DUI even though under the legal limit?

[HybridSquirrel]

It's not clear cut and you got lucky then or didn't appear intoxicated, in many if not most places it's a crime to sleep in your car as well. You probably just met with an understanding set of officers, again you were lucky.

Many have been arrested even sleeping in the backseat. The problem is the law usually has an intent to drive clause in it that is pretty well open to interpretation.

Good luck taking it to court too, as in almost all states you cannot drive at all until you win the case. I'd just do some nice easy google searches. All the proof you can want is out there. I got to see it first hand. In my class of about 50ish people, not one had any incident with another vehicle or person other than having a drink that night IIRC, if there was anyone it was probably the only one.

Search for Montalvo New Jersey dui, this made pretty big news about a guy sleeping it off. Even though the NJ laws are pretty 'clear' on operating a vehicle is a requirement, this guy still got nailed. That is just one. There are many.

I didn't get lucky, its just the law here that you cant get a DUI if you aren't operating the vehicle.

Montalvo's truck was running, in park, because according to weather records it was about 25 degrees Fahrenheit that Saturday morning.

That is illegal, if his keys weren't in the ignition it wouldn't have been a problem. Thats what I have already said. Also, he wasn't in the back seat

But, in any event, here we have a car
running with the key in the ignition, foot
on the accelerator, and unresponsive driver
behind the wheel. And in that context, and
all of the circumstances and measured by the
dynamics of the totality of the
circumstances, from the perspective of the
Officer on the scene, I don't find at all
that what he was doing was unreasonable. In
fact, I find it would have been unreasonable
to have stopped his inquiries at any point
short of what he did.

He was in the drivers seat, with the ignition on, with his foot on the pedal. That would constitute a DUI, because he was operating the vehicle. If he had been in the back seat, keys out of the ignition, it wouldn't have been a problem. That case proves my point.

 

[MartyMcFly3]

there are usually 2 charges: 1 for driving with ANY alcohol (assuming it impairs driving) and the other over the legal limit. For example, in CA, there are 2 violations under the vehicle code:

23152. (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.

(b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.

Both are considered to be a "DUI" violation.

Basically the same thing in Illinois as well.

 

[BoomerD]

Here in Kahleeforneeya, there's also a "wet & reckless" charge that can be used when the person is under the limit...but still impaired.

 

[alkemyst]

how do you know? what if he was under the state limit but failed his field sobriety tests? The fact that he falls below the legal limit does not establish that he was not intoxicated, per se.

field sobriety tests are designed not to prove innocence but to provide a video that shows drunkenness.

When I was thinking about defending myself one of the lawyers had a videotape of a group of random people doing typical field side tests. Some were drunk, some had a couple drinks, some were sober. It was almost impossible to tell who had really drank...even the sober people looked a bit drunk.

 

[Wheezer]

http://www.dui.com/texas

The Law on Texas DUI/DWI

In Texas, a person is legally intoxicated and may be arrested and charged with DUI/DWI with a .08 BAC (blood or breath alcohol concentration). However, a person is also intoxicated if impaired due to alcohol or other drugs regardless of BAC. Whether you're the driver or the passenger, you can be fined up to $500 for having an open alcohol container in a vehicle.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Here in Kahleeforneeya, there's also a "wet & reckless" charge that can be used when the person is under the limit...but still impaired.

I charge women with that as often as possible. :awe:

 

[jlee]

field sobriety tests are designed not to prove innocence but to provide a video that shows drunkenness.

When I was thinking about defending myself one of the lawyers had a videotape of a group of random people doing typical field side tests. Some were drunk, some had a couple drinks, some were sober. It was almost impossible to tell who had really drank...even the sober people looked a bit drunk.

I wish I could post some of my cruiser video..

 

[Fingolfin269]

Yeah this is total bullshit. They should just start testing everyone who gets pulled over for impairment. That way people who are sleep deprived get fucked, people who are exhausted from working out get fucked, hell let's just expand it to officer discretion in total. On the cell phone? DUI. Texting while driving (imho more dangerous than driving under the influence of a beer or two)? DUI. Putting on your make up in the car? You should get a DUI and put in prison. Looking at your iPod while driving 80mph down the interstate? DUI.

(To clarify for some of the overly rabid: I am not defending outright drunken driving. I'm talking about the beer or two crowd who just spent 1-2 hours having dinner with their friends after work.)

 

[seepy83]

how do you know? what if he was under the state limit but failed his field sobriety tests? The fact that he falls below the legal limit does not establish that he was not intoxicated, per se.

Indeed. The only reason that states are enforcing a BAC limit of .08 is because MADD was able to prove (through a scientific testing proccess) that it takes the average person 1/2 second longer to step on the brakes at .08 than when you're completely sober.

A DWI/DUI lawyer recently told me that he and his peers are expecting the BAC limit to be lowered to .06 within the next few years. (This is in CT, by the way...not sure about your State)

 

[Elganja]

there is a difference between drunk driving and having a drink and driving. Some people tend to think they are one in the same, others think they are not.

I think the distinction shouldn't be made on what you drank, but if you are impaired or not. How you get imparied makes no difference... at the same time if you aren't impaired it should make no difference either... the question is, how does one know if they are impaired?

in any case, yes your cousin can be charged with driving under the influence, I'm guess he failed a field soberity test. I hope he attempted to fight it, a lot of times the DA will drop to a lesser charge assuming your cousin doesn't get into trouble a lot

 

[Elganja]

Yeah this is total bullshit. They should just start testing everyone who gets pulled over for impairment. That way people who are sleep deprived get fucked, people who are exhausted from working out get fucked, hell let's just expand it to officer discretion in total. On the cell phone? DUI. Texting while driving (imho more dangerous than driving under the influence of a beer or two)? DUI. Putting on your make up in the car? You should get a DUI and put in prison. Looking at your iPod while driving 80mph down the interstate? DUI.

(To clarify for some of the overly rabid: I am not defending outright drunken driving. I'm talking about the beer or two crowd who just spent 1-2 hours having dinner with their friends after work.)

i agree... that is what i was eluding too but your examples are better :thumbsup:

maybe they should change DUI to DI, Driving Impaired

 

[jlee]

Yeah this is total bullshit. They should just start testing everyone who gets pulled over for impairment. That way people who are sleep deprived get fucked, people who are exhausted from working out get fucked, hell let's just expand it to officer discretion in total. On the cell phone? DUI. Texting while driving (imho more dangerous than driving under the influence of a beer or two)? DUI. Putting on your make up in the car? You should get a DUI and put in prison. Looking at your iPod while driving 80mph down the interstate? DUI.

(To clarify for some of the overly rabid: I am not defending outright drunken driving. I'm talking about the beer or two crowd who just spent 1-2 hours having dinner with their friends after work.)

One or two beers is not going to make you fail FST's. I'd be surprised if anything at all showed on HGN.

The rest of your post is nonsense. DUI is for impairment due to alcohol or controlled drugs - it's not a charge designed for someone who isn't paying attention. That's what careless/reckless/distracted/whatever-your-state-calls-it driving is for.

 

[Elganja]

One or two beers is not going to make you fail FST's. I'd be surprised if anything at all showed on HGN.

The rest of your post is nonsense.

how was his post nonsense? in the other examples, those people are just as dangerous to other people driving around them.

 

[jlee]

how was his post nonsense? in the other examples, those people are just as dangerous to other people driving around them.

Anyone familiar with the text of a DUI law knows what I meant - I edited to clarify.

 

[Elganja]

Anyone familiar with the text of a DUI law knows what I meant - I edited to clarify.

just saw your edit jlee... for DUI/DWI I get what you are saying. But why should alcohol related charge DUI, be any worse then what the other people were doing? The end result is the same, they are slow to react to the enviroment around them. if "states are enforcing a BAC limit of .08 is because MADD was able to prove (through a scientific testing proccess) that it takes the average person 1/2 second longer to step on the brakes at .08 than when you're completely sober" then the other people are just as bad

FYI, I am in no way defending drunk drivers... i just want to make that clear. I just think that drunk drivers are as bad as texting drivers, cell phone drivers, etc... I.E. they are all imparied in some way

 

[jlee]

just saw your edit jlee... for DUI/DWI I get what you are saying. But why should alcohol related charge DUI, be any worse then what the other people were doing? The end result is the same, they are slow to react to the enviroment around them. if "states are enforcing a BAC limit of .08 is because MADD was able to prove (through a scientific testing proccess) that it takes the average person 1/2 second longer to step on the brakes at .08 than when you're completely sober" then the other people are just as bad

FYI, I am in no way defending drunk drivers... i just want to make that clear. I just think that drunk drivers are as bad as texting drivers, cell phone drivers, etc... I.E. they are all imparied in some way

You can test and 'quantify', if you will, alcohol consumption for a DUI trial. Good luck proving that someone was texting unless they tell you, or you happened to be right next to them and look through the window.

 

[alkemyst]

Indeed. The only reason that states are enforcing a BAC limit of .08 is because MADD was able to prove (through a scientific testing proccess) that it takes the average person 1/2 second longer to step on the brakes at .08 than when you're completely sober.

A DWI/DUI lawyer recently told me that he and his peers are expecting the BAC limit to be lowered to .06 within the next few years. (This is in CT, by the way...not sure about your State)

And that MADD/SADD as a lobby would help their next cause with votes. They are probably the most powerful lobby in the country. Adding on to the fact that we can't vote for single issues, it's even easier to add something to one of their causes and get it pushed through.

 

[alkemyst]

how was his post nonsense? in the other examples, those people are just as dangerous to other people driving around them.

ppl can fail fst's sober.