By Dave S. on Oct 25, 2007

This article is only half the question - the other half is by how much were the results overstated, and, by how much were results understated.

Still, if you feel OK driving drunk, you should not be bothered if your surgical team has a couple of rounds before opening you up.

The best BAC is zero.

By Becky on Oct 26, 2007

Idiots. Officers, regardless of how much training, do not perform blood draws. They take people to the hospital where the lab does the dirty work.

Dave has a good point. If you’re driving drunk and willing to put yourself or others at risk, why should anyone care how you are getting prosecuted for it. How about taking some responsibility for your own actions.

By Eva on Oct 26, 2007

Refuse the BAC test and tell the cop that you know of a really fine institution where you can have a blood test done. Make sure it is 20 miles or more away and tell them you want to be taken there, maybe by that time your BAC will be less….

By snakeflake on Oct 26, 2007

For the guy who said the best BAC is 0, yes that is true if you want to make sure you never get a DUI. However, I like to have a couple of drinks with friends occasionally. I weigh 200 lbs. 2-3 drinks over the course of a couple of hours is not going to impair my driving. If I were to go through a roadblock and the officer suspected I had been drinking and administered a flawed test I would be arrested. That is wrong. I have the right to have those drinks and drive as long as I am not impaired. I do not drive drunk, but a flawed test could ruin you night and possibly your whole life.

By col gary on Oct 26, 2007

Do not delay a breath test. You could drink a bottle of vodka and immediatly take a test and pass, wait an hour or so, and you will blow the numbers off the screen. That is why the police will take there time before a formal test, usually two hours. Your BAC will regester much higher then when you were first stopped. Better off refusing any test, no matter what, you are still going to jail. Don’t give them anything to hang you with. I know, I am a former cop.

By David on Oct 26, 2007

Col Gary is somewhat mistaken about delaying a breath test. Alcohol absorbs into the system very rapidly through the mouth (no not when you swallow). If you have a drink and immediately take a breath test you will test very high. It takes about 20 minutes for the alcohol to absorbe into the system from the mouth, that is why the officer waits, a minimum of 20 minutes sometimes longer to give a test so he will get a more acurate reading.

By Hat on Oct 26, 2007

I have used the breathalizer in the er and yes the etoh(alcahol) level will be high immediately after consuming, And will lower with time.

By Milander on Oct 27, 2007

pathetic.. arguing over how much alcohol you can drink before being considered safe behind a wheel. I suggest you take note of teh many countries which have a zero tolerance towards drink and driving, like HUngary where I live. If you are going to get behind 2 tons or more of metal you need to be sober. I’ve seen people pissed on 1 beer let alone 4 which some states allow.

Get over yourselves and introduce zero tolerance, there is NO safe limit at which to drive.

By Galen on Oct 27, 2007

Bravo, Milander!!!
I agree with you, If we had a Zero tolerance on alcohol consumption before driving in the United States, it would make my job as a Police Officer a lot easier.
Then all we would have to show is that they had consumed alcohol… not listen to bottom feeding lawyers in court about how innocent, and a victim of his environment their client is!
But then I guess all of our politicians would have to be held to a higher standard, and we couldn’t have that now could we!!!

By Galen on Oct 27, 2007

Reply to Hat’s comment,
One reason for the higher BAC after consumption is “residual mouth alcohol”, that is why we administer the test at the jail after a 20 min observation period.
BAC will also climb to a certain level after consumption, then drop off as long as no more alcohol is consumed.

By Galen on Oct 27, 2007

Col Gary is totally wrong about when to take a breath test!
First of all, if you were a cop, you shouldn’t be trying to give criminals advice on how to get away with breaking the law and possibly killing others.
2nd, right after drinking a bottle of vodka, you would have extemely high BAC numbers that would reflect totally inaccurately that person’s actual BAC due to “residual mouth alcohol” (as I mentioned earlier.) 3rd, col Gary, if you ever where a cop, which I doubt, I am glad you are a former one!-thanks for trying to give the criminal element advice, and making all good cops jobs a little harder!!! Some people have no business in law enforcement!!!

By Fritz on Oct 28, 2007

As for you foreigners, while you can express your opinions, they really don’t count in the USA so don’t try to import your totalitarianism into this county - thank you. I agree with getting REALLY drunk drivers off the road but I have a problem with what some rate as “impaired”. Studies have shown and even the GAO testified, when congress was busy forcing states to adopt lower BAC standards, admitted that lowering the BAC probably wouldn’t have much effect and it hasn’t. It’s put many more drivers in jail but hasn’t had much effect on accidents and that was predictable.
While you can argue the details of DUI/DWI’s I’m here to tell you that there’s a larger picture to this. MAD started it and initially had good intentions but as we all know sometimes the best intentions pave the path to hell. As the organization grew and their reliance on special interest funding grew so did their tilt towards becoming a prohibitionist movement. Even the founder quit the organization.
Some people would love to see zero tolerance (totalitarianism). Lets face it, some of these same people don’t want anybody, anywhere, anytime, anyplace to ever, ever, ever have a drink - period. You’d sure make a good Muslim (nothing against Muslims). In the larger scheme of things this isn’t about drunk driving it’s about a mentality of intolerance maybe mixed in with some religion. If this was really about drunk driving we would take a hard look at statistics and establish a REASONALBLE standard - but it’s not, so quit make-believing it is.
If you want to talk about impairments, based against a perfect standard we all have impairments that decrease our safe driving ability. Some are voluntary, some are not. We already know what causes most accidents and that’s what law enforcement should be concentrating on. Reasonable DUI enforcement is a good thing but in recent years the zealotry that some people have jumping on this bandwagon concerns me. Reasonable people better start chiming in on this issue.

By Trooper2421 on Oct 28, 2007

Officers are out to make strong cases against DRUNK people. We aren’t out to lock up innocent people, it a waste of our time and is going to make us look bad in court. An officers career depends on how well his cases are in court. If he brings shit cases where some guy had a few beers then he looks like an asshole to the judge and the prosecutor and they don’t take him seriously. Any good cop who knows his DUI laws and the science behind it can make a DUI case without any blood or breath sample. The key to not getting a DUI is to take a F#@%ING cab or get a ride. We get tired of working accidents where a%#wipe business man or f#@%stick college student drank one too many and plowed into a tree or killed someone in another car. Driving buzzed is driving drunk and you will go to jail.

By Peter J. Moss on Oct 29, 2007

I love my local neighborhood bar that’s within walking distance. Makes driving home my riding mower a lot more tolerable.

By BuzzedDriver on Oct 29, 2007

Trooper, you’re an idiot. People that are buzzed don’t crash into trees or cause fatal collisions. Those are the seriously impaired drivers swerving all over the road, not the guy drifting around his own lane. Being a pig though, it’s understandable how you can criticize driving after a few brews, without ever having done so yourself. Self-righteousness. Isn’t it cool?

By Excop on Oct 29, 2007

Trooper, as you and I know, stone cold sober people crash into trees and cause fatal collisions every day. People that are “buzzed” greatly increase their odds of crashing into trees and causing fatal collisions, even if their blood alcohol level is under the legal limit. Someday, it’s very likely that one of our brother or sister officers will be pulling BuzzedDriver out of a wrecked car. The only regretable thing is, he or she will probably take one or more innocent people with him or her.

By regular guy on Oct 29, 2007

Bravo, Fritz

By Justin on Oct 30, 2007

excuess my spelling: Look if you get pulled over omit to nothing, take the soberity tests if you think you can pass them. When it comes time to take the breath alizer, if they even feel the need to give you one, plea the 4th amendment (yes 4th not 5th for you stuipd cops that argue with me) it protects your rights to not sumit to a drug or achocl test! which will probably result in you losing your license for 3-6 months for refusing at the same time plea the 5th amendment expressing your right to decline all or part of the testing till you speak with your lawyer this may buy you a few hours, if you know you wont pass just refuse its harder to prove a case (which it still can be done) against you if its just the offices big mouth, and you may be able to plea bargain for a lesser charge. If you were orginally pulled over for speeding and the office trys to or does give you a dui request the serial#, make and model of the defice used, in most states they have to give you this info., then get a lawyer and see if the gun was calibrated if it was not he had no right to pull you over in the first case and it should be dismissed, if he wont or doesnt have to give you the serial# etc, go to the police or station and ask for all the serials # and calibration dates if they refuse go to trail you will get the info. you need there they have to give it to you

By Taco on Oct 30, 2007

Fritz I agree with you 100 percent. The only thing you left out is the financial side. Where would this country get the millions of dollars in revenue it gets EVERY year it has gotten since MADD was organized and took over the coutr system if not for DUI & DWI. I love it when I hear one of the A**h*les in MADD gets a DUI. I was told by A very high up judge Madd inspects their court records monthly. If there are very many DUI cases found not guilty. That judge will not be a judge very long.

By Kip Fuller on Oct 30, 2007

I would take an “impaired” adult on the road that has had 2 beers before I would accept a sober driver at any age “Texting” while driving!

Recently, I watched for 5 minutes going down I-25 in Denver a young person 18-23 who was all over the road. When I finally had enough of his speeding up, slowing down, drifting from lane to lane, I accelerated past him and looked at him and saw he was busy tapping away on his I-Phone! We need new laws about that NOW! Drinkers get BAC’s. Texters should get a phone records check to see if they were “texting” at the time of an infraction.

I believe we haven’t even scratched the surface as to how many accidents this has caused yet because we have no system to track it! Just look around you. Watch how many people are walking and talking / texting! And you think they’re not doing that while they’re driving too? You’re a fool if you don’t think so!

By TexasAxMan on Oct 30, 2007

I agree with Fritz and Kip Fuller. Enough with the zero tolerance crap. Crack down on the cell phone usage and traffic accidents will fall off.

In Texas, you see a 105 lb. woman driving a 6,000 lb. Excursion while talking on the phone and putting on makeup with the kids screaming in the back. Talk about an accident waiting to happen ……

By Bill "Henchman" on Oct 30, 2007

Demand your rights! Refuse the breathalizer, demand to be arrested and that the PO get a Court Order for your blood. At that point you may be well below the BAC. If so, get a lawyer and you will own the county.

By BOB STICKLEY on Oct 30, 2007

RELIABLE STATISTICS REVEAL THAT ABOUT 36% OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC FATALITIES ARE CAUSED BY DRUNK DRIVERS. OK! THEN THAT MEANS ABOUT 64% OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC FATALITIES ARE CAUSED BY SOBER DRIVERS. THEREFORE, IT ONLY MAKES SENSE TO TAKE THE SOBER DRIVERS OFF THE STREETS AND ROADS SINCE THEY’RE CAUSING ALMOST TWO THIRDS OF ALL THE HIGHWAY CARNAGE! THIS IS INDISPUTABLE LOGIC. THE NUMBERS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. SHOW ME WHERE I’M WRONG!

By Mike on Oct 30, 2007

Its amazing that all of these letters ignore the main point of the article. Breathylizers can be very inaccurate. If your being arrested on the basis of a readind that is overstating your bac then it’s entirely possible that you are not drunk. Everyone can show a low bac even if they’ve had nothing to drink. The drug and alchohol test that is used by the DOT to screen truckdrivers,airline pilots, etc. categorizes a bac under 0.02 as a negative result meaning you passed it. Anything between 0.02 and 0.04 is impaired and over 0.04 is drunk. Hospital blood draw tests can have margins of error approaching 40% depending on the test used. The U.S. Supreme court has ruled that polygraphs are inadmissable(accept as exculpatory evidence in some cases) because even the best estimates say they are wrong at least 20% of the time. The preliminary breathylizers used on the street are very inaccurate and usually inadmissable as well. They must be followed up by a test on a certified machine by a certified operator(usually different from the arresting officer) after the arrest. Once you’ve been brought in under arrest your chances of passing that are slim and none regardless of what your bac is. A cop can say you blew anything. If you’ve been arrested based on an innacurate test then you are not DRUNK and that is a crime!!

By Mike on Oct 30, 2007

Bob, you say reliable statistics say that 36% of traffic fatalities are caused by “drunk drivers”. I beg to differ. They say that 36% of traffic fatalities are “alchohol related accidents”. All that means is that a police officer checked a little box on the report that says “HBD” meaning had been drinking. There doesn’t have to be any arrest. You could be sitting at a red light after 2 beers and get rear ended by someone who’s had nothing to drink and it’s an alchohol related accident if the officer checks that little box. Here in Michigan if the hbd box is checked for both drivers they count it as two alchohol related accidents even if no one has been arrested for drunk driving.This was done to justify their push for check lanes. These are hardly reliable statistics.

By Fritz on Oct 31, 2007

As Mike so eloquently pointed out the term “alcohol related” may not have anything to do with actual causation of the accident. A pedestrian with any alcohol in his/her system killed by a perfectly alcohol free driver is a “alcohol related” fatality according to some and is reported as such. Hence the skewed statistics. It’s similar to another popular reporting term “speed related”.

I think these terms may have been dreamed up by NHTSA’s idiots sitting in their ivory tower. They like to dramatize everything that comes out of their mouth to make it seem worse then the situation actually is. Ever watched them testify in front of congress? If you have, you’ll quickly accumulate a healthy DISRESPECT for them. They come about as close to traffic control NAZI’s as I’ve seen anywhere. According to the NMA, NHTSA been known to hide reports with the results of a study don’t favor their view or propaganda. NHTSA and MADD are two powerful groups that would love to see zero tolerance.

Oh and by the way, I work in the transportation industry (airplanes) and I had my drug test about a week ago. But that’s another issue for another day. That also means I’m under the zero tolerance for alcohol. I didn’t get the Breathalyzer test although it’s common, but not mandatory, to get it along with a drug test. Not to mention the sobriety check points I go through every once in awhile since I get off work at midnight. So MADD and the government have already found away to slip zero tolerance into some of our lives. I know nobody’s going to believe this but I’m a life long non-drinker. You see, this MADD mentality touches my life too…as a non-drinker. But I see the larger picture as special interests working the power levers of government to run amock……again.

By Fritz on Oct 31, 2007

We sometimes tend to criticize the cops for blatant actions (and we should). But on the other hand they are doing this as a job. I can’t say I’d ever make a good cop because if I was asked to use a Breathalyzer, I’d tell the chief to stick the Breathalyzer up where the sun don’t shine. I probably wouldn’t have a job very long. But, as a cop if I stopped you it would be for something that REALLY causes most accidents, not some theoretical ballony such as making revenue for the municipality.

However, cops can’t do this without authorization so we seem to forget to criticize the idiots up the chain of command that authorize this stuff. Our good old do-nothing congress is a good start. Then your state legislators also qualify for bowing under pressure to the Feds. So, we need to giv’em all equal time and we need to communicate our dissatisfaction directly to them. Oh, and lets don’t forget our activist judges who like to expand traffic control laws from the bench. You can bet if a case goes before a judge and it’s the lowly driver vs the government….guess who he’s/shes gonna rule in favor of. Good guess. That’s right, the government.

And last but not least lets blame ourselves for not getting involved enough to counter some of this MADness. It’s fun to debate issues on the Internet but it’s not going to the right people unfortunately. As slimly as it can get, we have to learn to play the political game. All our adversary’s (read MADD and NHTSA) already have.

Isn’t it kinda funny…..NOT! that the Feds according the constitution cannot institute state traffic laws …..but indirectly they go right ahead and do it anyhow. What’s that corrupting force that’s so menacing and constantly comes up when we talk traffic control….MONEY? Many of these congressmen were former state legislators. Ask your congressmen to explain how he/she used to complain about the federal government mandating things against the state’s will. But, now as congressmen they support it though programs like the National Highway Omnibus funding program (which congress is working on right now).

By Kip Fuller on Oct 31, 2007

You guys will find this interesting. Last night I went over to a friend’s home to watch the B-Ball game and have a few beers. He is a Denver Police Officer. I asked him about this website and how accurate he thought roadside tests were. For kicks, he pulled out his portable breathalyzer and we took turns blowing. It’s amazing the difference between people. When 2 other buddies came in, we administered the test to them. They were both about the same size and weight. Neither had had a drink yet. They both chugged 1 beer. A few minutes later, one blew a .76 and the other a 1.88! Explain that?

By Scoots on Oct 31, 2007

Here’s another thought: Our taxes go to pay our “public servants” salaries. So if I have a 2 1/2 beers instead of 2—why can’t I call “public servant” - an officer & have him drive me home??

By Hilarious!!! on Oct 31, 2007

After reading the posts here it’s not too hard to tell who the “regular” drunk drivers are and the Police haters. Please, PLEASE, don’t call the Police when you need them.

And God forbid some “pig” has to pull one of your loved ones out some burning wreck that just got T-Boned by a drunk driver in the middle of the night. Because, trust me, you won’t have the pleasure of doing it.

Have a nice day.

PS “Scoots” - if the Police cruisers had a sticker on the side of them “Police TAXI” we would be more than happy to give you a ride home. If “emergency service” means anything to you, then I guess, well, ’nuff said.

By Bottomline on Oct 31, 2007

We all have our own opinions. That is fine. And as widely diverse as they are, I think it’s safe to say none of us wants anyone to be hurt or killed by impaired judgement. The government (public servants) wants this debate to continue. If not, something more would have been done by now. When the (govenment) wanted certain drugs made illegal, it was done. And there are many other examples of what the government wants, the government gets.
The bottom line is that the government could have car manufacturers install intelligent systems on vehicles to prevent, or at least hinder, the drivers ability to drive drunk. One reason the govenment doesn’t do this is, the auto industry lobby is to powerful (i.e. - forks over a lot of money) It’s a corrupt system at times, why should the people be any different? What’s the saying about an apple and the tree it fell from? As long as you are engaged in the debate, the governing body wins and everyone stands the chance to lose someone they care for. If you want real change enacted, stop talking here and start calling your legislators. Be good or be good at it.

By clean & sober...sorta on Oct 31, 2007

A bad drunk driver is a bad sober driver in general, yet there is usually no loss of licsense or heavy fine if you are one of the stupid yet stone sober people that cause the majority of car crashes.

By Navy Chic on Oct 31, 2007

Well this is just my two cents. Breathalyzers can be faulty and the only time that I feel that this should even be considered in court is in the case of those with CDL’s. A CDL driver is zero tolerance so this means not only beer, wine or liquor it means no cough syrup and mouthwash. As far as cell phones go, on all military instillations it is illegal to use a cell phone, i.e. no talking, no texting, nothing with it at all. This has decrease the amount of wrecks on base which is a good thing. As far as those that feel the urge to bash the police think on this for a moment. I don’t see you doing their job and when the s#*$ is hitting the fan who are you yelling for ohh that’s right the ones that you bash. I will admit I do usually cuss when I get pulled over but you know what that guy is just doing his job the one that youns pay him to do. So next time you want to start on one of your so called hate the cop spichells remember they are the ones that are out there putting their a$$ on the line while you are home in your bed and there is a chance they might not even make it home so chew on that for a bit.

By Scoots on Nov 1, 2007

I said 2.5 beers, Hilarious, not 12.5. My point IS that IF this is a matter of public safety and I believe that I could be determined a hazard to public safety according to the limit set for over 2 beers, then why can’t I call a policeman to drive me home? Because it comes down to being more of a matter of greed and extortion more than being a matter of public safety.

“We the People” are paying public servants to punish ourselves. (And I’m not talking about an obviously drunk driver–2.5 beers is not drunk). And it’s not the cops fault that the breathylizer determines the level of punishment and arrest or not. I would prefer that a cop gets to use his own discretion and common sense. A policeman can more than likely determine if someone is drunk by a fair field sobriety test.

No one wants to see drunk drivers on the road. But I also don’t want my life ruined and pockets emptied because I chose to have 2.5 glasses of wine or beer and get pulled over for a headlight out & “smell like alcohol” and the cop is adding to his quota as opposed to having been pulled over for bad drunken-like driving.

I support cops who have common sense. It’s a shame they can’t use their own discretion the majority of times.

By BOB STICKLEY on Nov 2, 2007

The whole drunk driving “crusade” is a disgraceful farce, a nonsensical sham, and nothing more than a CASH COW scam for the lawyers and state & local governments. Hang you head low, America! Focus on things far more important. Such as an idiotic war and corrupt government. Don’t forget history…Athens and Rome (among many others) were also “the best there is” (or so they fatuously thought). What a joke—except it’s not funny! And for those who say “love it or leave it” I’m packing as I write. Have fun, y’all, you’re in for a really rough ride!

By ronko on Nov 2, 2007

Who drinks 2.5 beers? Where do you buy the 1/2 cans?

By Billy on Nov 2, 2007

Ok I don’t approve of drunk driving however…Always keep a unopened bottle of jack daniels in your globe box if you get pulled over and you know you might be getting a DUI. Take the keys out of the ignition get out and start drinking as much of the jack as you can in front of the cop. Then let them prove if you were drinking before or at the time the officer saw you drinking… Just a thought

By not an idiot on Nov 2, 2007

@Becky way back on Oct. 26: most officers don’t take blood themselves, but there is at least one county or city in which they do take blood themselves. i’m too lazy to look it up for you, but it is happening there…

By Eddiei on Nov 2, 2007

Driving out of the parking lot of a pub is reasonable suspicion for a police officer to stop and question you. The police are highly trained to collect the evidence that can ultimately convict you. If the police officer sees your eyes, the officer can state that your eyes showed signs of alcohol abuse. If you speak to the officer, the officer can state that you breath smelled of alcohol. If you exit your vehicle and stand up, the officer can testify that you were unsteady on your feet.
Without evidence to contradict any of the officer’s observations, you are at the mercy of the justice system. Regardless of BAC results, it comes down to your word against that of a law enforcement officer.

The fact is that you are guilty upon accusation when it comes to DUI, at least in the USA.

By Eddiei on Nov 2, 2007

Proof of my point:

http://www.gtconnect.com/articles/2007/11/02/news/community/3aaa02_tortclaim.txt

By Romulos on Nov 2, 2007

Stickley, in order for your statistics to be useful, we would need to know what percentage of people who drive while intoxicated are at-fault in accidents, and what percentage of people who have a BAC of 0 are at-fault in accidents. The next step of your argument is that if no one drove a car, no car accidents would happen. True, but irrelevant. It’s something like saying that if no one ever ate, there’d be no food poisoning deaths, or if no one ever thought, we wouldn’t need brain surgeons.

By Copnow on Nov 2, 2007

lol yeah please, PLEASE refuse the BAC. If I arrested you for DUII, I have a case with or without it. If you take it and fail, in my state, its 90 day suspension… if you refuse it, youre suspended for 1 year, period. So please, drunk assholes, refuse the bac. My report is shorter, you’re gonna get convicted anyway with the rest of the evidence I collected before I even arrested you, and your suspension is going to be longer than it would be if you took it and failed, keeping your poor decision making ass off the road longer. So yeah, go ahead moron, refuse it. I’ll LOL all the way to your DMV hearing and trial collecting overtime the whole way.

By Your mom on Nov 2, 2007

As I read this discussion thread, I realized something. If you are passionate about a subject, and want to be taken seriously, it is extremely important to use proper spelling and grammar. You all appear to be uneducated idiots.

By aNurse on Nov 2, 2007

Copnow seems to have an overactive gloating gland.
No, Officer Underfilledcondom, you won’t. If you pull me over, and try your idiotic cop tricks (”And where did you say you were going again?” “I didn’t. And I won’t.”), you’ll just get a calm, quiet nonargumentative person who refuses your test. You will have nothing for your report. Unless you make it up; which is inadvisable, since I record traffic stops.
Dufus with a badge.

By Jim on Nov 2, 2007

12 hours bottle to throttle. It’s a simple rule that works well for operating all modes of transport.

By David Rockne-Semkow on Nov 2, 2007

Eddiei, you’ve nailed it on the head. I am struck by the phony humor and unrighteous indignation of Copnow, Galen and others herein of their ilk. The topic of faulty equipment or faulty methodology never entered their thoughts in this discussion. A cop knows his job is to collect evidence to convict someone, no matter how innocent they might be. His job is never to exonerate anyone. When you are a police officer, everyone is a suspect. Guilt is something you just somehow know. All you gotta do is get the perps in jail. (A perp is anyone who is not a cop. Short for perpetrator.) And, like most cops, if you are not a cop, you are a/an(your crime here)asshole, scumbag or dirtball. To quote the late mayor Daly, the police are not here to create disorder, they are here to preserve disorder.
That the method of proving your guilt may be faulty is of no concern. Breathalyzers, fingerprints (now currently suspect), or anything else need not have any evidence value. You can carve the peg to fit the hole. Cops knows they can lie to perps (suspects)to extract a confession and they can lie on police reports.
I would guess there are almost no Christian police, since there are strong prohibitions against bearing false witness (Its a commandment. Discussions of the commandments and new covenants are not relevant here). Unless, that is, police have some secret religion that sells or gives them plenary indulgences so they can believe they are not sinning and not face any spiritual judgment on that count.
Looks like among this lot of respondents you have the police and their supporters who would cut down every tree in the forest to get at the Devil, believing they at least have the armaments to keep themselves from needing a tree to hide behind should the Devil come after them.
And Copnow gets to collect overtime from the public purse in his righteous endeavor to arrest those assholes and overcome the principles of Aequitas and Veritas. (That’s equity and truth.)
As Jesus said, “Go forth and sin no more.” Will you stop using questionable devices, outright lies, and other otherwise immoral or unethical “tools” of the police trade and look for truth instead, Officers?
Police often make such a fuss over inadequate or faulty tools. Make a fuss over all your faulty tools, then maybe someone will listen. Until then, its just average everyday people on power trips, without the wisdom or intelligence to use the power rightly. Next time I am in trouble, I am calling an Anarchist.

By G-funk! on Nov 2, 2007

I drink 6 beers and feel completely relaxed behind the wheel.

By MS on Nov 2, 2007

I always take a cab home. Maybe we should divde states in half. Then alcohol, and smoking and all that would be legal on one side, but not the other. Then we can just choose which side we wanna live on, and mind our own business.

Oh wait a minute there are already other countries and regions out there that don’t permit alcohol, and I don’t live there. Mainly because I think those places suck. I guess you could just call me crazy for thinking that our freedoms, and the things we are allowed to do are what make America great, not what we are banned from doing. Wow, what a crazy thought.

By CR on Nov 2, 2007

I wonder how long MADD would stay in business if a class action lawsuit were filed against it under the RICO statute for racketeering? The cop with the adittude for arresting someone with a 0.00 BAC for dui should be stripped of his badge and never again be given a position of authority ever again. Think you’ve got constitutional rights for dui? Think again. MADD, lawyers, politicians and judges are stripping us of them. It’s time we took our rights back from those who would oppress us given the chance.

By GTRBOT666 on Nov 3, 2007

why don’t people just request the source code of the device which all the cases are dropped so far because most states would rather drop the case than have you or anyone else know how they assemble their information. who knows it might just be a random number generator?

By Nobody Knows on Nov 3, 2007

In response to Copnow…I can definitely tell you are an officer. If you’re not you sure sound close. I’m an officer too and it’s the same way here. Refuse the test, you just bought yourself an aggravated DUI, up from the original DUI charge.
And to address most of the other idiotic things I’m seeing here…
Billy on Nov 2nd: You’d take 1st place for dumbest! Even though keys aren’t in ignition, you’re still in control of the vehicle. I’d hit you with original DUI and be able to add open container in vehicle and bet you I could get either drinking in public or disorderly. Idiot.
Bob Stickley: When a drunk driver has a head-on collision with you wife/son/daughter/mother/father and kills that persons (or people), let’s see what you say then. You not an idiot like Billy, just ignorant to reality.
Clean and Sober on Oct 31: In a few years when you turn 21, then wait a few more years before you can put in a word.
Hilarious!!! on Oct 31st: Whoever you are, you rock!

By hrld on Nov 3, 2007

For those of you who think it is acceptable to drink ANYTHING and drive: I hope you never have to identify a dead parent at the morgue and explain to your younger siblings that Mom is dead because of a drunk. I did.

If the science behind breathalyzers is faulty, so be it. If you haven’t had anything to drink, you have nothing to worry about.

By Jake G. on Nov 3, 2007

To CopNow and Nobody Knows, etc: So at what point after being shoved into lockers and made fun of in school did you decide to become such upstanding reps for the law. I’m glad to know we have such aggressive, condescending aces protecting the streets. I’d swerve by you sober just get you off the streets. I know, to catch a criminal you must think like one. In other words, to act like a cop you must you must have the mind of a criminal.

By albundy on Nov 3, 2007

To CopNow and Nobody Knows, etc: right-wing zealots.

Look, a lot of you are going to drink and then drive. It is a fact. You need to make a educated decision now to determine what you will do if and when you get pulled over for alleged DUI. Here are some points you should consider.

-Get a license from a non-reciprocating state. The state you live in cannot take away your license from another state, they can only take away your right to drive in their state. There are still some states that do not reciprocate with others, meaning, they will not revoke your license because another state revoked your privilege to drive in that state. Should you get your privilege suspended, you just move out of that state.

-Hire the best lawyer in town/state. A good attorney will make all of the difference in the world. You will never regret spending that extra money. Do your research now and find the lawyer in your area that wins cases!

-Keep your mouth shut during a stop/incarceration! This is the best advice EVAR! Do not offer any information. The only reason you should be talking is to demand your lawyer. EVERYTHING you say WILL be used AGAINST you!

-Refuse to take any ‘test’ performed by the cops. What sounds better in court, “He refused all tests” OR “He f-a-i-l-e-d nine out of ten tests?” Yes, they can take away your license for refusal, but it is an ‘administrative’ revocation, not a ‘criminal’ revocation! An administrative revocation means you will only pay to have your license reinstated, you will not have to pay for(in my state): ASAP classes, Mental Health group therapy, mandatory AA meetings, SR-22 insurance, etc. AND, you will not have a criminal DUI offense on your record!

Alcoholism is a disease that is beyond the control of many. I do not advocate driving drunk. But, I also do not advocate a right-wing controlled police state our country has turned into. I hope my thoughts help you in some way on your road to recovery.

By BillyBob on Nov 3, 2007

I think everybody here is totally missing the point. The point is the scientist made an error in his reporting and never corrected it even after discovering it was wrong. Instead he covered his tracks.
I am all for ACCURATE testing but to knowingly falsify your report is criminal in itself.
In Pennsylvania the accuracy of radar guns was challenged in court as to their true accuracy. An expert who worked for the State Police had to testify in court. He testified under oath that his findings showed a high rate of inaccuracy and that it was brought to the attention of the manufacturer. All of this was swept under the rug. His superiors told him to shut up and go away. He was removed from his position and forced to resign and sue the state.
One of their own was treated like a criminal for telling the truth under oath. All you have to do is follow the money trail and see who benefits the most from it.
We need to get drunk drivers off of the road but lets not hide the true facts to further the agenda of any organization.
Only the Ted Kennedy’s of the world can get away with faulty judgement, faulty data and a faulty public who doesn’t demand more honesty.

By Brian tha G on Nov 3, 2007

I want my DUI reversed damnit.

By Bars shouldn't be outlawed on Nov 3, 2007

You know, a lot of grief would be saved all around if townships sprung for subsidized night transportation — mini-busses that made the rounds of local taverns, or subsidized taxis, or even volunteers.

Why should you pay for the drunks to get home? Well, you certainly wind up paying when they get on the road drunk, and you also pay for DUI prevention — all those cops looking for drunks, setting up roadblocks, etc.

Alternatively, if you don’t want to tap into the public till, it might be in the taverns’ interests to collectively fund a system to drive people home who are leaving the bars.

The fact is that there are few places to relax, socialize and meet other people — taverns have been around for thousands of years, and shouldn’t be outlawed. But in most parts of the US, you have to drive to get to a tavern, and probably have to drive back.

So, since you know that people are always going to want to go to bars and may have to drive there, systems should be put into place to make it much easier to get home without driving.

By Mike on Nov 3, 2007

Again people pay attention. If your arrested based on an inaccurate test then you may well not be drunk. I’m reading confused responses from peope who think that there is someone defending drunk driving. Someone arrested and/or convicted based on a test that may have a 40% margin of error doesn’t have anything to do with someone being killed by a drunk driver. If a cop helps old ladies accross the street when everyone is looking does that make it ok if he beats handcuffed prisoners in a dark alley? Would it be ok if he charges you with a murder you didn’t commit because he responded to a homicide last week? Why not eliminate all the cops and courts and just have everybody take lie detectors? 20 to 40 percent of the people we locked up would be innocent but what the hell crime would drop. None of you cops bothered to mention the growing trend of municipal governments to start billing people for breathylizers that they passed(yes this is happening). What were their grounds for probable suspicion when they made the stop?

By scott on Nov 3, 2007

Galen:

Making your job easier? That’s what you’re concerned about? Sounds like a typical cop attitude. How about at what level a driver is measurably impaired?

Not taking the breathalyser is the best advice anyone can get.

When someone starts treating the cops as their adversary, then they begin to protect their own rights.

By tom mcdoll on Nov 3, 2007

I’m with everyone that said, “the point is…2.3 and 23%” is a big f@@king deal!
but i would also like to point out…all these law are in effect because the only people that vote are crusty old farts and zelots and other groups! real everyday people dont vote. just think about, porn is a malti-billion dollar bissness and yet there are all kinds of laws jacking with it. everyones whats this or that but they never get off their fat butts and vote. so you have old people and madd moms and crap like that making all the rules!

By Galen_Cop on Nov 3, 2007

Scott,
First of all, unless you have ever put on the badge and delt with idiots under the influence, you really have no idea what my job entails.
I am not saying it needs to be easier in terms of acutal work preformed, what I am talking about is all the “red-tape” we have to go through just to get a drunk driver off the road, not to mention if it goes to court and the hoops you have to jump through there.
As far as your comment: “How about at what level a driver is measurably impaired?” Explain to me what you think “measurably impaired” means? You sound like a resonalbly intelligent person, Scott, but it also sounds as if you have had a bad experience with law enforcement as some point in your life.
It’s funny how people love the law and law enforcement until it is applied to them. What I have found is that for the most part, people in general have a problem with accepting responsibility for their own actions, which in lies the “problem” with law enforcement that most people have.
Now, David Rockne-Semkow, what exactly does being a “christian” have to do with being a cop or law enforcement. Ever hear of seperation of church and state?
As far as I’m concerned, What I do as a cop is collect evidence, make arrests if needed, and present that evdidence in a reasonable and responsible manner. If someone thinks or believes otherwise, then that is beyond my control!
See ya on the road!

~Galen

By Lousiana on Nov 3, 2007

I’ve been a police officer for a short time but I’ve arrested more DWI offenders than most veteran officers in my department. My record thus far is perfect, 100% convictions. In every report that I’ve ever written, the paragraph pertaining to the Intoxilyzer 5000 test(we don’t use breathalyzer) is very brief. It’s my observations, from the moment I first observe a vehicle, to coming into personal contact with the driver, to pre arrest screening (field sobriety test) that I’ll use to write an in depth detailed report. And that report alone will get a conviction. Good officers don’t need to rely on a breath test. Outlaw them all together, fine with me. Since our patrol units are all equipped with in car camera systems, a DWI defendant will have one hell of a time explaining him/herself to the judge once we pop in the tape.

For those out there that think driving “buzzed” isn’t driving drunk: changing the name of the condition doesn’t change the condition. If an officer observes signs of impaired driving (riding the center line, swerving from lane to lane, etc) and observes clues of impairment during a field sobriety test (eye nystagmus, poor balance, etc) that gives the officer probable cause to arrest you under suspicion of DWI. I have yet to see a defendant or defense attorney establish reasonable doubt when all the signs are there and it’s captured on video.

Fellow officers, if you have cameras in your units, USE THEM! Record it all, tapes are cheap. Start that camera rolling the second you hit the street. Get that PC for your traffic stop on tape. Record that SFST. Review that tape and submit it for evidence. Write a flawless report. It’s your report that can make or break the case.

By Galen_Cop on Nov 3, 2007

Tom,
There are many,many,many everday people that vote in this country, I am one of them.
You are right though, Porn is a Multi-Billion Dollar a Year Business, and their are a lot of old farts with fat butts, other than that… :)

By Galen_Cop on Nov 3, 2007

Hey, Lousiana
Keep up the good work! You sound like the type of young officer we need out their on our streets, awesome!
I know what you are saying about some veteran officers, some that I have encountered have no other training than what they received while at the police academy when they were first hired. Pathetic!

By Nobody Knows on Nov 4, 2007

Lousiana,

Right on you got it together! Very true about not really needing a breath test. By the time I’m done with someone I’ve got so much on them that no one will care too much about BAC. The key element is the IMPAIRMENT. Seems like the people who think driving ‘buzzed’ is ok don’t understand that if you can’t pass SFSTs and you’re say, a .04, it doesn’t matter. Your ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired.

Our cameras passively record all the time. They save the video from one minute before you activate any emergency equipment and you can manually begin recording if you want. It allows you to record all the weaving and other signs prior to the stop. I stop anyone who seems to be having a hard time driving. I’d rather stop dozens of sober people just to check than to let them go and have some ‘buzzed’ idiot kill an innocent family.

By ECTGirl on Nov 5, 2007

Louisiana and Galen_Cop - kudos to you both.

Those who go into detail about how to beat the system or how to delay a test display a level of selfishness beyond that of your average peon. What makes your right to drive drunk more important than someone else’s right to live?

Alcohol impairs judgment and skews your reaction time. This is a well-known, well-documented fact. Combine this with your childish notions that you can do whatever you want without facing consequences and you have people like Galen_Cop and Louisiana pulling you (and whoever else you may have hit) out of a vehicle and working their hardest to keep you alive - despite the fact that you’ve shown yourself to be a pathetic excuse for a human being.

To the cop-haters: as terrible as it sounds, I sincerely hope that you face a situation some day that makes you realize how important our police really are.

I’ve only been able to legally drink in the US for three years and yet I seem to have more sense than these people who have obviously been through the system several times over. Maybe all the drinking has done some serious damage to their grey matter; best way to avoid getting a DUI is to not drive drunk.

By chuck on Nov 5, 2007

So I read through alot of this and see ignorance abound. To those of you who are clean and straight officers kudos to you. To those arguing on how to beat the system, your idiots. I was a police officer for 11 years and left the force to to the double standards I saw from the majority of officers. If I had to guess based off of my experiences I would say that 75-80% of cops are the biggest perpetraors of petty crimes (especially driving impared). However none of that pertains to this article, and I have seen a BAC level blown at .09 (above my states legal limit) from someone who had not had anything to drink. So the whole philosphy of beating a breathalyzer based off of not drinking is bull.

By Fritz on Nov 7, 2007

Lousiana, as you stated you’ve been a police officer for a short time but arrested more DWI offenders than most veteran officers. Ever wonder what the veteran officers’ know that you as a young inexperienced rookie officer don’t know. Your just another young, cocky, testosterone driven officer with a attitude that would probably arrest anybody who looked cross-eyed at you regardless if they had anything to drink. After all, we are all impaired in some way so that opens us all up to your zealous behavior. Galen_Cop and some of the rest of you also fit some of these characteristics as well. You guys are simply prohibitionists with a badge. As a non-drinker you guys scare the hell out of me as a driver because I don’t think you’d restrict your attitude to so-called drunk drivers.

By Bob on Nov 8, 2007

So why gripe about this so-called breath alcohol testing problem? If you are so confident they don’t accurately work, why aren’t you filing a federal lawsuit against (1) the manufacturers, (2) NHTSA (the Federal agency that approves their use and (3) every individual State that uses them?

If your “science” is solid, stop wasting our time crying about this issue. If you science is solid you should have no difficulty at all proving your case in court. Until then shut up already.

By maizeandblue on Nov 10, 2007

i agree with everyone on the issue of faulty equip. and w/ the cops in that you shouldn’t
drink and drive. what i have a problem with is that your fst’s should not hold up in court. the whole count from 31 to 61 then 61 to 31, and abc’s backwards,c’mon i can count and spell so when has knowing tha abc’s backwards ever been relevant in life other than your stupid fst’s.i know you’re just stalling to get an innacurate reading on the breathalyzer and to get a good laugh but c’mon if you really need to do those tests to tell if the person is drunk he/she shouldn’t be pulled over in the first place.

i have a ton of respect for what you guys do but there are too many crooked cops.

By clark on Nov 10, 2007

Fascism. Police state.

In biz the corporate culture flow encompasses from the top dog. Has anyone else noticed in the last 8 years or so, more drivers have an agressive f you attitude?

The scary part is law enforcement buys into it.

Don’t forget, what may be a routine traffic stop could end up as a vacation in Syria getting waterboarded.

By Fritz on Nov 10, 2007

It’s an interesting thought that clark brought up. Somewhere I faintly remembering of talk about justifying more traffic stops under the guise of terrorism. It works at the airports, why not on the highways? The government gets away with just about anything in the name of terrorism now-a-days. It’s not unreasonable to start using that as an excuse for traffic stops too. Hmmm, probable cause is ….your driving a vehicle. Oop’s, I hope I didn’t give someone ideas.

Your right too about the top dog. When you’ve got a top dog that is bull headed and won’t listen to reason it seems to me that cops will pick up on this as well.

By mitch on Nov 12, 2007

If you are stopped in NJ, do NOT refuse to take the breath test! Refusal carries the same punishment as DWI, and it’s easier to prove - the officer simply says you refused. By the way, there is a case on the books where a motorist refused, then immediately agreed to take the test. The test got him convicted of DWI, and he was also convicted of refusal - even though he withdrew his refusal, he still refused. In NJ, the breath test is not required to convict you. As mentioned above, in ALL CASES, request to have your blood drawn at a hospital ASAP in addition to the breath test.

By Alex on Nov 12, 2007

To Bob, have you ever tried funding such a case as you suggest, it takes a ton of cash to do so.

Right not there is a lot of money devoted to stopping so called drunk drivers, so it will be very, very hard to get laws changed. As is usually the case all you have to do is follow the money to see where the problem lies.

The cops don’t really care if the machines are inaccurate. They just see another way to show why they should get more funding to stop all these ‘drunk’ drivers. It is also another excuse to invade peoples’ privacy.
Those sobriety check points are a waste of time and money. The cops would catch just as many drunks if they were out patrolling the road instead of inconveniencing the rest of the law abiding citizens. Not to mention that police on the road act as a deterent, something that is only localized to one small area when they run road blocks. It doesn’t help that cops act so condescending towards everyone that they stop at road blocks.

Next time you read about a deadly accident involving drunk drivers, see how high the BAC of the driver was. You will almost always read numbers that are multiple times the legal limit. So when people are calling for lowering of legal limits, it is all just a waste of time, money and resources. You don’t need to worry about the social drinker who had a couple with his friends. You need to worry about the alcoholic who does not know when to stop. They are the ones causing all the deadly accidents. This also explains why the number of deaths caused by drunk drivers has not been droping that much lately. All the enforcement is targeting drivers who are not impaired enough to cause a deadly accident.

Don’t just take my word for it. Do a little research. The web makes it easy to do.

By mitch on Nov 12, 2007

Despite the new 0.08 law in NJ, there is one improvement in the justice system. Previously, if you were charged with 39:4-50 (DWI), the charge cannot be dropped or plea bargained. Upon conviction (almost everyone in NJ who goes to trial in municipal court looses), you get minimum mandatory 6 month suspension for a first offense, plus thousands of $ in fines. Now, with .08, it’s 3 months for .08, and 7 months for .10, but you can possibly plead from the higher level to the lower.

By mitch on Nov 12, 2007

NJ and CA are the only 2 states to deny someone accused of DWI a jury trial. Whenever the fundraisers from MADD call me to ask for a donation, I ask them if they think DWI is a serious crime. Of course, they always say “Yes”. Then I ask, “so why shouldn’t DWI cases be tried by jury?”. It seems a little arrogant for NJ to claim they are better at handling DWI cases than the other 48 states. NJ has one of the harshest penalty systems for DWI, yet no jury. Why?

By David on Nov 12, 2007

Many of these posts seem well-intentioned, even the police officers. However, I agree the point is that many people have had their lives turned upside down due to false positives and if people think that is ok, wait until they come for you or your children based on the same principles.
If the bedrock principle of our justice system is that it is better for the guilt to go free than the innocent to be found guilty, how does falsely convicting DUI offenders fit into this? It makes us just as bad as the worst banana republic that imprisons their citizens based on trumped up charges.
I firmly believe that MADD and the policer officers associations have gone beyond their initial good intentions and are simply out to perpetuate their jobs based on exaggerated ancedotes. It is only natural that if you have a job making a 100K a year as an anti-Drunk driving lobbyist that you need to continue to create the need for your existence.
I would really like to a chart of the actual BAC of the drivers who cause the horrific accidents that the officers list to justify their draconian actions and associated punishments. I bet that it would rarely even come close to 0.10 let alone 0.08.

The bottom line is that criminalizing a basic activity like having a glass of wine with a good dinner makes criminals out of most of us. When a law makes criminals out of most of society, it enforces the idea that laws can be selectively adhered to because they are not logical or well thought out. This undermines the entire justice system. While in the short term it puts overtime money in officer’s pockets and funds municipal flights of fancy; in the long term it will create a society with no respect for the laws that make that society livable.

By Spike on Nov 12, 2007

Personally, I’d rather share the road with a drunk than a sober driver on a cellphone: The drunk at least is TRYING to drive.

Most of the LEO’s here seem to be hell-bent on reinforcing their stereotype as belligerent, self-righteous people with anger-management issues. When you stopped caring about guilt or innocence, you’d have done us all a great service if you’d moved on to do something else with your lives. The point of the blog is that one of the key tools used to determine BAC is known to be inaccurate, meaning non-offenders are going to jail, and as LEO’s you should actually care about that.

As for the Angry Mothers; I’ve seen you drive and I’m not impressed. Judging by the bumper-stickers I see in traffic, most of you seem only dimly aware of where the hell you are — let alone what is going on around you. I have a zero-tolerance attitude towards incompetence and frankly, as a group you’re not cutting it on the road. If you’d devote just a little of your jihadist energy towards your own driving, it would contribute more to our collective safety than pushing laws to put non-drunks in jail; like the 0.02 BAC DUI conviction threshold for motorists under 21.

Just as we have the technology to put breathalyzer ignition interlocks into every new car, we could design a quick test for judgment & mental ability before engine start. Such a “stupid” test would screen out a lot more than drunks, however, and I have no illusions that a test that could be passed by casual drinkers and failed by some sober zealots will ever be contemplated. But wouldn’t it be nice?

One last fantasy question: In a road test between sober drivers of 75+ and “drunks” aged 60- with a BAC of 0.08 - 0.15, who would win?

My money is on the drunk — excuse me, “buzzed” — motorists!

By Bruce on Nov 12, 2007

I agree with Alex and Dave. Early in life I was witness to a one car “accident” with a drunk behind the wheel. I choose not to drink, ever.

However, I cannot comprehend how law enforcement officers can tell me that they don’t need any evidence to convict, and that they don’t care whether or not I attempt to defend my rights, and that I am guilty if they want me to be guilty, and I don’t deserve a jury trial or any legal recourse to judicial misconduct, and in the same breath tell me I have nothing to worry about? As near as I can tell, if I merely drive a car (indeed, even sit or sleep in the back seat of a car if the keys are anywhere within 500 miles), I am, by certain definitions, a drug-crazed drunk terrorist who deserves to be waterboarded and raped by the system, and have all my assets seized, because this is America, and everyone wants to be safe.

Yes, this is America. No, it isn’t as perfect as I was taught that it was supposed to be. Yes, police officers - and the persons who screen and hire them - are only human. Still, laws and courts and administrative rules that ignore the Bill of Rights serve to weaken America, not strengthen it, and serve to make all of us less safe, not more safe.

From everything I read, trying to remain rational in a highly politicized riot of passionate feeling and strong words, I conclude that breath-alizers are highly inaccurate, law enforcement is frequently overbearing, justice is too-often denied, the effect of drinking and driving is exaggerated to some extent, the governments in the US have proven they can (and do) terrorize peaceful and safe-driving citizens more effectively than Al-Qaeda, and most people just don’t care about facts or the truth. No wonder I am depressed.

By JMAN on Nov 12, 2007

This is one of the stupidest articles I have ever read. No citations, no identifications of Dr. Dubrowski or Dr. Simson, no way whatsoever to trace and verify what is written. I hate malfunctioning hardware but drunks driving vehicles is a major problem in the USA. I have totally NO sympathy for a drunk driver and I hope they all get caught, but not with malfunctioning hardware that some innocent cop has been lulled into believing really works.

So do us a favor. Give us citations that we can really use in court, not nebulous bull#&$# written by cop-haters.

By tim on Nov 13, 2007

We shouldn’t be questioning drunk driving. It’s deplorable behavior. We should be questioning the methods used to determine whether we are impaired. What is the science behind .7 vs. .9? Also, how much revenue can be generated for a single township when you lower the BAC responsible for jailtime/fines for an individual? I’m dubious of any new penalties for drunk driving, they’re usually ways to increase cash in the town’s coffers.

By Alex on Nov 13, 2007

JMAN, it only took me 2 minutes to find Dr. Kurt Dubowski. I think it has to do with you misspelling both researchers names. Try again.

By Hubcap on Nov 13, 2007

As one of the cops upthread pointed out “when I’m done collecting evidence, I don’t need a breathalyzer to prove impairment.”

That’s the key: IMPAIRMENT. It really doesn’t matter that some arbitrary level of whatever substance has been exceeded in one’s bodily fluids. Frankly the substance and quantity thereof I choose to ingest is none of the government’s business.

The only question a cop should have to answer is “can you safely operate your vehicle”?

We all know the guy who can put away a twelver and not seem to notice and we all know the other guy who gets tipsy walking past a bar. The rest of us are somewhere in between.

One-size-fits-all-zero-tolerance-prior-restraint law enforcement not only does not work, it is unconstitutional.

By snireddog on Nov 13, 2007

Jesus…I am worried about the drunk driver. I have had the pleasure of serving time myself for a dui. I dont try to figure out why i got busted, I try to figure a way NOT TO DRIVE when dinking so it doenst happen again, however, I am more concerned now about the people driving on drugs and the drive by shooting death rate has got to be approaching that of the duis….What are WE going to do about that?

By Paul on Nov 13, 2007

Trooper: The main thrust of the local DUI enforcement in IA is financial. The avg fine for a DUI is over $2000 and that money is funneled DIRECTLY back to the Dept of Public Safety after being washed through the general fund. There are perfectly legitimate traffic stops that result for obvious impaired driving. I have no issue with a trooper doing his job while on patrol. But to set up an EIGHT hr road block checking all drivers on a Fri night near Des Moines (Sep 07) is fishing for funds. Or should I say ‘bottom-feeding.’ Police consider every driver as guilty…they just have not caught them yet. And the express this disdain of others while they are teflon-coated and above the law. There is not ONE police officer that has not violated his oath by adding/embellishing an arrest record to make it stick or, conversely, leaving out critical information that favored the ‘perp’. By the way, cops have the best dope for sale. As I said, they are above the law and most are not subject to random drug tests. It would ‘demean’ them. Time for folks to stand up for their rights against this cash-generating, road-blocking, red-light camera dictatorship.

By Kip Fuller on Nov 14, 2007

As an attorney I can tell you something about a DUI checkpoint.

Let us say you have been drinking when you come up on one of these “checkpoints”

Let us also say you are in doubt as to whether or not you could blow below the point oh eight many states are now adopting.

It’s also a sure bet if you turn around before getting to the “checkpoint”, there is a patrolman waiting nearby to chase you down for just such a circumstance.

What are your options? Well, let’s say you have the foresight to have alcohol with you in the vehicle. What would an attorney advise you to do?

I would pull over to the side of the road well before reaching the “checkpoint”. I would turn off the ignition, exit and lock the vehicle with my bottle in hand and go and sit by a tree off the side of the road and begin drinking.

Very soon, a patrolman will come by to see why you are pulled off to the side before the checkpoint. Your response to an officer’s inquiry is you are doing exactly what it looks like, sitting on the side of the road, drinking. You also tell the officer this is your first drink and this tree is your favorite place to drink in the whole world and you have no intention of driving now that you are drinking.

No matter what the officer charges you with, any first year, last in his class attorney will get you off with only an open container violation at worst or a complete aquittal at best.

Call it the cat and mouse games we play. Chalk this one up to the driver who has had a drink or two or three. (unless an investigator takes the highly unlikely task and time to scour local bars and finds someone to testify you were drinking before you said you weren’t) Now, I may have to have you plead guilty to falsifying your statement to a public official in addition to that open container. That will be another $25 fine to go along with your other $25 fine. . . .

By Paul on Nov 14, 2007

HI Kip,

I appreciate the advice. The ‘game’ here in IA (and in GA) is that the roadblocks are ‘voluntary’ and drivers are not forced to go through them. Of course the ONLY option is to pull over before entering or pulling a u-turn. Both will generate a chase car to come ‘check you out’ since you must be guilty if you do not submit to the road rape. I like the suggestion since that puts the traffic prostitutes on the defense vs offense. The police have militarized and politicized the process to the point that it really is “us” against “them”. That’s why I use a $400 Valentine radar detector just to know where the bastards are hiding. They make too many unintentional mistakes with radar to leave it to chance. IA and IL are the worst I have seen, Ky and TN are pretty laid back and GA draws their law enforcement from the criminal ranks. The only way to tell a petty thief from an Augusta/Richmond County GA policeman is that the petty thief has to PAY for his meals at the Waffle House.

By Officer Josh on Nov 18, 2007

I have an idea….Dont drink and drive. That solves the whole contraversy. For the guy who says he should be entitle to 2-3 drink and be able to drive and that it doesnt impair him how do you know? I mean you should be good to drive realistically but if you get pulled over thats your fault and the chance your willing to take.

By James Young on Nov 18, 2007

Officer Josh writes:

“I have an idea - Dont drink and drive. That solves the whole [controversy].”

That is the usual overly simplistic and arrogant “solution” offered by the simplistic and arrogant neo-Prohibitionists exemplified by MADD, DADD, SADD and the law enforcement institution. Drinking and driving occurs. Our issue as a society is how best to reduce truly impaired driving given the additional parameter of not intruding into personal behavior that does not affect others.

“For the guy who says he should be entitle to 2-3 drink and be able to drive and that it doesnt impair him how do you know?”

Right question; wrong target. The question is how does enforcement know that 2-3 drinks (what size, how much alcohol content, over what period, what body weight, how rapid is the absorption and the elimination) impairs the instant driver and to what extent? The burden of proof has been on the prosecution but this is slowly being eroded by the proliferation of equipment and case law that assume guilt. What breath analyzers measure is alcohol content of the breath, which is then called BAC or “blood alcohol content,” even though it never measured that. Even BAC is several steps away from measurement of the degree of impairment against a baseline. Yet, millions of people are convicted every year on such flimsy “evidence” and irrelevant measures.

We need to concentrate on stopping the driving rather than the drinking, a policy adopted by New Mexico with good success in a state plagued by a very high incidence of alcoholism, a lesson for law enforcement everywhere.

And we need to be very protective of civil liberties that have been abused and eroded in the name of public safety and security. OJ, I challenge you personally to lead the effort to reform your brethren. It’s time to step up.

By Officer Josh on Nov 18, 2007

Wow! James your calling me a prohibitionist man i drink almost every weekend but i do not drive and i can say that with confidence. Have i drank and drove? yes of course but i do not now especially since it could cost me my job and i see how much it ruins people financially and destroys records. i would rather pay the 10-20-30 dollar taxi ride and save myself a bunch of worry. I live just outside the city but when i go out i always have a ride planned. Whats so hard about that? You said we have to stop the driver not the drinking. I’m confused on that statement. I dont think you need to stop the drinking you just got to stop the drinkers from driving. I mean if you have 2-3 drinks and you get pulled over its for a reason and if you come up on a DUI checkpoint then well thats the chance you take. Studies have shown that 1 or more drink can inhibit you ability can drive maybe you dont realize this cuz your so confident or overconfident should i say.

For instance if i carry my gun into a bar thats ok (off duty) but if i have a beer thats not ok. makes sense right? So im 6′1 220lbs i have 2-3 beers and i leave the bar to go home and while im walking to my car i see a man robbing a person and he has a gun so i act on it and draw mine and i end up having to shoot him. Im screwed i will most likely loose my job and get charged with something b/c my ability to decide on resonable force has been impaired. True story it happened to a friend of mine about the same size. So is that then ok. All im saying is if your gonna go out and have a few beers then fine do it i think there’s no problem with that but if you get pulled over its up to the officer whether to bust you, i mean personally i dont nail a guy cuz he’s .09 or something but you have to have a limit and use good judgment. If they rewrite the law and make it hight then fine thats the law but until then i have to enforce what is written.

By James Young on Nov 18, 2007

OJ, what you wrote does not make any sense at all. If somebody else can interpret for me, I’ll me glad to respond. Prohibitionist referred to institutional behavior by those listed, not any specific individual.

By Mike on Nov 19, 2007

If 0 tolerance is the way to go then the state should immediately shut down every bar and business that sells alchohol by the glass ,fine them if they have a parking lot and forego the millions in renenue they make by selling liquor licenses. Short of that it’s completely possible to leave a bar at 2:30 in the morning and still be legally intoxicated at 7:30 in the morning. The next check lane or stakeout should be at the local school. Start pulling parents out of their cars and forcing them to take sobriety tests. Sooner or later you’ll find one thats “drunk”. Watch how fast hypocrites who think it’s ok when it’s done to other people change their tune. An added benefit is that while their collecting the money they could say their doing it for the childrens sake. If it’s done in one of the growing number of communities that are charging motorists for sobriety tests that they passed(on the premise that it’s your fault you were pulled over when you’ve done nothing wrong) the profits would be huge.

By greg surfas on Nov 20, 2007

Reading all the comments defending the “right” to drive after having consumed alcohol I wonder how many of you would consider the right of the pilot of your airliner to have “only a couple” of dfrinks before he took you and your family aloft? How many of you might not object if the operator of heavy construction machinery working on that bridge above you in traffic might have had a beer or two at Lunch?

Alcohol is a personal choice as long as those consuming it do not interact with situations or conditions that place others in jeapordy. Ask those in our penal institutions for crimes and offenses including vehicular related deaths and injuries if they think it was worth it.

An alcoholic will defend to the death his (or her) right to kill themselves and others in the name of freedom.

By JLD on Nov 20, 2007

Re: Greg Surfas 11/20

Were we discussing people drinking on the job? Pilots, heavy equipment operators, etc. would be on the job, last I checked that is against most companies policies if you want to be employed there. So when my family and I board a plane, yes, the pilot better be sober!

By Todd on Nov 21, 2007

ECTGirl, To answer your question”what gives you the right?” it’s called the Constition of the United States

By Mike on Nov 21, 2007

The DOT(Department of Transportation) test used to test airline pilots, truckdrivers,railroad crews and all federally regulated transportation workers as well as in most cases police,firefighters, etc. are all the same. It is a national standard imposed on states under the threat of losing federal funds. The procedure is often used by employers even where it isn’t required. It is a urinalysis test and labs that perform it must be certified and follow very specific procedures. Among other things they must split the samples so that a retest can be done for verification of a positive result if requested.Proper labeling procedures as well as chain of custody must be followed.Labs have lost their DOT certification for sloppy procedures. DOT standards are stricter (and much more accurate)than what they are for an ordinary motorist. I’ve probably taken 50 of them. In response to Greg and JLD the DOT standard is that if your blood alchohol content is under 0.02% you have passed. It’s entirely possible that bulldozer operator on the bridge above you did have a beer at lunch and still passed a test far more accurate and stringent than anything your going to get on a routine traffic stop for “alledged suspicion” of OUI. Interestingly some people have “failed” the DOT tests and successfully proven them in error by paying for expensive and even more accurate hair follicle tests. These are the same tests used by the Department of Defense, CIA, etc on people with the highest national security classification. These DOT tests can also prove very costly to taxpayers when they are used by supervisors to harrass employees. In many cases once accused and forced to test an employee can not be allowed to continue working in sensitive positions for obvious reasons and then gets paid for being sent home when he passes the test. When contracts to do testing are given to “freinds” of municipal officials tests are often required with ridiculous frequency. As I pointed out, despite near perfect attendance for 20 years the taxpayers have paid for me to take about 50 of these tests and in some cases to sit at home till the result comes back and get paid for it.

By Fisch on Nov 25, 2007

Obviously cops have a job to do, and it’s a tough one. I tip my hat to them. But there are cases where they go too far. I can tell you after living in bloomington 10 years, I’ve seen my share. In one case, I had an officer literally follow me out of a bar parkinging lot all the way across bloomington, then pull me over right when I was turning into my driveway. I had one corona, that was it. I asked why i was pulled over, have gave me bs. he then made me sit for 20 minutes then had me blow the breathalyzer. Obviously I passed. Now what pissed me off was the disrespect in the cops attitude for me. He wanted to string me up. When I asked what I blew, he wouldn’t tell me, then looked more mad ‘cuz I passed. I guess I was the bad guy for “wasting his time with my innocence”. I called the police sargent to voice my anger, and he simply said the cop had every right to follow me because simply leaving a bar/restaurant can now be considered “probable cause”. He further said that if your going to live in the suburbs this is what you should expect ‘cuz all the pressure from MAD etc.

By Fisch on Nov 25, 2007

Case 2- I’m not going to give the full story on this one, but I was pulled into the richfield police station for supposedly blowing the minimum. Again, I was denied the right to see these results. Regardless of all of that, i was denied the right to an attorney as I was told I requested one “too late”. (15 min. after getting to the station to be exact.) The officer and I discussed this for at least 5 min. Here’s the sad part. I wanted to challenge this in trial. So I recieved an audio cd of my time at the station. (The richfeild station has no visual setup). MY CD WAS DOCTORED!!! THAT WHOLE CONVERSATION ABOUT MY REQUEST FOR MY LAWYER WAS CUT OUT!!! You might think boo hoo for me, but remember this example when you find yourself getting mistreated by your local authority.

By Mike on Nov 25, 2007

Fisch, I’ve had the same experience. Driving home from work late at night I’ve been pulled over for no good reason several times and twice made to take a sobriety test when I had nothing to drink. Both times the SOB was actually mad because I hadn’t been drinking. Even if I had failed he still would have had to concoct some sort of grounds to justify the stop and make the arrest. He was prepared to lie and falsify his report to justify it. It seems highly unlikely that all the time he wasted following you that there were no other incidents that required a response but it’s obvious what his supervisors wan’t to see on his log sheet. The next time you go to vote and your community wants a new millage for more police your going to have to ask yourself wether your more likely to be a victim of a criminal while he’s busy making up lies about why he stopped you or wether your more likely to be the victim he’s making up the lies about.

By Fritz on Nov 25, 2007

Both of the last posts make good points. I’m a non.drinker but I realize can wind up in just as bad a situation as if I drank. If I don’t standup for rational law enforcement and standards who’s gonna be there when I get falsely stopped or worse yet, arrested. We’ve ALL got to stand up together against this sorta crap. I don’t drink but I’m dam sure gonna try to help make some sense out of the situation. We’ve got cops running around the county treating drivers like crap and continue to get by with it. It’s a lame excuse tell you “cuz all the pressure from MAD etc”. Your lucky you didn’t get tasered like that driver did in Utah the other day for a simple traffic stop and of course that did his 6 month pregnant wife good to set there and watch her husband struggling with the painful tasering. You guys need to cut and paste your comments into a email to your congressmen. I know the reluctance to to do so but it won’t hurt and it might actually do some good. We have too many rogue cops running around and there don’t seem to be any way to get rid of them.

By Sal - Long Island on Nov 26, 2007

Alchol + Driving = Death

By Hubcap on Nov 26, 2007

I think Sal - Long Island should get today’s award for COMPLETELY MISSING THE &%@##@% POINT!

By Notabovethelaw on Nov 27, 2007

I think there should be an allowed impaired driving time. This time would be between 2am and 3am and would not be on state highways or interstate highways. At this time the speed limit would be strictly enforced to 20mph. Anybody caught breaking the 20mph speed limit would be subject to an enormous fine. (The only people driving at this time should be drunks anyways. And it would be an understanding that driving during this time would be at your own risk.) This new ordnance would allow the impaired drivers a somewhat regulated time to drive home in a “at risk” environment. Upon receiving a driving license the laws regarding this would be clearly stated and applicants would be required to sign a contract stating they understand it. All other traffic laws would still be enforced during this time (crossing the center, etc..) At the time of a traffic stop, impairment would be determined by a field sobriety test, not a breathylizer. Fines during this time would be much greater (3 maybe 4 times). Just came up with this off the top of my head. What do you think :)

By Tom on Nov 27, 2007

How many of us have been pulled over for bogus reasons around “bar close” time and usually the first thing asked is “Have you had anything to drink tonight?”? If you are sober, usually the officer pulls some bullshit reason out of his ass as a reason why he stopped you. If you have been drinking, well you’re fucked anyways so it doesn’t matter. The point is that many officers do not stop vehicles becase they APPEAR to be impaired. They stop them because there is a high probability that anybody driving at that late at night has had some drinks. It’s bullshit.

By Pig on Nov 27, 2007

I agree with Notabovethelaw. While the idea seems obsurd, there must be a happy medium. If there was an hour between 2-3a where impaired driving was acceptable, and anybody driving during that hour knew the risks of driving during that hour, then it takes away the argument that impaired drivers are infringing on others safety. If you limit the speed (and strictly enforce it) it also lowers the risk of deadly high speed collsions. Shit, even make it a 15mph limit. Of course you would still have to enforce traffic laws, but there would be a greater tolerance for impaired driving. As long as you were under the 15mph limit and were staying between the lines, coming to a complete stop, etc…. What harm would you be doing? This is by no means giving an okay to drunk driving, just loosening up on the “impaired” driving. I don’t think you should put a number on it (BAC) I think it should be determined by a field sobriety test (which would also be reconfigured) if necessary.

By Pig on Nov 27, 2007

Side note. Does anybody know of any statistical comparisons of accidents, deaths, etc.. since the .08 law has gone into effect in comparison to the .12 law? Also the comparison to the number of annual DUI. Repeat offenses? ect…?

Is there any evidence that the .08 law has done anything but allow Johnny Law to be able to buy a new Mustang GT cruiser or Dodge Charger R/T crusier every year? Or justify upgrading to the new hot-shit LED flashers on the noncurrent cruisers?

By Pig on Nov 27, 2007

A meta-analysis of .08 BAC laws in 19 jurisdictions in the United States

Here is one study. It shows that 947 people could have been saved from 1982-2000 if the .08 law had been adopted by all 50 states. That ain’t shit!! Naive statement sure, but that is only a fraction over 4 people per months NATIONWIDE!! How many peoples lives have been negatively affected because they were stopped and blew a .08-.12? Again, more of a reason they should have an ACCEPTED impaired driving time. Everybody wins. Now lets hear how stupid I am. I admit this is very naive thinking. I don’t have all the answers. I just think a lot of people are getting fucked that shouldn’t be. I know several that have. Anybody have any other options where everybody can come out ahead?

By tlewis3348 on Nov 27, 2007

To Notabovethelaw on Nov 27, 2007, I am a college student in Florida who lives in Ohio. At the end of every semester I drive home (that’s about 800 mi). It takes about 13 or 14 hours to get home and it is not out of the ordinary to be driving at two or three in the morning. So to say that the speed limit would be reduced to 20 mph and the laws more strictly enforced would seriously inconvenience me (adding at least an hour to my drive time).

I do not drink, and I will never drink any alcoholic beverage. I do not know why anyone would want to drink that nasty stuff, but that is your decision. I think that anyone who drives like a drunk person whether drunk or not should be treated the same (and treated as DUIs are now). I have seen way more people on cellphones driving like they were drunk than actual drunk people. That is not to say that I advocate the outlawing of cellphone use while driving because I understand that many people can talk on their cellphone and drive reasonably well at the same time. If cellphones are outlawed in cars then eating should be as well. In fact, why not outlaw all activities other than driving.

The point is that I do not care what your BAC is or whether you have been driving while talking on the phone or whatever else; the point is that I do not want to be on the road with someone who can’t drive, whatever the reason is.

P.S. It is very irritating to read through all these posts and see so many spelling and grammar mistakes in just one post, let alone the 100+ other posts. This reflects very badly on the education of the writer.

By Pig on Nov 27, 2007

tlewis3348, I would have no problem with you driving during my drunk hour (2-3a). If you were on a state highway or interstate you would not have to abide by the 20mph limit, otherwise you would. To be honest with you I don’t care if you are inconvenienced for an hour twice a year. I like driving impaired a couple times a week! I am the one being inconvenienced. That’s right, I’m a selfish mother%#@!er. Really though, why would you need to drive that late at night. You should really get to bed early, get a good night sleep, and then leave at 5 or 6am. 14 hours driving would still get you home in time for a late dinner. Mom could keep a plate warm for you. There a lot of people who should have the right to drive drunk during this time and I believe it is your civic responsiblity to be understanding of this right. Sorry for the bad grammar. I am actually typing this on my Motorola Q right now and it is really hard to drive, type, and not spill my roadie. I’m almost home though. About 15 more miles.

By John on Nov 28, 2007

I tried to read most of these. My problem with all this is that I have scraped too many bodies off the pavement since 1970 to do away with enforcement of these laws. This does not include the people killed in their bedrooms, livingrooms and on sidewalks by drunks in/on motorized transportation. To answer one person’s question: Yes the number of dead and mangled I’ve picked up has dropped of somewhat since so many places where I work have adopted the .8% law. If you disagree with these laws get with your legislators to come up with BETTER laws. Most of your arguments have really been ridiculous while many display an open death wish. To these especially, reduce my work load - stay off our streets, please.

By Fritz on Dec 1, 2007

John I doubt that many of the people you scrapped up off the pavement had much less then a 1.2 BAC or so. That’s my understanding where in the REAL world drivers start impairment. I have nothing against REASONABLE enforcement but we’ve gone to extremes in this country. If you want to talk impairment then lets talk cell phones. This drunk driving thing is NOT about drunk driving, it’s about Prohibition. Oklahoma and recently Tulsa passed a law that forbids anybody, even parents from giving their kids a sip of alcohol of any kind in their own home. Conceivably this could even entail certain types of cough syrup containing alcohol. Parents can be arrested for something that takes place in their own home and never interferes with anybody else. If I’m not abusing anyone, what I do in my castle is nobody elses damn business. Yea, I know the argument. A sip of alcohol will damn sure not make alcoholics out of anybody. Fifty years ago many of us had alcohol available as kids. My dad WAS a alcoholic, but that’s abusing it. The result is I’m a life long non-driver. I almost never have alcohol in the house. I’m told that a drink of red wine a day is good for my heart problem and I still don’t use it. As a non-drinker though, I respect peoples ability to drink in a responsible manner, in moderate amounts. Somebody who has a glass of wine with their dinner at a restaurant is not going to be involved in a accident caused by alcohol, but it would be considered a alcohol “related” accident. Extremism on any subject is bad. I don’t know about any other state but in OK if you get caught peeing in the bushes, your considered a sex offender for the rest of your life and go on the list with the other sex offenders!! I want anybody to explain how peeing in the bushes makes one a sex offender? Extremism. When the supreme court approved sobriety check points they said that it was worth the minor inconvenience. Talk to some drivers and you’ll find out how mission creep has certainly set in. Sobriety check points have become a generic term for “lets see what we can arrest this driver for”. Give the government a inch and they take a mile. Read; http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/11960836.html?page=all&c=y
http://www.coppellgazette.com/articles/2007/11/14/plano_star-courier/news/00000000000001news.txt
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/11/11/news/wyoming/508df93367b8b6058725738f006df92d.txt

You know and I know that talking to legislators is like talking to a brick wall in most cases. I know….some of them have heard from me enough to learn my name. I tried to get a anti-traffic citation bill (traffic citation quota’s are legal in OK), something that’s a no brainier, through the state legislature. It didn’t even get out of committee. They said it would be too much trouble for a municipality to comply with. Now explain to me how “not doing something” is TOO MUCH trouble? Having said that I still encourage everybody to contact their legislators about anything on their mind. If they hear from enough people on a particular subject they are going to pay attention.

By Fritz on Dec 1, 2007

Before someone gives me 10 lashes with a wet noodle I’ll correct my typo from the previous post, reads “much less then a 1.2 BAC or so” should read “much less then a .12 BAC or so”. Kinda like the cops, I got my decimal point mixed up. Unlike the cops, I’m not going to throw someone in jail over it.
If you didn’t know let me explain why so many states have the .08 BAC. This was not a elective action, it was FORCED on the states in order for them to receive their deserved highway funds. The legislative process was effectively hijacked by the federal government. The zealots know how the system works and instead of going around to all 50 states in an effort to get the .08 BAC into law, they did it in one fail swoop of legislation by using federal highway funds as the baseball bat to force states to .08. Isn’t it interesting that the feds are not supposed to be able to determine state traffic laws but they found a way around this little minor problem thus effectively tying the hands of state legislators. So much for democracy. These special interest groups such as MADD don’t give a damn what the people think. It’s my way or the highway. Don’t let democracy get into the way.

By cortezcar9 on Dec 3, 2007

ATTORNEY Kip Fuller has tossed canon of ethics for cat & mouse games and 30 pieces of silver.

Paul- made a $400.00 investment to specifically help him violate the law.

Fritz- you need a lot of professional help dude.

Remember the words of Sting-”Every move you make , every breath you take I’ll be watching you”
AMF to all you paranoid lushes

By Hubcap on Dec 3, 2007

cortezcar9:
You sound like a cop; you’re doing a very nice job of proving the stereotype.

Fritz is one of the saner folks posting here and you say he needs professional help; project much?

Paul’s $400 expense was not to help him violate the law; it is to help protect him from unchecked government power.

Kip Fuller is trying to make sure people accused of a crime have a fair shot at due process. That’s what lawyers do.

By Beware the swine on Dec 3, 2007

Any LE here should also keep in check that repspect is earned. Your little tin badge does not make you Superman. You are not faster than a speeding bullet. Remember, it is us taxpayers that pay your salary. Some of us don’t give a fuck and I want you guys to always remember that when you make a traffic stop and start copping an attitude. We all have much to lose. Is trying to be supercop worth risking something that can be snatched away so easily?

By Mike on Dec 4, 2007

Well Cortezcar9 you remember this. I’m the guy that votes on every police millage. I’m the guy that can hammar away at my state representatives about mandatory collective bargaining laws that allow little tin cods like you from fleecing the public out of thousands in ticket writing overtime and funneling it directly into your pocket. Most importantly I’m the guy that sits on a jury and has has to decide who’s credable and who isn’t. Every time you go out on the street with your snotty little attitude you educate another voter!!

By Lori Scrivani on Dec 5, 2007

There are many variables that can alter the outcomes of a BAC and/or BAL. For example, if you were to rinse your mouth out with a mouth wash prior to being tested your score could register >4 however, within about 3 minutes it would be back to normal because it is not systemic just lingering in your mouth. Mouth wash is very high in ETOH and therefore raises the breathalizer score Metabolic syndromes can also cause altered variables along with any medicinal syrup that uses ETOH as a carrier. I don’t put much stock in any of it unless I know exactly the protocol that was used at the time of pick up.

By Officer Josh on Dec 6, 2007

To Beware the swine

We know were not supercop but the public wants us to be. We are reminded every day when a LEO is killed for saving people like yours ass and people that dont deserve saving b/c thats our job. Did you know that the most dangerous thing a LEO can do is a traffic stop and that more LEO’s are attacked or killed during those than any other incident. Hell if they took away speeding laws that would help us but then we’d be scrapin bodies off the street. Which one do you prefer.

And that old line “we pay your salary” is true but we also pay our own salaries then b/c we pay taxes too buddy. But you dont decide where your taxes go. If you like to threaten us that much with hounding the state rep. then it would of been already done b/c even though you wont admit it the world needs us.

By James Young on Dec 6, 2007

Officer Josh writes:

“We know were not supercop but the public wants us to be.”

Nonsense. What the public wants is for the cops to enforce laws that are reasonable and based on science rather than the nanny-state mindset that we have now. It is not the state’s job to protect us from stupidity. With the extant set of traffic laws, your job is neither reasonable nor effective. Were I in your shoes, I would be screaming bloody hell at all the intrusive rules.

“We are reminded every day when a LEO is killed for saving people like yours ass and people that dont deserve saving b/c thats our job. Did you know that the most dangerous thing a LEO can do is a traffic stop and that more LEO’s are attacked or killed during those than any other incident.”

This should not be surprising since traffic stops are overwhelmingly the major interface between LEOs and the public.

“Hell if they took away speeding laws that would help us but then we’d be scrapin bodies off the street.”

Again, that is utter BS. You don’t have any reason to believe that that is true. It is just more fear mongering. You do not do anybody a service – even yourself – when you stop motorists for running 65 mph in a 60 mph zone and where the 95th percentile is 65-67 mph, yet that is the focus of most speed enforcement.

The most dangerous thing a cop can do is pin on the badge: cops suffer from much higher rates for divorce, alcoholism, suicide, and other self-destructive behavior. It used to be that Officer Friendly walked a beat and knew the people on it by name. Now, they ride around, isolated in cars with radio and A/C, not hearing the people, not knowing their names, not interacting unless something has gone wrong. Almost by definition, when a cop shows up, it’s bad news. And then you have the audacity to wonder why people don’t like or trust you.

“And that old line “we pay your salary” is true but we also pay our own salaries then b/c we pay taxes too buddy. But you dont decide where your taxes go. If you like to threaten us that much with hounding the state rep. then it would of been already done b/c even though you wont admit it the world needs us.”

I agree with that. However, the world does not need policing in its current form. It should be very difficult to arrest anybody, even harder to convict them, just Thomas Jefferson envisioned over 200 years ago. We both know that is not the case
You shouldn’t be arresting people for issues best handled by medical intervention such as drugs and alcoholism. Sure, take the immediate hazard off the road but then let the medical people take over. Alcoholics don’t “learn their lesson” by going to jail and having LE repeating the same failed action time after time is insanity.

And you don’t need to be arresting people for running at the 95th percentile. Leave them alone. Change your focus to deal with identify theft, fraud and crimes against people and property.

If I make a mistake, I suffer the repercussions. When you make a mistaken arrest, you should suffer the repercu