To blow or not to blow...

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

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/gyrob...d=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.

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

"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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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