I think I’d rather take the breathalyzer and face the small chance of a false negative, if I was sober (if I’m going to be arrested either way, that is).
[quote=“Ryuthrowsstuff, post:12, topic:71938”]If you do happen to have had a drink your BAC will drop in the meantime, and sans anything to establish that it was higher at point of arrest it becomes easier to beat the charge. If your levels drop below the legal limit you’re likely in the clear, if you’re still over its just easier to beat the charge or argue it down to something less serious.
[/quote]
Or, you know, just don’t drink and drive and save yourself the hassle.
Definitely a good rule for determining not to drive… Some people use the opposite rule to determine that they’re ok to drive, though, regardless of the number of drinks they had or how long it’s been since they drank, which is scary. "I know I had 10 beers, and only stopped drinking 4 hours ago… But I’ve had 3 hours of sleep, I’m fine.
Well that particular bit of advice comes from multiple police officers and lawyers I know. The fact of the matter is if it gets the point of the officer requesting a breathalyzer its unlikely you won’t get arrested if you blow 0. Because the breathalyzer only detects alcohol, and that’s not the only potential intoxicant in the world. The breathalyzer is supposed to be used to establish rough BAC at time of arrest. If it in play there’s already (ideally) probable cause to pull detain or arrest you and order that more accurate test. The idea with always refusing it is: since in all likely hood you’ll be arrested anyway its better (for you) to deprive law enforcement of a piece of evidence that establishes a time line as to your blood alcohol level, or that indicates a more serious charge. If they have reason to believe your intoxicated, but it isn’t alcohol then we’re all talking about potential drug charges. It becomes more important to do that given the base inaccuracies of the breathalyzer and frankly the number of shit cops out there.
For one thing people make mistakes. I’ve got no compunction about screwing habitual violators, bad drunks, and generally dangerous people. But some one who just once miss judged how tipsy they were? In an area with no public transport or other options? Besides there’s been a huge uptick in zero tolerance style laws. Where I live if you are under 21 or have a child in the car any alcohol in your system is an instant DUI no matter how far from the legal limit you are. I do not think its fair to saddle teenagers who are prone to mistakes and general stupidity with a felony record and potential jail time on a technicality. Nor do I think its sensible to arrest adults who are entirely capable of driving safely because they had one beer 4 hours ago. Especially given that the issues with drunk driving in our area (a repetitively large problem here) are largely driven by two things. A heavy tourist trade that is largely focused on drinking (bars, wineries, and breweries) where the average tourist assumes its a free for all because we’re “in the country” (the number of times in a day I have to explain I can’t serve alcohol in to-go cups is insane). And a small but noticeable number of habitual drunks who drive drunk all day every day, but never seem to get pulled over or arrested because their buddies are on our fucked up, embarrassing, local police force. Neither of these two things are generally addressed by local authorities or county law. Because again good buddies, and tourist dollars.
In most states, refusing the test is an automatic administrative suspension of your license. (Driving is a privilege, not a right.) So even if you’re stone sober and you nix the breathalyzer, you’re still not going to be (legally) driving for a year.
Which is why people with the right combination of wealth and legal savvy (e.g., district attorneys, celebrities) refuse it, at least when they know they’d fail. Better to be chauffeured for a while than to bolster the prosecution’s hand. (Blood tests aren’t instantaneous, and the hour it takes to get one might be the hour that your body needs to dip back into technical sobriety.)
But if you actually need to drive, you don’t really have that option.
Fair enough - I guess I just can’t imagine a situation where you’re sober and it’s escalated to the point where they’re asking you to take a breathalyzer. Perhaps this is coming from some level of my personal inherent privilege (as a middle class white Canadian male).
People make a LOT of mistakes “just once” that they have to suffer the consequences for. What if they had just that one time they misjudged, ended up killing somebody? I really have very little tolerance for people who drive drunk, at all (and this is speaking as somebody who has probably made a few stupid mistakes and driven when he shouldn’t have, as a younger person). Drinking and driving is stupid and 100% preventable - if you’re driving, and there’s no public transport or other options for you to get home, JUST DON’T DRINK. You don’t HAVE to drink. It’s not required. Nobody forced you to do it against your will. Yes, it would be nice to be able to have a drink, but if you have zero tolerance laws in your area (which I agree are stupid), then just don’t drink. Or if you get caught, well then, I guess you have to live with the consequences. Try to beat the charge any way that you can if you’re sober but caught with a zero tolerance law, but it seems a LOT easier to me to simply not have a drink in the first place. Drinking can be fun, but it’s not SO AWESOME that it’s worth risking your licence, or the hassle of potentially getting arrested.
Ok, I can’t imagine a situation for a person that isn’t a self-brewery.
That aside - that case sounds crazypants. She was stumbling all over the parking lot, and was driving along the road with a flat tire, but “didn’t show any symptoms of drunkenness”? Despite not drinking anything, it sounds like she still gets symptoms of drunkenness when her body brings her BAC up too high… So maybe she should get off this DUI charge, MAYBE, but I’m not sure she should be allowed to have a licence.
Then there’s the extortion/blackmail angle. Another gray area. If damaging information is exposed for altruistic reasons, do I welcome it more than the result of the owner not paying up?
