telephonic search warrant from a Superior Court judge takes minutes. Then a licensed phlebotomist draws your blood sample, with or without your consent. If there is a significant delay, the BAC at the time of arrest can be determined by rate of elimination. FST and breath test refusal almost always guarantees a nights stay in jail. And you will probably lose your operators license to mandatory suspension, face insurance increases, etc.

If a state allows a driver to elect a blood test instead of a breath test, take it. Blood analysis is more accurate than breath. Note that the results of the blood test may be used as evidence.

Or cooperate, get a defense attorney and take the case to court (about $10,000 is the going rate for a trial).

Prescribed medications that may impair driving are always marked with warnings that they may cause impairment. Impairment is impairment. Prescribed medications may not readily be identified by HGN depending on the medication, but a DRE can identify them by category. A DRE must follow a multiple step evaluation process to determine the category of drugs in a persons system. Blood tests can support the DRE evaluation.

Just curious , Cooperate and get a defense attourney: Why cooperate ? I wouldn't do that if i was suspected of any crime. That telephone warrent for the blood draw can be challenged on probable cause - reasonable suspicion. So can the original stop. Refusing the field sobrity , or a BAL test that was never done cant be used against you. Why would a more definitive test , blood v breath, be of any advantage to the accused ?
Most prosecutors are lazy, a DUI lacking any blood level, field sobriety test observations, with probable cause issues, throw in some conflicting witness statements and maby catch the arresting officer in a mistake , a aggressive, experienced defense lawyer might get a lesser charge or even get it dismissed.
As for the nite in jail, the $10 000 plus cost, loss of DL, insurance premiums , humilation, career and marriage problems, that all was in play when the decision was made to drink and drive, don't do it.

Like I and others said, enjoy having your mom drive you back and forth for the year after you refuse the test. An “aggressive attorney” won’t get you out of that. Two facts to be had. Did the officer ask for you to take a test, and did you say no. And that is the name of that tune. There’s no middle ground, no wiggle room, no hardship license.....no nothing. Plus you’ll probably be out $10k and get convicted anyway. But wait there’s more. Every time you get behind the wheel in that year, you go straight to jail for 7 days. And the third time you get caught, you’re a convicted felon. Yep, totally worth not taking that test.

Do you really want to walk for a year on a slim chance of “maybe”? I lost ONE DUI trial in 20 years on the road. One out of a couple of thousand.

The hilarious part is listening to the phone calls from the jail during implied consent when they are given time to call an attorney. The conversation is always the same “hello this is John Smith. I got picked up for DUI.....take the test and call your office on Monday...Hello? Hello?...I think we got cut off”. Every DUI attorney I have ever known tells people to take all and any tests. I guess internet law and actual law differs.

I have yet to meet a “lazy” DUI prosecutor. Frankly, your post sounds like a infomercial for a sleezy law firm that also throws in a guarantee to meet Bigfoot.

Like I sai above, take the test, don’t take the test. You’ll get convicted at trial either way.

Why are you listening to conversations between people you have placed under arrest and their lawyers ? Has the constitution changed since i was a Dept Sherriff ? Reguarding refusal, 2 facts you say. Did the arresting officer request the test ? Did the guy say no ? What if onced placed under arrest, the guy goes full on with the 5th, I want a lawyer, i wont answer any questions, if you keep asking me questions i will tell my lawyer. Then you ask him anouther question, to take the test, and he gives no response whatsoever. The jury in some trial court will determine fact here. Remaining silent cant be used against you, what can the arresting officer testify to, that the guy didn't say no, what will the jury think ? Also, as I understand it, and the way it is here, refusal results in the DMV automatically suspending the drivers license.The DMV hearing is a process completely seperate from the criminal case. People have, and do , beat the DUI charge and still get the suspended drivers license. They beat the criminal charge, but have a suspended license for refusal. Unless they lose a job so what, uber and lyft for a year
Certian states dont care about outher states about the administrative DMV hearings of other states , only about convictions. Find one. get licensed there. For about $2500 Mexico will issue you a nonresident drivers lic that NAFTA says is valid here. If I ever was arrested for anything the last place I would take advice from is the arresting officer, I would not say a thing, i would not consent to anything. I would feel much more confident having my lawyer answering a complaint that has no lab report, than one that includes a report indicating guilt. If I can present evidence the arresting officer listened in on privileged communication between me and my lawyer this most certianly will die on the prosecuters desk.

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
I worked with city, county, state and AUSA federal prosecutors on DUI to federal cases. Not one of them was "lazy". Some prepared better than others, no doubt. It was their career on the line. They took pride in their successes. They could have been making ten times the money in private practice, but they chose to serve their communities and country. They were often overworked and underpaid, and served at the will of the city attorney, county attorney, state AG or USA AG. There's no tenure with prosecutors.

As well, I am related to and have known many judges at all levels. The same applied. In AZ judges are appointed. If judges don't perform, the voters can remove them from office.

If a defendant talks to his attorney in the presence of an investigator, there may be no expectation of privilege for that conversation. The utterance may not amount to anything useful, but you'd be surprised. Some defendants just can't keep their mouths shut.

A defendant has the right to refuse to answer questions after Miranda. That doesn't apply to the investigator. Miranda says the police must stop the interrogation. The investigator can talk all he wants. He can talk about the weather or lay out the case if that's his technique. The defendant doesn't have to say a thing in response. If the defendant does chose to speak, an investigator may chose to remind the defendant again of his rights and/or get a signed waiver. But it's not required. A highly regarded AZ AUSA told me that investigators all to often stop investigating to quickly upon defendants invoking Miranda.

I arrested a defendant for two counts of 1st degree homicide of two 12 year old boys. Each time I interviewed him he verbally and in written waiver, signed his understanding. Only one time did he say "maybe I should just get a lawyer". I kept talking to him. He voluntarily made a statement that was of evidentiary value to the case. The trial judge allowed his statements. He was convicted on both counts. The case was appealed to the AZ State Supreme Court. One of his many motions was that I violated his rights. The State Supreme Court panel unanimously denied the motions. The State Appellate Court unanimously denied the motions. He died in prison after 40+ years.

Quote: "It depends. If they are sleeping in their car in front of there house nothing, Passing thru a DUI check point, nothing. Reckless driving, speeding 20 mph over , an accident , different story."

Incorrect. If the driver is sleeping in his car in front of his house and the vehicle is running or capable of being immediately driven away, ie keys in the ignition, or car in gear with foot on the brake, it is considered physical control while under the influence. In fact, in many states a DUI can result from a driver driving on or parked on private property if physical control conditions exist. DUI and vehicular manslaughter are two motor vehicle charges that often apply not only on the roadway but on private property. Read your state statutes.

And passing through a check point can result in a DUI if certain driving mannerisms are detected and the driver is determined to be DUI. I've worked many check points. I've seen drivers almost run over officers handing out brochures about DUI. The drivers were DUI and charged.

quote:

Originally posted by berto:
I was a juror on a fed trial where one of the charges was driving under the influence of alcohol and or drugs. Defendant was outside the car and acting erratically when LEO showed up. Open containers in the car. Defendant’s blood test at the police station about two hours post contact came back .05 with traces of MJ and LSD. The MJ and LSD amounts were at a level where usage was likely weeks prior. Govt. expert did the math and said defendant was probably .07-.08 when the LEOs showed up. Defendant beat the feds on the DUI. He was found guilty of the other charges. It was an interesting three days as a juror.