To blow or not to blow...

[Dallas]

Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. and blood test.

With respect to your certificate, I was wondering what the best course of
action would be if you had imbibed a couple of cocktails and you were
pulled over and suspected of DUI.

For example, a friend of mine blew just above the limit during a traffic
stop. Her advice to people is to never "blow". It took several hours to
get her to the station and by that time, she contends, that she would be
below the legal limit.

I would say never take a field test as those are completely subjective.

Many States automatically suspend your driver's licence for refusal to take
an alcohol test. From a constitutional point of view, I don't understand
why the 5th Amendment doesn't come into play here. Doesn't one have the
right to refuse all alcohol tests on the basis of self incrimination?

My thinking here is that if there was a good chance you are going to be
over the limit, it would be better to suffer whatever penalty they handed
out for refusal to take the test, rather than actually have a DUI on your
record.



--
Dallas

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Dallas wrote:
> Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. and blood test.
>
> With respect to your certificate, I was wondering what the best course of
> action would be if you had imbibed a couple of cocktails and you were
> pulled over and suspected of DUI.
>
> For example, a friend of mine blew just above the limit during a traffic
> stop. Her advice to people is to never "blow". It took several hours to
> get her to the station and by that time, she contends, that she would be
> below the legal limit.
>
> I would say never take a field test as those are completely subjective.
>
> Many States automatically suspend your driver's licence for refusal to take
> an alcohol test. From a constitutional point of view, I don't understand
> why the 5th Amendment doesn't come into play here. Doesn't one have the
> right to refuse all alcohol tests on the basis of self incrimination?
>
> My thinking here is that if there was a good chance you are going to be
> over the limit, it would be better to suffer whatever penalty they handed
> out for refusal to take the test, rather than actually have a DUI on your
> record.
>
>
>


You are in Texas right? Even if you aren't most states are pretty much
the same. Read this.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A262995


When you accept the drivers license you agree to follow the laws that
regulate the license. One of those happen to be to submit to the
Breathalyzer. As far as them being subjective BS. They are quite
effective else all the DUI convictions would have been thrown out.

As far as wanting to wait and take the one later in hopes that your BAC
will have dropped. Don't count on it. I have a friend that blew 0.09 and
then when they got him to the station an hour later he blew a 0.11.

Suspension of your DL for failure to take the test is a civil matter not
a criminal one. It is pulled because you failed to keep up your end of
the bargain that you made when you were granted the license. The 5th
Amendment is not in play.

There are also certain states and I'm pretty sure Texas is one of them
that have forced blood draw laws in effect. If you refuse the
Breathalyzer they can get a warrant and force you to have blood drawn.

And since this is aviation newsgroup let's see what the FAA has to say
about it. Please note where I added the >>>>>

Reporting Requirements
Under 14 CFR 61.15, all pilots must send a Notification Letter to FAA’s
Security and Investigations Division within 60 calendar days of the
effective date of an alcohol-related conviction or administrative
action. In 14 CFR 61.15(c), alcohol-related convictions or
administrative actions refer to motor vehicle actions (MVA).

Notification Letters
Note: Each event, conviction, or administrative action, requires a
separate Notification Letter. For example, an airman’s driver license
may be suspended at the time of arrest for driving under the influence
of alcohol for either:

Failing a blood/breath test
>>>>>Refusing to test

The airman must send a Notification Letter for the suspension, then send
a second Notification Letter if the alcohol related offense results in a
conviction. Even though the airman sent two notification letters, FAA
views the suspension and conviction as one alcohol-related incident.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 7, 12:16*pm, Dallas > wrote:
> Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. *and blood test.
>
> With respect to your certificate, I was wondering what the best course of
> action would be if you had imbibed a couple of cocktails and you were
> pulled over and suspected of DUI.
>

In California a failure to blow results in an instant suspension of
your driver's license. Then law enforcement may arrest you and can
take a blood sample without your concent.
-Robert

[Steve Foley]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 12:16 pm, Dallas > wrote:
> Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. and blood test.
>
> With respect to your certificate, I was wondering what the best course of
> action would be if you had imbibed a couple of cocktails and you were
> pulled over and suspected of DUI.
>

In California a failure to blow results in an instant suspension of
your driver's license. Then law enforcement may arrest you and can
take a blood sample without your concent.
-Robert

In Massachusetts, refusing a breathalyzer is an automatic 180 day
suspension.

You cannot apply foir a hardship license (to and from work only) when it's
pulled for refusing the test. One common condition of bail for a DUI arrest
is weekly breath tests. How you get to and from the test is your problem.
Tough nuts if it's not on a bus line, cuz you can't drive.

Another interesting fact I learned is that (in Massachusetts) you are under
no obligation to take a field sobriety test.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Dallas wrote:
> I would say never take a field test as those are completely subjective.
>
> Many States automatically suspend your driver's licence for refusal to take
> an alcohol test. From a constitutional point of view, I don't understand
> why the 5th Amendment doesn't come into play here. Doesn't one have the
> right to refuse all alcohol tests on the basis of self incrimination?
>
> My thinking here is that if there was a good chance you are going to be
> over the limit, it would be better to suffer whatever penalty they handed
> out for refusal to take the test, rather than actually have a DUI on your
> record.


I believe most states, if not all, consider driving a privilege rather than a
right. In North Carolina, you give up that privilege if you refuse a
breathalizer. Yes, you might avoid a DUI, but I doubt you're going to enjoy
walking everywhere for the next year. Then there's the matter of the fee they
charge to reinstate your license.

I've got to say, it's just not worth it to drink and drive. After many a night
with my head in the bowl praying to the porcelain god, I've come to certain
conclusions: 1) getting drunk is fun. 2) Being drunk isn't... when you get
right down to it. 3) Recovering from a drunk is bloody awful. Given those
three facts, it seems to me that there just isn't enough reward to justify tying
one on.

Now, I am not a teetotaler. I am not above enjoying a beer or a good single
malt scotch... but I either drink at home or I let somebody else drive me if I'm
feeling a buzz.

And frankly, I've had a life that has been more enjoyable with a clear head than
with a befuddled one.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Jim Stewart]

Dallas wrote:
> Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. and blood test.
>
> With respect to your certificate, I was wondering what the best course of
> action would be if you had imbibed a couple of cocktails and you were
> pulled over and suspected of DUI.
>
> For example, a friend of mine blew just above the limit during a traffic
> stop. Her advice to people is to never "blow". It took several hours to
> get her to the station and by that time, she contends, that she would be
> below the legal limit.
>
> I would say never take a field test as those are completely subjective.
>
> Many States automatically suspend your driver's licence for refusal to take
> an alcohol test. From a constitutional point of view, I don't understand
> why the 5th Amendment doesn't come into play here. Doesn't one have the
> right to refuse all alcohol tests on the basis of self incrimination?
>
> My thinking here is that if there was a good chance you are going to be
> over the limit, it would be better to suffer whatever penalty they handed
> out for refusal to take the test, rather than actually have a DUI on your
> record.

First off, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal
advise.

I think that it would be in your best interests
to do the alcohol test *if* you have gotten yourself
into the situation where it's an implied consent
issue.

OTOH, in California, it appears you're not required
to consent to chemical testing until *after* you are
arrested for drunk driving:

CVC 23612.a.1.A

A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to
have given his or her consent to chemical testing
of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of
determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood,
if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed
in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. If a
blood or breath test, or both, are unavailable, then
paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) applies.

I was surprised at this. I always thought consent
was implied by having a license. It's actually
implied by being lawfully arrested for DUI.

Some of the advice I've seen is to politely refuse
to answer inquiries as to whether or not you were
drinking, to refuse to take a field sobriety test and
to refuse to take a chemical test unless you have
actually been arrested for DUI. The point being that
the officer cannot arrest you without probable cause
and it would be foolish for you to help give it to
him. Of course, it would also be foolish to be driving
drunk. And none of this will help if you are falling-
down drunk.

I'd be interested to see what the Texas laws say.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Dallas wrote:
>> Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. and blood test.
>>
>> With respect to your certificate, I was wondering what the best course of
>> action would be if you had imbibed a couple of cocktails and you were
>> pulled over and suspected of DUI.
>>
>> For example, a friend of mine blew just above the limit during a traffic
>> stop. Her advice to people is to never "blow". It took several hours to
>> get her to the station and by that time, she contends, that she would be
>> below the legal limit.
>>
>> I would say never take a field test as those are completely subjective.
>>
>> Many States automatically suspend your driver's licence for refusal to
>> take
>> an alcohol test. From a constitutional point of view, I don't understand
>> why the 5th Amendment doesn't come into play here. Doesn't one have the
>> right to refuse all alcohol tests on the basis of self incrimination?
>> My thinking here is that if there was a good chance you are going to be
>> over the limit, it would be better to suffer whatever penalty they handed
>> out for refusal to take the test, rather than actually have a DUI on your
>> record.
>
> First off, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal
> advise.
>
> I think that it would be in your best interests
> to do the alcohol test *if* you have gotten yourself
> into the situation where it's an implied consent
> issue.
>
> OTOH, in California, it appears you're not required
> to consent to chemical testing until *after* you are
> arrested for drunk driving:
>
> CVC 23612.a.1.A
>
> A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to
> have given his or her consent to chemical testing
> of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of
> determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood,
> if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed
> in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. If a
> blood or breath test, or both, are unavailable, then
> paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) applies.
>
> I was surprised at this. I always thought consent
> was implied by having a license. It's actually
> implied by being lawfully arrested for DUI.
>
> Some of the advice I've seen is to politely refuse
> to answer inquiries as to whether or not you were
> drinking, to refuse to take a field sobriety test and
> to refuse to take a chemical test unless you have
> actually been arrested for DUI. The point being that
> the officer cannot arrest you without probable cause
> and it would be foolish for you to help give it to
> him. Of course, it would also be foolish to be driving
> drunk. And none of this will help if you are falling-
> down drunk.
>
> I'd be interested to see what the Texas laws say.

What happens in the actual practice with regards to CVC 23612.a.1.A is
if you refuse the test they will then either talk to you and/or make you
exit the car and walk to the front or back of it and then decide if you
are intoxicated and then you have to take the test.

[Gene Seibel]

On Feb 7, 3:29*pm, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com>
wrote:

> I believe most states, if not all, consider driving a privilege rather than a
> right. *In North Carolina, you give up that privilege if you refuse a
> breathalizer. *Yes, you might avoid a DUI, but I doubt you're going to enjoy
> walking everywhere for the next year. *Then there's the matter of the fee they
> charge to reinstate your license.
>
> I've got to say, it's just not worth it to drink and drive. *After many a night
> with my head in the bowl praying to the porcelain god, I've come to certain
> conclusions: *1) *getting drunk is fun. *2) *Being drunk isn't... when you get
> right down to it. *3) *Recovering from a drunk is bloody awful. *Given those
> three facts, it seems to me that there just isn't enough reward to justify tying
> one on.
>
> Now, I am not a teetotaler. *I am not above enjoying a beer or a good single
> malt scotch... but I either drink at home or I let somebody else drive me if I'm
> feeling a buzz.
>
> And frankly, I've had a life that has been more enjoyable with a clear head than
> with a befuddled one.
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

I second your post. Flying is too important to me to jeopardize it by
a deliberate action.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Matt Whiting]

Dallas wrote:
> Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. and blood test.
>
> With respect to your certificate, I was wondering what the best course of
> action would be if you had imbibed a couple of cocktails and you were
> pulled over and suspected of DUI.
>
> For example, a friend of mine blew just above the limit during a traffic
> stop. Her advice to people is to never "blow". It took several hours to
> get her to the station and by that time, she contends, that she would be
> below the legal limit.
>
> I would say never take a field test as those are completely subjective.
>
> Many States automatically suspend your driver's licence for refusal to take
> an alcohol test. From a constitutional point of view, I don't understand
> why the 5th Amendment doesn't come into play here. Doesn't one have the
> right to refuse all alcohol tests on the basis of self incrimination?

Because driving is not considered to be a right, but rather a privilege.
I'm not saying I agree, but I believe that is the reason this practice
has not been deemed unconstitutional.

Matt

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 7, 2:30*pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Dallas wrote:

> OTOH, in California, it appears you're not required
> to consent to chemical testing until *after* you are
> arrested for drunk driving:

They don't need to know your blood level to arrest you. Failing a
field sobriety test is enough to arrrest you. At that point they can
take you to the hospital and take your blood w/o consent. Its actually
not too uncommon.

-robert

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:47:12 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
>:

>On Feb 7, 12:16*pm, Dallas > wrote:
>> Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. *and blood test.
>>
>> With respect to your certificate, I was wondering what the best course of
>> action would be if you had imbibed a couple of cocktails and you were
>> pulled over and suspected of DUI.
>>
>
>In California a failure to blow results in an instant suspension of
>your driver's license.

Yep.

> Then law enforcement may arrest you and can
>take a blood sample without your concent.
>-Robert

Doubtful.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 7, 4:47*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:47:12 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"

> > Then law enforcement may arrest you and can
> >take a blood sample without your concent.
> >-Robert
>
> Doubtful.

No, its true. Failing a field sobriety test is reasonable cause to
arrest you for DUI. Accepting the operation of a motor vehicle is (by
Cal vehicle code) concent to a blood test. Its pretty common for the
CHP to arrive at the hospital with a guy in handcuffs for force a
blood test.

"CVC 23612.a.1.A


A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to
have given his or her consent to chemical testing
of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of
determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood,
if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed
in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. If a
blood or breath test, or both, are unavailable, then
paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) applies. "

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:58:57 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
>:

>On Feb 7, 4:47*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:47:12 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
>
>> > Then law enforcement may arrest you and can
>> >take a blood sample without your concent.
>> >-Robert
>>
>> Doubtful.
>
>No, its true. Failing a field sobriety test is reasonable cause to
>arrest you for DUI. Accepting the operation of a motor vehicle is (by
>Cal vehicle code) concent to a blood test. Its pretty common for the
>CHP to arrive at the hospital with a guy in handcuffs for force a
>blood test.
>
>"CVC 23612.a.1.A
>
>
>A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to
>have given his or her consent to chemical testing
>of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of
>determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood,
>if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed
>in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. If a
>blood or breath test, or both, are unavailable, then
>paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) applies. "


I suppose, if the LEO has grounds for arrest (suspect smells of
liquor, appears drunk, etc), drawing blood without consent may be
justified, but the LEO's probable cause is going to come under heavy
scrutiny if the case should go to trial. And if the arrest can be
shown to be unlawful, the LEO could become the focus of a legal action
himself.

People who drink and drive are fools. Get a taxi...

[Judah]

Dallas > wrote in
:

> Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. and blood test.

What a terrible waste of a great subject header!

[TheSmokingGnu]

Dallas wrote:
> With respect to your certificate, I was wondering what the best course of
> action would be if you had imbibed a couple of cocktails and you were
> pulled over and suspected of DUI.

Short of being either Steven Seagal or Chuck Norris, comply with the
officer's requests and take a field test.

> For example, a friend of mine blew just above the limit during a traffic
> stop. Her advice to people is to never "blow". It took several hours to
> get her to the station and by that time, she contends, that she would be
> below the legal limit.

It doesn't matter what she "would be" at the station; she was over the
limit during the field test, and since she was driving immediately
prior, it stands to reasonable reason (:P) that she was over the limit
while driving, ergo DUI.

> I would say never take a field test as those are completely subjective.

They're objective, Dal. Blow in the one end and the chemical indicator
bits react with the alcohol bits. More than a certain concentration -
DUI. The only real defense is to argue either a manufacturing fault with
the field tester, or that the test was improperly performed /
misinterpreted, both of which are difficult if not impossible to prove.

> Many States automatically suspend your driver's licence for refusal to take
> an alcohol test.

I've never heard of this specifically, I do know that refusing to
perform a field test results in a comfy ride to the station in the back
of a cruiser for a breath or blood test, which then becomes the official
test record.

> From a constitutional point of view, I don't understand
> why the 5th Amendment doesn't come into play here. Doesn't one have the
> right to refuse all alcohol tests on the basis of self incrimination?

You have the right to refuse all alcohol tests. Note that holding a
driver's license, on the other hand, is not covered under the Constitution.

> My thinking here is that if there was a good chance you are going to be
> over the limit, it would be better to suffer whatever penalty they handed
> out for refusal to take the test, rather than actually have a DUI on your
> record.

If there's a good chance you'll be over the limit, you shouldn't have
begun driving and/or flying, Dal. Simple as that.

TheSmokingGnu

[James Sleeman]

On Feb 8, 9:16*am, Dallas > wrote:
> Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. *and blood test.

I'm not in the US. But I'd have to say, blow.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you wouldn't be
so ignorant, foolhardy, self absorbed, and dangerous as to get in the
drivers seat when you're anywhere near, let alone over the limit
anyway. So either the roadside breath test will return a negative, or
there's something wrong with it and the evidenciary breath/blood test
back at the station/hospital will clear up the misunderstanding [I'm
assuming that the states are similar to NZ in that a roadside test is
just a screening test, and for evidence a controlled test must be made
on special equipment, or blood test taken].

In my opinion. 12 hours bottle to throttle, I don't care if it's got
wheels or wings, they'll both kill you given the chance, or worse,
somebody else. If you drinking, the only driving you should be doing
is the porcelain taxi variety.

[Dallas]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 20:54:15 -0800 (PST), James Sleeman wrote:

> I'm not in the US. But I'd have to say, blow.
>
> I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you wouldn't be
> so ignorant, foolhardy, self absorbed, and dangerous as to get in the
> drivers seat when you're anywhere near, let alone over the limit
> anyway.

Well, here's the problem in the U.S. - Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
has successfully lobbied to lower the original level of .10% down to .08%,
and is actively working to lower it even further.

To many people this is just a few glasses of wine with dinner. I fail to
see how lowering the legal limit has any effect, other that to cast a wider
net ruining many people's lives who were most likely not impaired to begin
with.

That said, that is our current law. I guess the only way to safeguard your
certificate is to skip that second glass of wine with dinner.

--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:29:27 -0500, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> Now, I am not a teetotaler. I am not above enjoying a beer or a good single
> malt scotch... but I either drink at home or I let somebody else drive me if I'm
> feeling a buzz.

Yeah, my days of driving the porcelain bus are over too...

The problem is you can blow positive without feeling a buzz and you really
have no way of knowing the alcohol content of that top shelf margarita that
the friendly bartender made for you at the restaurant.

--
Dallas

[Denny]

You have one chance to beat the rap (from an old police dep't doctor
and assistant coroner)... If you know you are going to blow over the
impaired limit (it's not just drunk that is a threat to your airmans
certificate, it is being impaired also)

First do not take the field sobriety test... Do not get out of the car
and walk for the officer.. When they order you out of the car, comply
but immediately sit down on the ground, don't talk to the officer,
don't answer questions, do not stand or walk as they demand... Be
pleasant... Don't resist anything, but do not give them an objective
measure to claim you failed the field sobriety test...
This will make them wonder if you are a mental and they will spend
some time trying to convince you to cooperate... when you do not it
will force them arrest you for suspicion of DUI, take you to the
station and attempt to get a breath test there... Again be pleasant,
don't talk (keep your mouth shut so they can't stick a flashlight
sniffer by your lips - turn you face away when he sticks that
flashlight in it)... When that fails they will have to get a bench
warrant to take you to the hospital and have blood drawn <some states
may differ>... This all takes time... Your hope here is that by the
time this all transpires your alcohol level will have metabolized off
enough (one ounce per hour) to put you below the intox level and give
you a fighting chance in court...
Fighting the case will cost you from $5K to $10K, or more... If you
beat the rap and keep your airmans certificate, learn from your
expensive education and never, ever, drink again.... Which is what you
should have done in the beginning...

Now, having given you the method, I have strong doubts that you will
actually do this... Because having enough booze in your blood to make
you a DUI impairs your judgement and makes you 'think' you can talk
your way out of it <you can't and it is really amusing to watch the
drunks try>...

denny
btw, I hate drunks... They should all run into a telephone pole and
put themselves out of their misery...

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 7, 10:30*pm, Dallas > wrote:

> The problem is you can blow positive without feeling a buzz and you really
> have no way of knowing the alcohol content of that top shelf margarita that
> the friendly bartender made for you at the restaurant.

Your problem may soon be solved. Several states are looking into
similar laws...

"Pennsylvania: Proposal Mandates Ignition Interlocks for All Cars"
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1672.asp

[gatt[_2_]]

"Dallas" > wrote in message

> Many States automatically suspend your driver's licence for refusal to
> take
> an alcohol test. From a constitutional point of view, I don't understand
> why the 5th Amendment doesn't come into play here. Doesn't one have the
> right to refuse all alcohol tests on the basis of self incrimination?

I don't think so, because driving on the roads is a licensed privelage, not
a right.


-c

[Private]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 20:54:15 -0800 (PST), James Sleeman wrote:
>
>> I'm not in the US. But I'd have to say, blow.
>>
>> I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you wouldn't be
>> so ignorant, foolhardy, self absorbed, and dangerous as to get in the
>> drivers seat when you're anywhere near, let alone over the limit
>> anyway.
>
> Well, here's the problem in the U.S. - Mothers Against Drunk Driving
> (MADD)
> has successfully lobbied to lower the original level of .10% down to .08%,
> and is actively working to lower it even further.
>
> To many people this is just a few glasses of wine with dinner. I fail to
> see how lowering the legal limit has any effect, other that to cast a
> wider
> net ruining many people's lives who were most likely not impaired to begin
> with.
>
> That said, that is our current law. I guess the only way to safeguard
> your
> certificate is to skip that second glass of wine with dinner.
>
> --
> Dallas

Many jurisdictions have always defined .08 as legal impairment, and several
are now using .05 as the threshold for issuing 24 hr roadside suspensions
and some use or are advocating adoption of the .05 level as legal
impairment. IMHO a 24 hr roadside suspension (which may also include a
towing and taxi bill) is what I would call a 'near miss incident', they are
often used by police who do not wish to charge you for what they estimate
may be .081 or border-line impairment.

IMHO a driver who takes a drink MUST be very careful of the quantity they
are consuming and that the only way to do this is to count your drinks
carefully. Mixed drinks can be an unknown quantity and in general should be
avoided, particularly if they are being poured by a generous host. IMHO the
only safe alcohol to drink is bottled beer as the product has a known
alcohol level and it is possible to count units and time accurately (give
yourself a margin of safety). Drink lots of water to quench thirst and
prevent dehydration and hangover.

A lawyer who does a fair amount of DUI work told me that the most dangerous
thing to consume is wine as it is normally served in larger glasses which
contain more alcohol units than a beer or shot and make it difficult to
count your drinks. Companions will also frequently 'top up' your glass
which also makes counting more difficult. The lawyer claimed that the
majority of his business was due to wine.

IMHO, alcohol and nicotine are the most problematic drugs in use in our
culture, cigarettes should be eliminated and alcohol consumed very
carefully.

YMMV, happy landings.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:16:34 -0600, Dallas
> wrote in
>:

>I guess the only way to safeguard your
>certificate is to skip that second glass of wine with dinner.

That, or wait for it to be metabolized before taking to the road. Take
a stroll in the moonlight and wait it out.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:30:14 -0600, Dallas
> wrote in
>:

>you really
>have no way of knowing the alcohol content of that top shelf margarita that
>the friendly bartender made for you at the restaurant.

That is true, but you can be aware of your BAC:

http://www.breathalyzer.net/index2.html
http://www.intox.com/products/handheld.asp
http://www.craigmedical.com/AlcoScreen.htm

[Dallas]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:42:18 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> They are quite effective else all the DUI convictions would have been thrown out.

Wikipedia seems to indicate that breathalyzers are prone to significant
error. One might be smart to demand a blood test instead.

From Wikipedia:
Breath testers can be very sensitive to temperature, for example, and will
give false readings if not adjusted or recalibrated to account for ambient
or surrounding air temperatures. The temperature of the subject is also
very important.

Breathing pattern can also significantly affect breath test results. One
study found that the BAC readings of subjects decreased 11 to 14% after
running up one flight of stairs and 72¡V75% after doing so twice. Another
study found a 15% decrease in BAC readings after vigorous exercise or
hyperventilation. Hyperventilation for 20 seconds has been shown to lower
the reading by approximately 32%. On the other hand, holding your breath
for 30 seconds can increase the breath test result by about 28%.[citation
needed]

Some breath analysis machines assume a hematocrit (cell volume of blood) of
47%. However, hematocrit values range from 42 to 52% in men and from 37 to
47% in women. A person with a lower hematocrit will have a falsely high BAC
reading.

Failure of law enforcement officers to use the devices properly or of
administrators to have the machines properly maintained and re-calibrated
as required are particularly common sources of error. However, most states
have very strict guidelines regarding officer training and instrument
maintenance and calibration.

Research indicates that breath tests can vary at least 15% from actual
blood alcohol concentration. An estimated 23% of individuals tested will
have a BAC reading higher than their true BAC. Police in Victoria,
Australia use breathalyzers that give a recognized 20 per cent tolerance on
readings. Noel Ashby, former Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner
(Traffic & Transport) claims that this tolerance is to allow for different
body types.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathalyzer

--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:47:12 -0800 (PST), Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Then law enforcement may arrest you and can
> take a blood sample without your concent.

Apparently not in Texas. In fact I started this thread because of a local
news story of a high ranking FBI agent in Dallas driving the wrong way down
a freeway and refusing to take both the breath test or the blood test.


From the link Gig 601XL Builder provided:

"While no one can force a driver to take a sobriety test, refusal to give a
blood or breath sample may carry stiff consequences."

--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 05:23:33 -0800 (PST), Denny wrote:

> btw, I hate drunks... They should all run into a telephone pole and
> put themselves out of their misery...

BTW, I do too.

Several years ago after a company function, I let my wife drive the car
because I had picked up a nasty little headache. It was a country road and
we were on the outside of a curve. The headlights coming from the other
direction just forgot to turn their wheel and careened down the entire
driver's side of my car shredding it from the front bumper to the rear
bumper.

That car just used the rebound to stay on the road and never even once
touched his brakes. He just continued driving like nothing had happened.


--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:00:45 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

> That is true, but you can be aware of your BAC:
> http://www.breathalyzer.net/index2.html


Here's a handy site to figure out how much you can drink before you're over
the legal limit.

http://www.coolnurse.com/alcohol_calculator.htm

I was surprised to find that drinking three shots in one hour does not put
me over the limit. I doubt I'd ever down 3 shots in 1 hour so I guess the
answer to my question is "blow"...


--
Dallas

[Bob Martin]

> IMHO a driver who takes a drink MUST be very careful of the quantity they
> are consuming and that the only way to do this is to count your drinks
> carefully. Mixed drinks can be an unknown quantity and in general should be
> avoided, particularly if they are being poured by a generous host. IMHO the
> only safe alcohol to drink is bottled beer as the product has a known
> alcohol level and it is possible to count units and time accurately (give
> yourself a margin of safety). Drink lots of water to quench thirst and
> prevent dehydration and hangover.
>
> A lawyer who does a fair amount of DUI work told me that the most dangerous
> thing to consume is wine as it is normally served in larger glasses which
> contain more alcohol units than a beer or shot and make it difficult to
> count your drinks. Companions will also frequently 'top up' your glass
> which also makes counting more difficult. The lawyer claimed that the
> majority of his business was due to wine.
>
> IMHO, alcohol and nicotine are the most problematic drugs in use in our
> culture, cigarettes should be eliminated and alcohol consumed very
> carefully.

I once read a letter from some guy to his local PD, asking if he could borrow a
breathalyzer for the weekend to get a feel for what legal intoxication actually felt like.
Basically, his reasoning was that the body has no intrinsic way to measure BAC
numerically, and ruling on a numeric value that nobody could really measure was like not
equipping cards with speedometers, but rather a crib sheet with times and distances, and
coding the sheet "OK" "you might be speeding" and "definitely speeding" depending on the
time/distance. He does have a point, I guess.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-02-07 12:16:27 -0800, Dallas > said:

>
> Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. and blood test.
>
> With respect to your certificate, I was wondering what the best course of
> action would be if you had imbibed a couple of cocktails and you were
> pulled over and suspected of DUI.

How about just not drinking and driving and avoiding the whole problem?

>


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Dave[_5_]]

In my younger days I drank a lot of beer. Never much cared for liquor
or wine. My rule of thumb was to never drink until after dinner.
Having eaten, I could seemingly drink all the beer I cared to and
hardly feel it. Then I'd go to bed and sleep well - and wake up
feeling fine the next day.

I always walked back to where I was staying - or took a taxi. The
police never bothered me.....

Like the man said, YMMV.

David Johnson

[Ricky]

On Feb 7, 3:29*pm, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com>
wrote:
> Dallas wrote:
> > I would say never take a field test as those are completely subjective.
>
> > Many States automatically suspend your driver's licence for refusal to take
> > an alcohol test. *From a constitutional point of view, I don't understand
> > why the 5th Amendment doesn't come into play here. *Doesn't one have the
> > right to refuse all alcohol tests on the basis of self incrimination?
>
> > My thinking here is that if there was a good chance you are going to be
> > over the limit, it would be better to suffer whatever penalty they handed
> > out for refusal to take the test, rather than actually have a DUI on your
> > record.
>
> I believe most states, if not all, consider driving a privilege rather than a
> right. *In North Carolina, you give up that privilege if you refuse a
> breathalizer. *Yes, you might avoid a DUI, but I doubt you're going to enjoy
> walking everywhere for the next year. *Then there's the matter of the fee they
> charge to reinstate your license.
>
> I've got to say, it's just not worth it to drink and drive. *After many a night
> with my head in the bowl praying to the porcelain god, I've come to certain
> conclusions: *1) *getting drunk is fun. *2) *Being drunk isn't... when you get
> right down to it. *3) *Recovering from a drunk is bloody awful. *Given those
> three facts, it seems to me that there just isn't enough reward to justify tying
> one on.
>
> Now, I am not a teetotaler. *I am not above enjoying a beer or a good single
> malt scotch... but I either drink at home or I let somebody else drive me if I'm
> feeling a buzz.
>
> And frankly, I've had a life that has been more enjoyable with a clear head than
> with a befuddled one.
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Yeah, a life free from drinking has been wonderful for me since I
quit.

I had a friend who had a tube connected to his van after he got
convicted of DUI. He couldn't drive for a year, had to go through long-
term rehab, and when they finally gave him back his privilege to drive
his van wouldn't even start until he blew into a tube and the result
was alcohol-free. I think he had to blow into the tube like maybe
every half hour while the motor was running, too. This was in Georgia.

Ricky

[Dave S]

Dallas wrote:
> Breathalyzer that is... and field test.. and blood test.
>
> With respect to your certificate, I was wondering what the best course of
> action would be if you had imbibed a couple of cocktails and you were
> pulled over and suspected of DUI.

If you THINK or KNOW that you are impaired, shut up, sit down and dont
blow when they take you to the station. Do not answer questions or
perform any tests for the video camera and mic in the field or at the
station - it is all used as evidence against you to prove you were DWI.

By the time you "flunk" a field sobriety test, the average person is
well past 0.08-0.10 (varies by state).

You WILL have your license administratively suspended. Count on it. But
its still cheaper in the long run than a DWI.

I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Its my opinion.

>
> For example, a friend of mine blew just above the limit during a traffic
> stop. Her advice to people is to never "blow". It took several hours to
> get her to the station and by that time, she contends, that she would be
> below the legal limit.
>
> I would say never take a field test as those are completely subjective.

Actually, they aren't. There are certain components of a field test that
cannot be faked or suppressed. Nystagmus is one. And the field test is
simply getting video and audio evidence at the time of apprehension. Its
not about probable cause. They had probable cause when they pulled you
over, for whatever reason that was.


>
> Many States automatically suspend your driver's licence for refusal to take
> an alcohol test. From a constitutional point of view, I don't understand
> why the 5th Amendment doesn't come into play here. Doesn't one have the
> right to refuse all alcohol tests on the basis of self incrimination?

Yes you do. But the courts have held that driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a
right. And the continued PRIVILEGE of operating a motor vehicle and
maintaining a license come with conditions attached. Yes, you have the
constitutional right to refuse to provide evidence against yourself. You
also should understand exercising that right may (will) result in the
administrative loss of that privilege. Keep in mind you are being taped
and recorded from the moment the cop turns on his lights to pull you
over. Every thing you say/do is being recorded, so you may unwittingly
provide enough evidence against yourself without a Breathalyzer test.

There is one situation where you can refuse, but alcohol tests are taken
anyways. If the officer calls the DA, and an affidavit is presented to a
judge, a warrant to obtain your specimen with or without your consent
can be issued. Harris (Houston,TX area) County does that already on
major holiday weekends. They arrange central booking, and drive the
suspect downtown immediately, if they refuse to blow, they have a judge
on call in house, and a nurse in house to obtain blood. They call it "no
refusal weekends". Its held up in court.

The other situation is when an allegedly impaired driver seriously
injures or kills another while operating a motor vehicle. You can
refuse, but the law permits a compulsory draw. You can bleed the easy
way or the hard way. But they will get the specimen.
>
> My thinking here is that if there was a good chance you are going to be
> over the limit, it would be better to suffer whatever penalty they handed
> out for refusal to take the test, rather than actually have a DUI on your
> record.

The DUI/DWI will cause more harm than the penalties associated with
DWI/DUI refusal. The best solution is to designate a nondrinking driver,
and avoid the situation altogether, but being a responsible pilot type
you already knew that, right?



>
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder[_4_]]

On Feb 8, 1:11*pm, Dallas > wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:42:18 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> > They are quite effective else all the DUI convictions would have been thrown out.
>
> Wikipedia seems to indicate that breathalyzers are prone to significant
> error. *One might be smart to demand a blood test instead.
>


Wikipedia IS prone to significant error.


> From Wikipedia:
> <SNIP>

Gee, doesn't it amaze you that all of the DUI lawyers out there
haven't found this info and jumped all over it?

[[email protected]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 1:11?pm, Dallas > wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:42:18 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> > > They are quite effective else all the DUI convictions would have been thrown out.
> >
> > Wikipedia seems to indicate that breathalyzers are prone to significant
> > error. ?One might be smart to demand a blood test instead.
> >


> Wikipedia IS prone to significant error.


> > From Wikipedia:
> > <SNIP>

> Gee, doesn't it amaze you that all of the DUI lawyers out there
> haven't found this info and jumped all over it?

They already have.

Why do you think there won't be anyone prosecuted based solely on a
borderline breathalyzer test?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dallas]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:50:27 -0800 (PST), Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Wikipedia IS prone to significant error.

:- )


--
Dallas

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 10, 9:50*am, Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:

> Gee, doesn't it amaze you that all of the DUI lawyers out there
> haven't found this info and jumped all over it?

One defense that I know attorneys have used is that claim the
defendant burped before the test thereby invalidating the results.
Perhaps who get DUIs, don't hurt people, and have attorneys don't
usually get convicted. In California the first DUI is usually reduced
to a wet-reckless anyway.

-Robert

[Ron Natalie]

Dallas wrote:

>
> Many States automatically suspend your driver's licence for refusal to take
> an alcohol test. From a constitutional point of view, I don't understand
> why the 5th Amendment doesn't come into play here. Doesn't one have the
> right to refuse all alcohol tests on the basis of self incrimination?

The way it works in nearly every state is that alco tests are consented
to as a condition of license issuance.

The strategy on refusing the test depends on:

1. What you expect your BAC to be.
2. What state you are in.
3. What state issued your license.

Some states require warning you of the consequences of the refusal.
Some don't. Some allow you 20 minutes to try to contact counsel,
some don't.

[Dallas]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:55:37 -0500, Ron Natalie wrote:

> The way it works in nearly every state is that alco tests are consented
> to as a condition of license issuance.

I could argue that loosing your privilege to drive constitutes a penalty.
Refusing to incriminate yourself by declining an alcohol test results in
the application of this penalty. Therefore, you are being penalized for
exercising your 5th amendment right of non incrimination.

It sounds non constitutional to me.

--
Dallas

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 15, 7:37*am, Dallas > wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:55:37 -0500, Ron Natalie wrote:
> > The way it works in nearly every state is that alco tests are consented
> > to as a condition of license issuance.
>
> I could argue that loosing your privilege to drive constitutes a penalty.
> Refusing to incriminate yourself by declining an alcohol test results in
> the application of this penalty. *Therefore, you are being penalized for
> exercising your 5th amendment right of non incrimination.
>
> It sounds non constitutional to me.
>

That's OK if it will strop drunk drivers...

Cheers

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Dallas wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:55:37 -0500, Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>> The way it works in nearly every state is that alco tests are consented
>> to as a condition of license issuance.
>
> I could argue that loosing your privilege to drive constitutes a penalty.
> Refusing to incriminate yourself by declining an alcohol test results in
> the application of this penalty. Therefore, you are being penalized for
> exercising your 5th amendment right of non incrimination.
>
> It sounds non constitutional to me.
>

The problem is as it has been explained to you before in this forum is
that the permission to drive a car on the public roadways is not a
right. It is a privilege that is granted you by the entity that
owns/controls those roads i.e. the state. Part of the contractual
agreement you enter into with the state is that you will consent to a
alcohol test.

It is no different than if when I hire you to go to work for me you
agree to random drug screens with the understanding refusal or failure
will result in termination.

[Dallas]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:48:12 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> It is no different than if when I hire you to go to work for me you
> agree to random drug screens with the understanding refusal or failure
> will result in termination.

Comparing a private enterprise with state and federal government is not
good comparison. A private enterprise has great leeway and can require you
to forgo rights that can't be taken away by the government and the legal
system. For example, the right to free speech on the employer's property
can and usually is taken away by an employer.

I gather you see the issue as one of, "If you don't like this rule, then
you don't have to get a driver's licence."

I think there is an interesting legal argument inside this issue that will
never be argued because of the overwhelming approval by the public for the
system. Hell, even I wouldn't want to see them change it, but on an
intellectual level it bothers me.

--
Dallas

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Dallas wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:48:12 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> It is no different than if when I hire you to go to work for me you
>> agree to random drug screens with the understanding refusal or failure
>> will result in termination.
>
> Comparing a private enterprise with state and federal government is not
> good comparison. A private enterprise has great leeway and can require you
> to forgo rights that can't be taken away by the government and the legal
> system. For example, the right to free speech on the employer's property
> can and usually is taken away by an employer.
>
> I gather you see the issue as one of, "If you don't like this rule, then
> you don't have to get a driver's licence."
>

You don't and the state doesn't have to give you one. There are a set of
things you must do and agree to or the state is well within their
rights to refuse you a license. Comparing it to free speech proves that
you are still not thinking of the DL as what it is.


> I think there is an interesting legal argument inside this issue that will
> never be argued because of the overwhelming approval by the public for the
> system. Hell, even I wouldn't want to see them change it, but on an
> intellectual level it bothers me.
>

It has been argued probably hundreds of times. The laws still stand.
That ought to tell you something.

[Mxsmanic]

WingFlaps writes:

> That's OK if it will strop drunk drivers...

Ignoring the Constitution creates a very slippery slope.

[Mxsmanic]

Dallas writes:

> Comparing a private enterprise with state and federal government is not
> good comparison. A private enterprise has great leeway and can require you
> to forgo rights that can't be taken away by the government and the legal
> system. For example, the right to free speech on the employer's property
> can and usually is taken away by an employer.

No. Fundamental rights cannot be suspended by an employer. However, the
right to free speech does not extend to unrestricted speech in certain venues
to begin with (including employer premises, in some contexts), and that's why
employer can impose such restrictions. They are not suspending a right, they
are profiting from the fact that no right applies in a specific case.

> I think there is an interesting legal argument inside this issue that will
> never be argued because of the overwhelming approval by the public for the
> system. Hell, even I wouldn't want to see them change it, but on an
> intellectual level it bothers me.

If the public were not so overwhelmingly addicted to drugs to begin with, the
issue would not arise. The fundamental problem is drug abuse.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps writes:
>
>> That's OK if it will strop drunk drivers...
>
> Ignoring the Constitution creates a very slippery slope.
>

So what, you dont drive fly or live in the US anyway.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dallas writes:



> If the public were not so overwhelmingly addicted to drugs to begin
> with, the issue would not arise. The fundamental problem is drug
> abuse.
>

You are an idiot.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dallas writes:

> > Comparing a private enterprise with state and federal government is not
> > good comparison. A private enterprise has great leeway and can require you
> > to forgo rights that can't be taken away by the government and the legal
> > system. For example, the right to free speech on the employer's property
> > can and usually is taken away by an employer.

> No. Fundamental rights cannot be suspended by an employer. However, the
> right to free speech does not extend to unrestricted speech in certain venues
> to begin with (including employer premises, in some contexts), and that's why
> employer can impose such restrictions. They are not suspending a right, they
> are profiting from the fact that no right applies in a specific case.

Pile of babbling crap.

The "right to free speech" means the GOVERNMENT can't restrict your
speech.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The "right to free speech" means the GOVERNMENT can't restrict your
> speech.

And so an employer doing so is not removing any of your rights. QED.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > The "right to free speech" means the GOVERNMENT can't restrict your
> > speech.

> And so an employer doing so is not removing any of your rights. QED.

And ice cream has no bones. QED.

Once again you snip context in the futile hope that you will "win" and
achieve adulation from those that read your words.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> The "right to free speech" means the GOVERNMENT can't restrict your
>> speech.
>
> And so an employer doing so is not removing any of your rights. QED.
>

alt.non-sequitor added.


Bertie