emeraldcoastdav
Beach Lover
Pjj
it sounds like you've listened to this argument before.
it sounds like you've listened to this argument before.
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Cops in Miramar Beach? WCSO operations & DUI discussion
- Thread starter momof2kids
- Start date
scooterbug44
SoWal Expert
All I am hearing is that despite the severe penalties and overwhelming data, many people still think drinking and driving is okay.
And if they get caught doing so, it wasn't their fault - it was subjective, they were targeted, the laws are unfair. :roll:
And if they get caught doing so, it wasn't their fault - it was subjective, they were targeted, the laws are unfair. :roll:
No. "Drunk" in the sense that ones facilities are impaired. If there are "literally tons of evidence" that "drunk" is at or above .08 BAC, then there would be no need for the subjective discression of the officer to arrest individuals showing impairment but delivering a lower than .08 BAC.
And no, I'm not a DUI attorney. I did go to school with Zach Peagler, THE Alabama DUI Guy, but we've never discussed DUIs, at least since he finished law school. I just joined the discussion to point out the fallacy addressed in the first post.
Dave,
Yep - lots of emotion on this topic, which leads to poor reasoning.
LuciferSam
Banned
That's not true at all. The standard is subjective. 20 years ago it was .15 in some places. Now it's .08. You can still be charged if you blow below .08. Then it's the jury's job to decide if a crime has even been committed. It's just a number. A non-drinker may not be able to function at .01. A heavy drinker may be completely unimpaired at .10. It's called tolerance. The law just happens to say that if you blow over .08 you are definitely in trouble. That's the only thing that's not subjective about this.
John R
needs to get out more
That's the crux of the biscuit right there. If you blow .08, you are considered intoxicated. If you happen to be operating (or sleeping in) a vehicle, you're going to be arrested. The law wears a blindfold for a reason. The law doesn't really care if you are a server on the way home after your shift drink(s), a daily drunk, your tail light is broken, or it's off season.
If you are pulled over, and are drunk, you are going to taken off the road. I'm finding it hard to believe anyone feels this is a bad move.
bluemtnrunner
Beach Fanatic
Disclaimer: I am not in any way saying that people should drink and drive. I have lost friends to drunk drivers and seen the toll a dui charge can have on a family, though never in my own family thankfully. I am saying that the law is subjective and the arrests are subjective and law enforcement could easily violate our rights if there are no checks and balances.
I have to share this with you. I served as a juror on a dui trial. The state's job is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant was driving the vehicle and 2) while driving the vehicle the defendant was intoxicated to the point that he/she was not in possession of their normal facilities (the ability to walk, talk, drive, make clear decisions).
So, if you are sleeping in your car and an officer comes up, knocks on the window and proceeds to arrest you for DUI, they will have to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that you were driving while in that condition. If you weren't driving then take your chances on the justice system. I have learned in the past couple of years though that "the letter of the law" can be fickle, open to some interpretation, and that half of what is said can never be considered as evidence.
Personally, I think it is a crap shoot. Is the jury going to listen to the instructions and judge the case based SOLEY ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTAMONY PROVIDED IN THE TRIAL ? It could go either way. Just because someone did ok on a field sobriety test does not mean that they were definitely not impared beyond their normal capacity. I've talked to someone who passed with flying colors though he knew he should not have been driving. On the flip side, just because a person has had a drink (could have been a glass of wine that has not impacted their normal facilities) or because a person smells of alcohol (could have been spilled on them), or doesn't speak clearly is not an automatic sign of guilt either. Smelling of alcohol does not impair your facilities, right?
In our case, the jury of his peers had no choice but to return a verdict of not guilty.
I have to share this with you. I served as a juror on a dui trial. The state's job is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant was driving the vehicle and 2) while driving the vehicle the defendant was intoxicated to the point that he/she was not in possession of their normal facilities (the ability to walk, talk, drive, make clear decisions).
So, if you are sleeping in your car and an officer comes up, knocks on the window and proceeds to arrest you for DUI, they will have to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that you were driving while in that condition. If you weren't driving then take your chances on the justice system. I have learned in the past couple of years though that "the letter of the law" can be fickle, open to some interpretation, and that half of what is said can never be considered as evidence.
Personally, I think it is a crap shoot. Is the jury going to listen to the instructions and judge the case based SOLEY ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTAMONY PROVIDED IN THE TRIAL ? It could go either way. Just because someone did ok on a field sobriety test does not mean that they were definitely not impared beyond their normal capacity. I've talked to someone who passed with flying colors though he knew he should not have been driving. On the flip side, just because a person has had a drink (could have been a glass of wine that has not impacted their normal facilities) or because a person smells of alcohol (could have been spilled on them), or doesn't speak clearly is not an automatic sign of guilt either. Smelling of alcohol does not impair your facilities, right?
In our case, the jury of his peers had no choice but to return a verdict of not guilty.
Last edited:
In the case of this crime, the law is only only wears a blindfold when a breathalyzer or blood test is involved. Officers of the law make subjective judgment calls every day, but this is such an emotional issue and therefore political loser, the public is of the opinion that more is better. I'm of the opinion (I wish I didn't get into this now) that there should be a better threshold for forfeiting one's rights than a cop with a breath analyzer earning time and a half at a roadblock outside of a restaurant with a good wine list. There's quite a difference between drunk driving and drinking and driving but it isn't very well accepted to point that out.
LuciferSam
Banned
That's right, the law can't possibly make such determinations. A numeric standard has to be established.
Yes, but if you blow below .08, the law takes off it's blindfold and the fun begins. This could be a lot of people who maybe have a couple of glasses of champagne with Sunday brunch or something like that.
emeraldcoastdav
Beach Lover
Mrs Jones, (Commissioner Jones) emailed and asked me to clarify my question?
I asked her to address the expenditure issues on page 2 and summarize the study the Sheriff sited.
Waiting for response.
I asked her to address the expenditure issues on page 2 and summarize the study the Sheriff sited.
Waiting for response.
Matt J
SWGB
I find it interesting that people are now arguing "levels of drunk". The fact is that once you've had a drink you are in fact impaired. If this were not 100% true then pilots, doctors, and surgeons would be allowed to have a cocktail at lunch. Those three positions allow zero tolerance for alcohol in the system. In fact one pilot I know will not drink within 8 hours of flying.