Test results: Johnson's blood alcohol level was .072

[03EBZ06]

Associated Press

GILBERT, Ariz. -- Blood tests show former Chicago Bears (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=chi) defensive tackle Tank Johnson (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6806)'s blood alcohol level was below the legal limit when he was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving June 22, police said Monday.

Johnson's blood alcohol level was .072, under the presumptive limit in Arizona of .08 percent, Gilbert police Sgt. Andrew Duncan said. No charges have been filed pending results of a completed investigation, and Duncan declined further comment.

Johnson, whose legal name is Terry Darnell Johnson, was arrested when officers pulled him over at 3:30 a.m. for driving 40 mph in a 25 mph zone. Duncan said an officer placed him under arrest because he believed Johnson was under the influence of alcohol. He was released without being booked or charged after providing a blood sample, and police said he was very cooperative.

Johnson, 25, was released by the Chicago Bears three days after his arrest. The team said it was "upset and embarrassed" by the defensive tackle's legal troubles.

Johnson had already had been suspended for the first eight games of the 2007 NFL season for violating probation on a gun charge. He spent two months in jail and was released in May.

Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2923817

[parchy]

Welp... that sucks.

[AbeBeta]

So all he was doing wrong was speeding.

How many folks here never did that?

[Hostile]

:laugh2:

I probably shouldn't find this funny, but I do.

He still should have known better. For a man that big to register a .072 he still had to drink a lot.

[Doomsday101]

Thing is regardless if he did not break the law he is in the NFL abuse program and should not be drinking period. From the Bears stand point and the NFL this does not change anything.

[Hostile]

So all he was doing wrong was speeding.

How many folks here never did that?Better question.

How many of you who are guilty of doing this did so while on probation, or notice from your job that you were on thin ice?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Curious of the time that elapsed from the time he was pulled over until the blood was taken. Also curious of the time he was on the road before being pulled over.

[burmafrd]

While not legally drunk is there any question that he was impaired and therefore a danger to everyone on the road?

[AbeBeta]

Better question.

How many of you who are guilty of doing this did so while on probation, or notice from your job that you were on thin ice?

Thin ice sure. But it is speeding - it wasn't like he was racing - it is a traffic ticket -- it doesn't violate his parole nor does it speak to bad behavior.

Me, I'm not ready to call this anything other than bad driving.

And the upside is that he was found with a grand total of ZERO guns in the car.

[burmafrd]

What was the timeframe from when he got into the car and when he had the blood test? Some time must have passed- so is there any real doubt that he was legally drunk when he got into the car?

[AbeBeta]

While not legally drunk is there any question that he was impaired and therefore a danger to everyone on the road?

.08 is the legal limit -- and a relatively low one at that. If below that is dangerous then the limit should be lower.

Some folks here crack me up with the loosey-goosey legal applications -- a guy has a drug test that comes up for something that doesn't relate to performance (marijuana) and it is all "it is illegal!" but here a guy, by the letter of the law isn't guilty of driving under the influence and it is all "but he was close!"

[joseephuss]

Thin ice sure. But it is speeding - it wasn't like he was racing - it is a traffic ticket -- it doesn't violate his parole nor does it speak to bad behavior.

Me, I'm not ready to call this anything other than bad driving.

And the upside is that he was found with a grand total of ZERO guns in the car.

He had a secret compartment installed for those. :laugh2:

Bad driving and poor judgment. You don't have to be legally drunk to be driving impaired. Maybe he will learn something from this.

[InmanRoshi]

If you're severely impaired below .08, you're a lightweight. You can drink a couple of glasses of wine with your meal and almost be at .08.

[AbeBeta]

If you're severely impaired at .08, you're a lightweight.

Seriously -- some folks here should go to a bar that has one of those machines -- you'd be shocked to see how sober you feel when .08 rolls around.

[Chocolate Lab]

So have we signed him yet? :D

[burmafrd]

So what if you feel sober. What matters is ARE YOU IMPAIRED AS A DRIVER.Or are you trying to say you drive better with a couple of bears rather then cold sober?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Well I don't drink and drive PERIOD.

Rarely even drink anymore but when I did I did not drive.

So if that makes me ignorant about what is considered a low alcohol level with a blood test so be it. :(

[AbeBeta]

So what if you feel sober. What matters is ARE YOU IMPAIRED AS A DRIVER.Or are you trying to say you drive better with a couple of bears rather then cold sober?

and by the letter of the law, he wasn't impaired.

no charges.

case closed.

[InmanRoshi]

So what if you feel sober. What matters is ARE YOU IMPAIRED AS A DRIVER.Or are you trying to say you drive better with a couple of bears rather then cold sober?
You're also impaired when you talk on your cellphone while driving. Should we arrest people talking on their cellphone because they're 'impaired'? No, because its not illegal to talk on your cellphone and drive (in most places), and neither is driving at .072. It's simple ... you either break a law or you don't. Unless you believe government and law authorities should make up laws as they go.

[AdamJT13]

Perhaps Arizona's law is different, but in some places, you can be charged with driving while impaired (or another similarly worded offense) even if your blood-alcohol level is below the legal limit.

[Verdict]

:laugh2:

I probably shouldn't find this funny, but I do.

He still should have known better. For a man that big to register a .072 he still had to drink a lot.

Actually there a lot of different factors that affect a test result, including the size of the accused (which you have alluded to), the amount of alcohol consumed, how recently the alcohol was consumed, the rate the body processes alcohol, and the amount and type of food consumed, and the timing of the test.

He could have had as little as one or two drinks and been at that limit. I am guessing that even at his size that unless it had been a while since he had consumed alcohol that he had no more than three drinks, and probably less.

[Hostile]

Thin ice sure. But it is speeding - it wasn't like he was racing - it is a traffic ticket -- it doesn't violate his parole nor does it speak to bad behavior.

Me, I'm not ready to call this anything other than bad driving.

And the upside is that he was found with a grand total of ZERO guns in the car.That's one hell of a coat of whitewash Mr. Defense Lawyer.

.072 means he was barely below the legally drunk limit, so he's not exactly a saint who just pressed the accelerator too hard and got caught.

[theogt]

While not legally drunk is there any question that he was impaired and therefore a danger to everyone on the road?Yes, there is. He may have been impaired but that wasn't because he was drunk.

[Big Dakota]

and by the letter of the law, he wasn't impaired.

no charges.

case closed.


Laws?? The commish don't need no stinking laws.

[Hostile]

Perhaps Arizona's law is different, but in some places, you can be charged with driving while impaired (or another similarly worded offense) even if your blood-alcohol level is below the legal limit.You can here if there are other factors involved. With speed being involved they still might. Usually though it is reckless driving, abusive attitude towards the officers, etc.

[AbeBeta]

Perhaps Arizona's law is different, but in some places, you can be charged with driving while impaired (or another similarly worded offense) even if your blood-alcohol level is below the legal limit.

That is true -- but you would generally, at least as I understand the law -- have to be doing some seriously bad driving to make the case for it.

[AbeBeta]

That's one hell of a coat of whitewash Mr. Defense Lawyer.

.072 means he was barely below the legally drunk limit, so he's not exactly a saint who just pressed the accelerator too hard and got caught.

No he isn't -- but again, the law says you are FINE to drive if you are under that magic limit.

[Verdict]

Perhaps Arizona's law is different, but in some places, you can be charged with driving while impaired (or another similarly worded offense) even if your blood-alcohol level is below the legal limit.

That might be true, but I would love to defend that case. I doubt you will see that happen.

What I find interesting is that the accused does not have to voluntarily submit to blood alcohol testing in most jurisdictions. They usually lose their licesnse if they refuse, but a test result over the legal limit poses real problems to defending a drunk driver. I usually advise my clients to REFUSE the test if they think there is any remote chance they might fail. Of course, that is just my perspective here in Oklahoma. :)

[stealth]

I drink two beers before I even get in a car every day of my life.
That's how I wake up in the morning.

*ducks out of thread*

[Big Dakota]

You can here if there are other factors involved. With speed being involved they still might. Usually though it is reckless driving, abusive attitude towards the officers, etc.


If i'm Tank, the question isn't what will a judge say, it's what Goodell will say. The impaired/speeding thing won't cost him near what another several games will.

[stealth]

That might be true, but I would love to defend that case. I doubt you will see that happen.

What I find interesting is that the accused does not have to voluntarily submit to blood alcohol testing in most jurisdictions. They usually lose their licesnse if they refuse, but a test result over the legal limit poses real problems to defending a drunk driver. I usually advise my clients to REFUSE the test if they think there is any remote chance they might fail. Of course, that is just my perspective here in Oklahoma. :)

texas law same things, never ever submit to the tests.

[theogt]

I drink two beers before I even get in a car every day of my life.
That's how I wake up in the morning.

*ducks out of thread*Two beers? Lightweight. I knock out a 6-pack with my Cheerios.

[dallasfan]

.08 is the legal limit -- and a relatively low one at that. If below that is dangerous then the limit should be lower.

Exactly, if below .08 was dangerous it would be illegal. I'd say he definately wasn't impaired, and I'm pretty sure drinking alchool is allowed for his probation, or else he'd be on his way back to jail.

[stealth]

Two beers? Lightweight. I knock out a 6-pack with my Cheerios.


I was talking 40's though

[AbeBeta]

If i'm Tank, the question isn't what will a judge say, it's what Goodell will say. The impaired/speeding thing won't cost him near what another several games will.

A good question here is whether Tank is expected to be a saint or if he can reasonably do legal stuff - like drive with a BAC under the limit -- and have run-ins with the law in the manner that 1000s of upstanding citizens do every day -- like get a speeding ticket

[Verdict]

What was the timeframe from when he got into the car and when he had the blood test? Some time must have passed- so is there any real doubt that he was legally drunk when he got into the car?

The magic 8 ball says yes there is so much doubt that the prosecutor will not charge him with it. (See Duke rape case for the reason why).

Do you think the state should be able to make up the rules as they go along?

[AbeBeta]

texas law same things, never ever submit to the tests.

Of course, for most folks you aren't going to get a lawyer b/c it is going to be a total open and shut case where you are going to lose your license anyway.

[Big Dakota]

A good question here is whether Tank is expected to be a saint or if he can reasonably do legal stuff - like drive with a BAC under the limit -- and have run-ins with the law in the manner that 1000s of upstanding citizens do every day -- like get a speeding ticket


The Bears have already spoken. Let us see what the commish and the other owners say, shall we? This whole thing has cost him millions.

[ThreeSportStar80]

He was under the legal limit so that's all that matters... 3 A.M. in the morning is no big deal, I do it all the time. He's just a target now.

[Verdict]

No he isn't -- but again, the law says you are FINE to drive if you are under that magic limit.

It is not illegal to drink an alcoholic beverage and drive (it is not necessarily a good idea). It is illegal in most jurisdictions to drink and drive with a blood alcohol level greater than a certain blood alcohol concentration. He was apparantly under the legal limit. That doesn't make him a great guy, it just makes him innocent of drunk driving if he is under the legal limit.

[tunahelper]

Lets get him signed.

ASAP!

[stealth]

God I need a beer.

[03EBZ06]

He's just a target now.
There is a simple solution, don't put himself in a situation where he can be 'targeted' but he does have to put some effort to do so.

[Verdict]

Perhaps Arizona's law is different, but in some places, you can be charged with driving while impaired (or another similarly worded offense) even if your blood-alcohol level is below the legal limit.

I am not saying you are wrong, but I have never heard of such a thing. I know that if you refuse a test (and were actually under the legal limit) you could be found guilty based on circumstantial evidence, but if there is no test result, you generally wont see the prosecution take such a case to trial.

[theogt]

Of course, for most folks you aren't going to get a lawyer b/c it is going to be a total open and shut case where you are going to lose your license anyway.Not necessarily. Those DUI lawyers can do amazing things.

[zeromaster]

Two beers? Lightweight. I knock out a 6-pack with my Cheerios.
A litle vodka with grapefruit juice is rather tasty some mornings

::ducks::

On another note, where are the lawyers lining up to sue the team/NFL?

[Verdict]

The Bears have already spoken. Let us see what the commish and the other owners say, shall we? This whole thing has cost him millions.

Your point is well taken, but what if he doesn't commit any further offenses. Would you look at this arrest in a different light five years from now.

The guy does have some talent. He will probably be picked up by someone.

[Verdict]

Of course, for most folks you aren't going to get a lawyer b/c it is going to be a total open and shut case where you are going to lose your license anyway.

My clients would beg to differ, Sir. :laugh2:

[03EBZ06]

In light of this result, I think Tank is more desirable and more teams are probably looking to see how he could be signed. Had he been charged with DUI, I think most of the team would stay away from him for some time.

[AbeBeta]

I am not saying you are wrong, but I have never heard of such a thing. I know that if you refuse a test (and were actually under the legal limit) you could be found guilty based on circumstantial evidence, but if there is no test result, you generally wont see the prosecution take such a case to trial.

That's a law in CA too

[AbeBeta]

My clients would beg to differ, Sir. :laugh2:

let me ask though, from a purely economical standpoint, what costs more? your services or the fines, etc. the person gets if guilty?

[03EBZ06]

I am not saying you are wrong, but I have never heard of such a thing. I know that if you refuse a test (and were actually under the legal limit) you could be found guilty based on circumstantial evidence, but if there is no test result, you generally wont see the prosecution take such a case to trial.
What about on-road test like straight line walking, touching nose and reciting alphabets in reverse order, can you refuse them as well?

If not, can that be used against you at the court to convict you?

[CrazyCowboy]

Hum....do I smell a lawsuit?

[Hoofbite]

Hum....do I smell a lawsuit?

based on what?

[RW Hitman]

Better question.

How many of you who are guilty of doing this did so while on probation, or notice from your job that you were on thin ice?

exactly....

[03EBZ06]

Hum....do I smell a lawsuit?
Against Bears? I don't see how. Teams have an option to release players for various reasons.

[Vintage]

He was below the legal limit. Good for him.

He should have been, or he shouldn't have been driving (though, I am being a bit hypocritical on that).

Guilty of speeding...

God, who hasn't done that?

[AbeBeta]

What about on-road test like straight line walking, touching nose and reciting alphabets in reverse order, can you refuse them as well?

If not, can that be used against you at the court to convict you?

Before you get any bright ideas, most states have laws about refusing that pretty much eliminate these options.

[03EBZ06]

He was below the legal limit. Good for him.

He should have been, or he shouldn't have been driving (though, I am being a bit hypocritical on that).

Guilty of speeding...

God, who hasn't done that?
If I was told to be on a good behavior for certain period, otherwise, I'd be jeopardizing my career and millions of dollars, I won't take a chance of driving near impaired nor break speed limit. I would be on best behavior for that period of time, but that's just me.

[03EBZ06]

Before you get any bright ideas, most states have laws about refusing that pretty much eliminate these options.
I don't drink and drive, never have and never will. I was just wondering about refusing sobriety tests conducted on-road since other person stated that a person can refuse BAT.

[ndanger]

I got a drinkin' problem man, one mouth and two hands and an empty can and I got no loochie.:eek:

[Big Dakota]

Your point is well taken, but what if he doesn't commit any further offenses. Would you look at this arrest in a different light five years from now.

The guy does have some talent. He will probably be picked up by someone.


Ya, instead of signing a long term contract at 26 with a super bowl contender in Chicago, he'll be working for minimum wage for a couple years.I serously doubt anyone gives him anything above min. in 2008 and we have yet to see if he'll play in 2007. If he stays clean and plays well in 2008 he may find a taker in 2009. Even at that, he may never cash in compensatory to his talent level. Remember, he'll turn 28 in 09. Instead of signing a 5 year 20-30 million dollar deal(maybe more) in 2008, he'll be darn lucky to get half that in 2009. AAAHHHH the thug life.

[peplaw06]

let me ask though, from a purely economical standpoint, what costs more? your services or the fines, etc. the person gets if guilty?I know that in Texas if you get convicted of a DWI, you have to pay a $1,000 surcharge to the DPS every year for 3 years to maintain your license. We don't charge that much to plea one out to a lesser charge. The court costs and fines probably even out, and are usually charged either way.

Of course if it's an enhanced DWI, sometimes you can't plea it out to anything other than a DWI, so you're faced with a surcharge anyway.

[AbeBeta]

I know that in Texas if you get convicted of a DWI, you have to pay a $1,000 surcharge to the DPS every year for 3 years to maintain your license. We don't charge that much to plea one out to a lesser charge. The court costs and fines probably even out, and are usually charged either way.

Of course if it's an enhanced DWI, sometimes you can't plea it out to anything other than a DWI, so you're faced with a surcharge anyway.

Good info. How likely is that plea to a lesser charge though?

BTW - I thought the proper legal term was DUI rather than DWI. They don't teach you that at Pepperdine?

[Yakuza Rich]

You're also impaired when you talk on your cellphone while driving. Should we arrest people talking on their cellphone because they're 'impaired'? No, because its not illegal to talk on your cellphone and drive (in most places), and neither is driving at .072. It's simple ... you either break a law or you don't. Unless you believe government and law authorities should make up laws as they go.


That's not exactly true.

In many states (and I'm almost certain it's the same way in most of the states) you can be deemed impaired despite being under the legal limit. I have had a few friends that have been legally under the limit (they were right near the limit, but just under it, like Tank Johnson was) and still had to go to court over it. Some of them got off the charge completely, but most of them got some type of penalty for being impaired (less of a penalty than a DUI) and some of them actually got a DUI. Kind of depends on how good of an attorny the person has and what type of judge is presiding over the case and what type of mood the judge is in (and your past history).

I do know in NY that you can be ticketed for going to fast despite being well below the speed limit. There's a law in NY (and I'm sure plenty of other states have it as well) that you can be going to fast for the conditions despite being well under the speed limit. So there's a different example of a person not really breaking the law, but still getting in trouble when the investigation was concluded.

Anyway, given Johnson's past criminal history problems, the fact he was originally cited for speeding (which the court will most likely directly tie to him being *impaired) and his BAC being just below the legal limit, I bet that he's giong to be charged with either DUI or something close to it.





YAKUZA

[Verdict]

let me ask though, from a purely economical standpoint, what costs more? your services or the fines, etc. the person gets if guilty?

It is almost always cheaper to hire an attorney.

[Kilyin]

Good info. How likely is that plea to a lesser charge though?

BTW - I thought the proper legal term was DUI rather than DWI. They don't teach you that at Pepperdine?

Varies by state, Texas still calls them DWI.

[Vintage]

Under Arizona law, Johnson could still face a charge for "impairment to the slightest degree." The state has separate charges for blood alcohol levels of .08 or higher and .15 or higher. The "slightest degree" charge usually accompanies the other charges, but the state does not have to show any blood alcohol level to bring the minimum charge.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2923817

Personally, I am betting on him getting a speeding ticket.

[Vintage]

Varies by state, Texas still calls them DWI.

DWI
DUI
OMVI

[Yakuza Rich]

That might be true, but I would love to defend that case. I doubt you will see that happen.

What I find interesting is that the accused does not have to voluntarily submit to blood alcohol testing in most jurisdictions. They usually lose their licesnse if they refuse, but a test result over the legal limit poses real problems to defending a drunk driver. I usually advise my clients to REFUSE the test if they think there is any remote chance they might fail. Of course, that is just my perspective here in Oklahoma. :)

Johnson probably didn't know his rights and/or thought he wasn't all that impaired as it doesn't take much to hit his mark. I've unfortunately known tons of people who have been hit with DUI's (my cousin and a friend of mine have 3 each and countless other people) and were in similar cases like Johnson's and I have a lot of friends and family that work in police departments. It really wouldn't surprise me if Johnson got a DUI and I think he's likely to get some type lesser fine.

IIRC, a lot of states have have DUI which stands for "driving under the influence" and I believe the lesser charge which could apply in Johnson's case would be called "driving while impaired" or something to that affect.

I've never gotten a DUI, but I was always told to take the road test because if you refuse then they'll make you take the breathalyzer which you pretty much have to take. But if you pass the road test they'll often just deem you safe to go and won't bother with the breathalyzer unless the cop is just dying to bust somebody.




YAKUZA

[Bob Sacamano]

.08 is the legal limit -- and a relatively low one at that. If below that is dangerous then the limit should be lower.

Some folks here crack me up with the loosey-goosey legal applications -- a guy has a drug test that comes up for something that doesn't relate to performance (marijuana) and it is all "it is illegal!" but here a guy, by the letter of the law isn't guilty of driving under the influence and it is all "but he was close!"

it's not a DUI, but isn't a DWI .05?

[Verdict]

What about on-road test like straight line walking, touching nose and reciting alphabets in reverse order, can you refuse them as well?

If not, can that be used against you at the court to convict you?

You always have the right against self incrimination.

[AbeBeta]

It is almost always cheaper to hire an attorney.

It does not surprise me that you say that.

But I'll assume you are correct since, against my better judgment, I trust lawyers.

[Yakuza Rich]

let me ask though, from a purely economical standpoint, what costs more? your services or the fines, etc. the person gets if guilty?

The fines, easily. My cousin has gotten 3 DUI's. The fines are at least $1,000. Then your insurance is going to skyrocket (if you can still get insurance) and then you probably will do some community service. People almost always get an attorney with a DUI because even if they are found guilty, more often than not the attorney can get fines and penalties reduced.





YAKUZA

[Bob Sacamano]

A good question here is whether Tank is expected to be a saint or if he can reasonably do legal stuff - like drive with a BAC under the limit -- and have run-ins with the law in the manner that 1000s of upstanding citizens do every day -- like get a speeding ticket

my point of view is this, Tank should be doing everything in his power to stay within the law, even though he didn't break the law this time, he shot it pretty close

but I have been guilty of this, won't say how many times ;) so I can't really pass judgement

[Vintage]

Hypothetical for some of the lawyers in this group....

Say I get pulled over and they want to test me for sobriety. Say I have nothing in my system because I haven't had a drink.

What would happen if I was to "mess" with the officer, like, fail to say the alphabet backwards correctly, fail the straight line test...but when it comes to the breathalyzer, pass with flying colors.

Obviously, I wouldn't get a ticket for anything alcohol related. But would I get a ticket for ****ing with the police?

[Verdict]

It does not surprise me that you say that.

But I'll assume you are correct since, against my better judgment, I trust lawyers.

You have to remember what a conviction does to your insurance rates.

[AbeBeta]

You always have the right against self incrimination.

And in some states, the penalty is harsher if you refuse the test.

[Bob Sacamano]

And in some states, the penalty is harsher if you refuse the test.

automatic 4 month suspension

your basically looked at as being guilty

take the test

[theogt]

automatic 4 month suspension

your basically looked at as being guilty

take the testHorrible advice. Absolutely horrible. Unless you're completely sober.

[AbeBeta]

Horrible advice. Absolutely horrible. Unless you're completely sober.

In CA the suspension is automatic and the ancillary stuff is more harsh than a guilty conviction

[Bob Sacamano]

Horrible advice. Absolutely horrible. Unless you're completely sober.

^^^lawyer trying to pay his bills

don't refuse a breathalyzer and/or chemical test everyone

[AbeBeta]

^^^lawyer trying to pay his bills

don't refuse a breathalyzer and/or chemical test everyone

I thought theogt worked in finance

[Bob Sacamano]

I thought theogt worked in finance

I guess

[AbeBeta]

I guess

like I've said before -- hard to tell the professionals apart!

[Bob Sacamano]

like I've said before -- hard to tell the professionals apart!

you can't tell me apart, cuz you can't see me

professional hit-man, my specialty is knocking off ignorant posters :)

[Hoofbite]

I once had coach tell me that if I ever get pulled over do as follows.

don't say anything and don't take any test. Let them take you to the jail and sit you in a cell for a while. After some time has passed calmly come forward and offer a breath test. Because the arresting officer has to be present, its not worth his time to come all the way back and watch as you blow into the machine. Not only that but on the off chance he comes back, its been a couple of hours and you are much better off then to test on site.

Said you would lose your license for 6 months but you don't get a DUI which would most like result in a suspension anyway.

Don't know if its the way to go. Can't confirm it as I don't take the risk at all.

[ndanger]

you can't tell me apart, cuz you can't see me

professional hit-man, my specialty is knocking off ignorant posters :)

You either suck at or your not on your program cuz this place all up in them ignert posters.:eek:

[Bob Sacamano]

I once had coach tell me that if I ever get pulled over do as follows.

don't say anything and don't take any test. Let them take you to the jail and sit you in a cell for a while. After some time has passed calmly come forward and offer a breath test. Because the arresting officer has to be present, its not worth his time to come all the way back and watch as you blow into the machine. Not only that but on the off chance he comes back, its been a couple of hours and you are much better off then to test on site.

Said you would lose your license for 6 months but you don't get a DUI which would most like result in a suspension anyway.

Don't know if its the way to go. Can't confirm it as I don't take the risk at all.

that's the way to go about it, but out-right refusing to take one is not the way to go

[peplaw06]

Good info. How likely is that plea to a lesser charge though?

BTW - I thought the proper legal term was DUI rather than DWI. They don't teach you that at Pepperdine?

In CA it's DUI. But I practice in Texas, where it's DWI. Driving under the influence as opposed to driving while intoxicated. Basically the same thing.

A lesser charge is very likely if it's your first DWI/DUI offense and you have a pretty clean record. If it's a 2nd or 3rd offense or more, or if you have drug charges, etc., it's not so likely. In TX, they'll just plea you off on obstructing a highway and send you on your way. But you don't want to screw up again.

I'm dealing with a couple of these right now, but I'm still pretty new at it. We have a guy though who got charged with his first DWI and is your basic upstanding citizen... volunteers a lot and such. There's kind of an unwritten rule that if a defendant hires an attorney, the DA is supposed to give him a break... after all that's why the attorney was hired. If you could get the same deal without an attorney and not save yourself any money, no one would hire us... You know how we look out for each other... still.

Then we have a guy who's 83, and recently got charged with his 3rd DWI. A 3rd DWI is enhanced, and is supposed to be charged as a felony. But since he's 83... and hired us :D... the DA refused to prosecute it as a felony. He said, "there was a defect in one of his previous offenses." No one wants to send an 83 year old guy to the klink for a DWI when he might die there.

[peplaw06]

^^^lawyer trying to pay his bills

don't refuse a breathalyzer and/or chemical test everyone

Maybe in your neck of the woods, but if you plan on trying to get out of it, a test will be the strongest evidence against you.

[Shango]

:write: So have we signed him yet? :D

[peplaw06]

Hypothetical for some of the lawyers in this group....

Say I get pulled over and they want to test me for sobriety. Say I have nothing in my system because I haven't had a drink.

What would happen if I was to "mess" with the officer, like, fail to say the alphabet backwards correctly, fail the straight line test...but when it comes to the breathalyzer, pass with flying colors.

Obviously, I wouldn't get a ticket for anything alcohol related. But would I get a ticket for ****ing with the police?

I'm sure they'd come up with something to write you a ticket for. It may not be a DWI, but it's not a good idea to be a **** to the cops. It's fun... but not worth it.

[REDVOLUTION]

While not legally drunk is there any question that he was impaired and therefore a danger to everyone on the road?

Yeah... like that newer commercial..... "buzzed" is dangerous....

[theogt]

I'm sure they'd come up with something to write you a ticket for. It may not be a DWI, but it's not a good idea to be a **** to the cops. It's fun... but not worth it.Probably some obstruction of justice type charge.

[Bob Sacamano]

Maybe in your neck of the woods, but if you plan on trying to get out of it, a test will be the strongest evidence against you.

true, but the judge won't look too kindly on you if you refuse to take one

btw, my neck of the woods is Annapolis, MD, not exactly bumville

[AdamJT13]

What a great thread. Let's all discuss ways to get away with breaking the law and putting other people's lives at risk!

Pathetic.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

^^^lawyer trying to pay his bills

don't refuse a breathalyzer and/or chemical test everyone

Yeah people shouldnt take legal advice from lawyers but should rather listen to a part time waiter.

[Bob Sacamano]

Yeah people shouldnt take legal advice from lawyers but should rather listen to a part time waiter.

I've had a DUI charge, I talked to people, I did my research

try it sometime, you know, research before you speak

hack

yeah, that 4 month license suspension is going to really impress the judge :jerk:

[Bob Sacamano]

from a certified DUI lawyer

Q. Should I take the breathalyzer?

A. The answer is almost always yes.
If you don’t take the breathalyzer then the police can charge you with refusing to take the breathalyzer. This carries the same penalties as drunk driving, except jail time. It is also in addition to any sentence for drunk driving. For example, for a first time drunk driving offense you can lose your license for up to one year. And, if you refuse to take the breathalyzer, you can lose your license for up to one additional year! Thus, for a first time drunk driving offense and a refusal to take the breathalyzer, you are facing a loss of license for two years.

Another reason to take the breathalyzer is that it is very easy for the police to prove a refusal. The standard of proof is less - preponderance of the evidence - and anything other than an unequivocal yes is a refusal. It is harder for the police to prove the correct operation of the breathalyzer than a refusal to take the breathalyzer.

you're too easy FuzzyWuzzydoesn'thaveaclue

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've had a DUI charge, I talked to people, I did my research

try it sometime, you know, research before you speak

hack

yeah, that 4 month license suspension is going to really impress the judge :jerk:

So the specific information that you obtained concerning your specific case should apply to everyone in every situation? Who exactly did you talk to to come to this opinion anyway?

Its apparent that you didnt come to this conclusion on your own and had to be led to it so Im surious who did the leading.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

from a certified DUI lawyer

Q. Should I take the breathalyzer?

A. The answer is almost always yes.
If you don’t take the breathalyzer then the police can charge you with refusing to take the breathalyzer. This carries the same penalties as drunk driving, except jail time. It is also in addition to any sentence for drunk driving. For example, for a first time drunk driving offense you can lose your license for up to one year. And, if you refuse to take the breathalyzer, you can lose your license for up to one additional year! Thus, for a first time drunk driving offense and a refusal to take the breathalyzer, you are facing a loss of license for two years.

Another reason to take the breathalyzer is that it is very easy for the police to prove a refusal. The standard of proof is less - preponderance of the evidence - and anything other than an unequivocal yes is a refusal. It is harder for the police to prove the correct operation of the breathalyzer than a refusal to take the breathalyzer.

you're too easy FuzzyWuzzydoesn'thaveaclue

This says that the penalty is less (no jail) for refusing. Why on Earth if you know you would fail would you guarantee a worse penalty.

Oh and a link would be nice.

[Bob Sacamano]

So the specific information that you obtained concerning your specific case should apply to everyone in every situation? Who exactly did you talk to to come to this opinion anyway?

I went to various forums, had a consultation, and talked to some co-workers who were charged w/ a DUI before

[Bob Sacamano]

This says that the penalty is less (no jail) for refusing. Why on Earth if you know you would fail would you guarantee a worse penalty.

Oh and a link would be nice.

http://www.meignatoff.com/mainpages/questions.htm <=just a quick search

have you ever been drunk before? I, like most, felt I wasn't over the legal limit, which is why I submitted to the breathalyzer

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.meignatoff.com/mainpages/questions.htm

btw, have you ever been drunk before? I, like most, felt I wasn't over the legal limit, which is why I submitted to the breathalyzer

I never drink and drive. Cabs are wonderful things.

BTW that lawyer is from NJ. Youre from MD right?

[Bob Sacamano]

I never drink and drive. Cabs are wonderful things.


yes, they are, but my point is, I had no idea that I would register a .11, I thought I was good, like most drunks do, which is why I took the breathalyzer

BTW that lawyer is from NJ. Youre from MD right?

yes, that's just what a quick search 2 minutes ago picked up to back up my opinion, which is part of the same process I used to formulate it a year ago

[FuzzyLumpkins]

yes, they are, but my point is, I had no idea that I would register a .11, I thought I was good, like most drunks do



yes, that's just what a quick search 2 minutes ago picked up to back up my opinion

i did a quick search and instantly found a ton of lawyers saying to not do it but rather than post a link and saying 'see i told you so' ill explain why i agree with them.

You want to avoid a first DUI conviction at all costs. When you ahve a DUI conviction and the officer runs you you dramatically multiply your chances of getting arrested once again. The first conviction in most states is a misdemeanor wheras subsequent convictions become felonies.

ITs not about punishment as it is about reputation and refusing a breathalyzer is the best way to protect it.

Also dont speak for 'most drunks.' Just because you had some drinks and didnt think it would cause an issue doesnt mean most people come to that same conclusion.

[Bob Sacamano]

i did a quick search and instantly found a ton of lawyers saying to not do it but rather than post a link and saying 'see i told you so' ill explain why i agree with them.

You want to avoid a first DUI conviction at all costs. When you ahve a DUI conviction and the officer runs you you dramatically multiply your chances of getting arrested once again. The first conviction in most states is a misdemeanor wheras subsequent convictions become felonies.

ITs not about punishment as it is about reputation and refusing a breathalyzer is the best way to protect it.

:laugh2: no it's not, you have more of a chance in hell of proving that the person who administered the test, or the test itself, is faulty, via an experienced lawyer, than you do of erasing the thought that refusing the breathalyzer is your way of covering up that you were over the legal limit

and it's not guaranteed that you'll be convicted, I got PBJ, convictions are usually reserved for those who've already been convicted of drunk-driving

your best bet to go against a conviction would be to take the breathalyzer, go to drunk-driving classes before your trial, and hire a lawyer to fight the varacity of the test and who administered it, as well as being in the situation that it's your 1st time

or don't do it at all, although that's somewhat of a problem for me :(

Also dont speak for 'most drunks.' Just because you had some drinks and didnt think it would cause an issue doesnt mean most people come to that same conclusion.

fine, then most of the people I associate w/ don't ever recognize when they are stupid drunk, including myself

[Bob Sacamano]

btw, when you 1st got your license, you signed a piece of paper agreeing that you are obligated to submit to a breathalyzer or chemical test when so ordered by a police officer

so I don't think breaking that obligation is going to help keep your reputation intact

[peplaw06]

btw, when you 1st got your license, you signed a piece of paper agreeing that you are obligated to submit to a breathalyzer or chemical test when so ordered by a police officer

so I don't think breaking that obligation is going to help keep your reputation intactRefusing to take a breathalyzer is not a charge that goes on your criminal record. A DWI is.

[Bob Sacamano]

Refusing to take a breathalyzer is not a charge that goes on your criminal record. A DWI is.

true, but a suspended license being on your driving record is nothing to sneeze at either

I just would like to see a real explanation as to the benefit of refusing the tests, I've heard most judges see it as guilt, and I can see the reasoning behind that thinking, hell, because that's what I think about it

[peplaw06]

true, but a suspended license being on your driving record is nothing to sneeze at either

I just would like to see a real explanation as to the benefit of refusing the tests, I've heard most judges see it as guilt, and I can see the reasoning behind that thinking, hell, because that's what I think about itYou can get a suspended license for a lot of things. That's not near as bad as having a DWI conviction.

The benefit to refusing the tests is easy. It is one less piece of evidence that can be used against you in court. I wouldn't say most judges see it as evidence of guilt. A jury might, but the vast majority of judges know better.

It's like refusing to testify on your behalf, or taking the 5th. It's not supposed to be evidence against you. Judges know that. Juries are fickle and may well use it against you, even though it is your right to refuse to testify.

[Bob Sacamano]

A jury might, but the vast majority of judges know better.

know better about what? what other reason is there to refuse a test, other than to hide incriminating evidence against you

I see what you're saying, I just don't see any other reasoning a judge can think of other than, "this guy is trying to cover up the fact that he was driving while under the influence"

[Wonderboyromo]

Im 16, and I've been above .72 before and been totally fine...so yea, he most likely wasn't impaired much at all. He's a big guy.

[Bob Sacamano]

Im 16, and I've been above .72 before and been totally fine...so yea, he most likely wasn't impaired much at all. He's a big guy.

don't make me call CZ social services, kid

HOSTILE!!:D

[Wonderboyromo]

hahaha alright

[iceberg]

Im 16, and I've been above .72 before and been totally fine...so yea, he most likely wasn't impaired much at all. He's a big guy.

no you haven't.

from a BAC guide:

0.40 BAC and up: Onset of coma, and possible death due to respiratory arrest.

i think you left off the "0" in .072, not .72....

[Kilyin]

know better about what? what other reason is there to refuse a test, other than to hide incriminating evidence against you

I see what you're saying, I just don't see any other reasoning a judge can think of other than, "this guy is trying to cover up the fact that he was driving while under the influence"

The breathalyzer is an instrument designed to provide law enforcement with a measurement of your blood alcohol content. It is of questionable reliability. Each drink you consume will increase your blood alcohol content by approximately .025. It takes approximately one hour for your body to metabolize approximately .025 worth of alcohol. Theoretically, if you consume only one average drink per hour for four hours, your blood alcohol should climb no higher than approximately .025. If you have consumed no more than four drinks over the course of four hours, you might pass the breathalyzer. But because the breathalyzer is so notoriously unreliable and each individual’s weight and metabolism vary so considerably, it might make sense to forego the breathalyzer.

A breathalyzer reading in excess of .08, in the hands of a capable prosecutor, can be a powerful weapon against you at trial. This reading carries with it a presumption of intoxication. Your right to be presumed innocent is, therefore, compromised. A reading in excess of .12 could be detrimental to your defense. A good criminal defense lawyer might be able to successfully move to have the results suppressed. If suppressed, the jury never learns that you took the breathalyzer. If the court refuses to suppress the breathalyzer reading, it could cripple your defense.

On balance, if you have consumed four or more alcoholic drinks in the preceding three or four hours, it might be wise to refuse the breathalyzer.

[Wonderboyromo]

no you haven't.

from a BAC guide:

0.40 BAC and up: Onset of coma, and possible death due to respiratory arrest.

i think you left off the "0" in .072, not .72....

I think it's easy to assume what I meant.

[Eskimo]

Im 16, and I've been above .72 before and been totally fine...so yea, he most likely wasn't impaired much at all. He's a big guy.

One of the interesting things about alcoholics is that they develop significant tolerance to high blood alcohol levels. They may be seriously intoxicated and yet bystanders may not detect it at all in their behaviour.

Nevertheless, there is no tolerance that develops to the lethal level of blood alcholol content. Everyone dies at roughly the same level.

I doubt that your content was 0.72 on the simple basis that you are still alive. I've never seen a blood level that high in all my time in the emergency - not once. Actually, nothing even close to that.

[LowTech]

know better about what? what other reason is there to refuse a test, other than to hide incriminating evidence against you




Maybe you just want to stand up for your rights as a free American and not be part of the sheeple crowd

[Big Dakota]

Im 16, and I've been above .72 before and been totally fine...so yea, he most likely wasn't impaired much at all. He's a big guy.

.72 of an inch?

[Big Dakota]

no you haven't.

from a BAC guide:

0.40 BAC and up: Onset of coma, and possible death due to respiratory arrest.

i think you left off the "0" in .072, not .72....


Record Setting Washington DUI Suspect Is Former Cop

April 20, 2007
The Woodinville, Washington (http://www.totaldui.com/free_state_case_evaluation.asp?state=wa) woman who set a Washington record for blood alcohol content (BAC) is a former police officer. Deana F. Jarrett, who registered a BAC (http://www.totaldui.com/blood_alcohol_content.htm) of 0.47 percent, is being held in King County jail on a $250,000 bond. The Washington State Patrol said she was arrested in her home because, after two arrests for DUI (http://www.totaldui.com/) last week, she was considered too dangerous to the community.
When troopers arrived at her home, Jarrett refused to cooperate. She was only taken into custody after officers had removed a window air-conditioner and prepared to enter her home through the opening. Troopers said she was highly intoxicated at the time.
Jarrett had been working as a passenger screener and supervisor for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at the Seattle-Tacoma airport. She resigned after being released from jail last week. In recent years, Jarret has struggled with alcoholism, including having her 11-year daughter removed from her home by state officials.
Jarrett left the Seattle police department in 1998 following a contentious sexual harassment lawsuit against the department. She claimed she had been subjected to anonymous letters, cartoons in her mailbox, and a bomb threat on her truck at her home.






Those numbers change for long term alcholoics. She probably wakes up at .1 My mom is a counselor for one of the top treatment facilities in the country. She say's it's not uncommon to see people come in at, or near that BAC. I posted this article 2 months ago and was shocked, so i asked here if it was shocking, or common. For real bad drunks, it's pretty common. But for this kid Wonderboyromo, by .40 he'd be toes up and well on his way to pushing up daisies

[dogunwo]

Well I don't drink and drive PERIOD.

Rarely even drink anymore but when I did I did not drive.

So if that makes me ignorant about what is considered a low alcohol level with a blood test so be it. :(
Doesnt make you ignorant at all. You are just dont take the risk at all. I doubt most posters on here have that kind of discipline.

Its obvious when you have had way too much too drink, but can anyone tell when they have had one too much to drink?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:laugh2: no it's not, you have more of a chance in hell of proving that the person who administered the test, or the test itself, is faulty, via an experienced lawyer, than you do of erasing the thought that refusing the breathalyzer is your way of covering up that you were over the legal limit

and it's not guaranteed that you'll be convicted, I got PBJ, convictions are usually reserved for those who've already been convicted of drunk-driving

your best bet to go against a conviction would be to take the breathalyzer, go to drunk-driving classes before your trial, and hire a lawyer to fight the varacity of the test and who administered it, as well as being in the situation that it's your 1st time

or don't do it at all, although that's somewhat of a problem for me :(



fine, then most of the people I associate w/ don't ever recognize when they are stupid drunk, including myself

btw, when you 1st got your license, you signed a piece of paper agreeing that you are obligated to submit to a breathalyzer or chemical test when so ordered by a police officer

so I don't think breaking that obligation is going to help keep your reputation intact

true, but a suspended license being on your driving record is nothing to sneeze at either

I just would like to see a real explanation as to the benefit of refusing the tests, I've heard most judges see it as guilt, and I can see the reasoning behind that thinking, hell, because that's what I think about it

I live in Texas and I dont recall ever signing anything. Signing a piece of paper that is already a law is redundant anyway.

They have to prove that you were driving impaired and I am not sure how the statute reads exactly but i do know for a fact that not taking the test is not an admission of guilt. They still have to prove that you were drunk. keep in mind that the entire episode is being filmed via cop cam, keep your cool and ask to speak with an attorney and you have a fighting chance. Basically with your method you might as well bend over and grit your teeth cause you are giving up without a fight.

And a liscense suspension is something to sniff at. Its two points on your driving record and in most states that translates to a 20% increase in your base rates and it goes away in two years. If you go nolo which is what you apprently did or if you are found guilty then your given the absolute worst risk segmentation and you also end up with a criminal record.

What the court didnt tell you when you plead out like that is that while a conviction was not placed on your record you did receive a mark as a deferrment or whatever your disposition was on your record and that is something that NEVER goes away.

If you ever decide to leave the food service industry and get a job in the financial sector, a job that requires a government license, a job in education or any myriad of worthwhile professions youre going to see something on your application that youre not going to like. It basically will not only ask if you have ever been convicted of a crime but whether or not you have ever plead nolo contendre or entered into a plea agreement for a crime. Because of the route you took and the route you are advising others to take you are never going to be able to answer that question no.

While your worried about a license suspension you just granted a permanent black mark on your record.

[Alexander]

What a great thread. Let's all discuss ways to get away with breaking the law and putting other people's lives at risk!

Pathetic.

I agree.

It is pretty sad.

Next, Zone member advice on beating a drug test (without a Whizzinator).

[burmafrd]

Interesting that none of the "lawyers" here want to address the consequences of being impaired and driving. Like the threat to all the other people on the road.

[RoyWilliams]

I'm usually not one to condone player misconduct but... if his BAC was below the legal limit he did nothing wrong. Hell, legally drunk is usually like 2 beers. If you were to pull over all the people coming out of a TGIF's on a Friday night probably 80% would be legally impaired and driving fine after drinking a pint. I mean the thought of somebody losing his livelihood over something like that just isn't right in my book. Now if he was physically impaired and couldn't pass the sobriety test than maybe they have a better case against him, but it sounds like he may just be a piss poor driver sober.

[Vintage]

Record Setting Washington DUI Suspect Is Former Cop

April 20, 2007
The Woodinville, Washington (http://www.totaldui.com/free_state_case_evaluation.asp?state=wa) woman who set a Washington record for blood alcohol content (BAC) is a former police officer. Deana F. Jarrett, who registered a BAC (http://www.totaldui.com/blood_alcohol_content.htm) of 0.47 percent, is being held in King County jail on a $250,000 bond. The Washington State Patrol said she was arrested in her home because, after two arrests for DUI (http://www.totaldui.com/) last week, she was considered too dangerous to the community.
When troopers arrived at her home, Jarrett refused to cooperate. She was only taken into custody after officers had removed a window air-conditioner and prepared to enter her home through the opening. Troopers said she was highly intoxicated at the time.
Jarrett had been working as a passenger screener and supervisor for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at the Seattle-Tacoma airport. She resigned after being released from jail last week. In recent years, Jarret has struggled with alcoholism, including having her 11-year daughter removed from her home by state officials.
Jarrett left the Seattle police department in 1998 following a contentious sexual harassment lawsuit against the department. She claimed she had been subjected to anonymous letters, cartoons in her mailbox, and a bomb threat on her truck at her home.






Those numbers change for long term alcholoics. She probably wakes up at .1 My mom is a counselor for one of the top treatment facilities in the country. She say's it's not uncommon to see people come in at, or near that BAC. I posted this article 2 months ago and was shocked, so i asked here if it was shocking, or common. For real bad drunks, it's pretty common. But for this kid Wonderboyromo, by .40 he'd be toes up and well on his way to pushing up daisies

Why am I not surprised you failed to read his reply admitting he made a mistake....?

[Hoov]

I'm usually not one to condone player misconduct but... if his BAC was below the legal limit he did nothing wrong. Hell, legally drunk is usually like 2 beers. If you were to pull over all the people coming out of a TGIF's on a Friday night probably 80% would be legally impaired and driving fine after drinking a pint. I mean the thought of somebody losing his livelihood over something like that just isn't right in my book. Now if he was physically impaired and couldn't pass the sobriety test than maybe they have a better case against him, but it sounds like he may just be a piss poor driver sober.

I have to agree with this. For me 2 beers in an hour will put me close to .08, i wont even risk at because i hvae a DUI from when i was 20 and another one where i was barely over the limit 5-6 years ago. The second one happened after a concert and i had waited about 2-3 hours after my last beer before driving, by my calculations i thought i was under the limit (according to the charts they give you) but it was close enough that i was arrested and lost my license for 2 years. A 3rd would be mandatory jail sentence, so i dont even wnat to have 1 beer and drive. But .08 is not a great deal of alcohol, most people that go to a happy hour or go to a social function like a business dinner leave the meeting over .08.

[DallasEast]

In Tank Johnson's case, the only things that really matter are those things which are highlighted in this ChicagoTribune.com article:

Bears: So long, Tank

Tackle's latest brush with the law is last straw for team as Tank Johnson is released LINK (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-070625bearsjohnson,1,1323415.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true)

By Don Pierson
Tribune pro football reporter
Published June 25, 2007, 11:09 PM CDT

Tank Johnson's time ran out with the Bears on Monday. They abruptly released the troubled defensive tackle before his latest scrape with the law—police in Gilbert, Ariz., detained him at 3:30 a.m. Friday for speeding and suspicion of driving under the influence—had time to play out.

Johnson did time and that didn't work. The Bears took time and that didn't work. Johnson was simply taking up too much valuable time. The team finally decided that running a reform school at Halas Hall was infringing on football business.


The Bears already had ample reason to question Johnson's judgment. In December, after police found unregistered weapons and a small quantity of marijuana in a raid on Johnson's Gurnee home, the team announced a zero-tolerance behavior policy for him. Less than 36 hours later he was present at an altercation at a downtown nightspot that resulted in the shooting death of his friend Willie Posey.

They had to be alarmed that another incident occurred just weeks after Johnson was released from Cook County Jail, having served a 60-day sentence for probation violation. He also had received an eight-game NFL suspension for his off-field behavior, and the Bears were adamant that he had exhausted his supply of chances. And he was cruising the streets of Gilbert, Ariz., at 3:30 a.m.?

Before learning any more details of the Friday morning traffic stop, Bears coach Lovie Smith brought Johnson into his office at Halas Hall in Lake Forest Monday and told him the Bears' baby-sitting job was over. Johnson had flown to Chicago from his home in Arizona, already too late to talk his way out of the relatively minor indiscretion.

The Bears had bent over backward for Johnson, and he finally broke their back.

"We are upset and embarrassed by Tank's actions last week," general manager Jerry Angelo said in a team press release. "He compromised the credibility of our organization."

Smith was among the 147 names on Johnson's county jail visitor list and was a strong supporter, frequently referring to Johnson as "a good person." He was particularly disappointed by the latest development.

"A lot of people within our organization gave extra time and energy to support Tank: players, coaches and our front office," Smith said in the release. "We did our best to establish an environment for him to move forward. Ultimately, Tank needed to live up to his side of the deal."

By itself, driving 40 m.p.h. in a 25 zone at 3:30 a.m. and "being impaired to the slightest degree," in the words of Gilbert Police Sgt. Andrew Duncan, would not be enough to terminate employment immediately. But the Bears have been holding Johnson's hand for the last two years, since June 11, 2005, when he was charged with unlawful possession of a handgun after Chicago police found a loaded 9-mm Ruger in his parked car outside a downtown nightclub.

Under terms of his newly established "personal conduct" policy, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell suspended Johnson for the first eight games of the 2007 season for violation of his probation on the gun charge. The suspension could have been reduced to six games with good behavior.

Carrying Johnson for half a season simply became more trouble than it was worth for the Bears.

"We made it clear to him that he had no room for error," Angelo said. "Our goal was to help someone through a difficult period in his life, but the effort needs to come from both sides. It didn't, and we have decided to move on."

It wasn't that the Bears couldn't use Johnson on the field. A judge allowed him to leave Illinois to play in the Super Bowl in February, and in Smith's defensive scheme, no position is more important than tackle. Pro Bowl star Tommie Harris is coming off a leg injury, reliable Ian Scott signed with Philadelphia and Alfonso Boone signed with Kansas City.

But Johnson wasn't so good that the Bears could afford his perpetual presence on their weekly calendar: Monday, check up on Tank; Tuesday, game plan; Wednesday, practice; Thursday, tuck in Tank; Friday, apologize for Tank.

Cornerback Nathan Vasher signed a five-year contract extension with the Bears on Monday, a positive development quickly overshadowed by the latest Johnson news. Vasher, one of several Bears players who visited Johnson in jail, understood why the team's patience toward his troubled teammate finally ran out.

"It's really hard to see him go through some of the things he has," Vasher said. "But the Bears were kind of pushed into a corner. … I think you have to be accountable for your actions, and the Chicago Bears had to do what was needed.

"I am surprised," Vasher added. "I was really convinced that Tank had more than thought about the time he did in prison or just every other compromising situation he has been in, not to jeopardize [his career] any further."

dpierson@tribune.com (dpierson@tribune.com)

Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/)


***

The argument can continue that he wasn't legally drunk or that he was caught speeding just like anyone else or blah, blah, blah. Johnson had a choice to not do anything voluntarily which would anger his employer. He was told beyond a shadow of doubt what the consequences would be if he voluntarily put himself in legal jeopardy--via a misdemeanor (sp?) or otherwise. He could have voluntarily not gotten behind the wheel after voluntarily drinking alcohol. He did both anyway. Case closed.

[DCBoysfan]

Perhaps Arizona's law is different, but in some places, you can be charged with driving while impaired (or another similarly worded offense) even if your blood-alcohol level is below the legal limit.


there is DUI - Driving Under the Influence - suspected of being drunk

then there is DWI - Driving While Intoxicated - you are legally drunk

if you appear to be imparied and refuse to that a breath test or field test I would charge you with DUI. If you take a breath test or field test and fail I will charge you with DWI.

[Vintage]

There is also OMVI.

[Doomsday101]

Tank was under the.08 and the local authorities will not pursue this because by law he was not drunk. However he still violated the rules of the NFL and this should prevent him from playing anytime soon.

[DCBoysfan]

There is also OMVI.


True,.... that is a good charge for someone suspected of being under the influence of an illegal drugs

[burmafrd]

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa31.htm

[ndanger]

Ok everyone listen up.Recently I came across a truckload of Helium-Selenium Ionizing Trans-Dimensioning blue - green Alcohol Calibration Systems (on the black market of course)For all you drinkers out there I will make you a great deal,today only,on one of these units at the very low price of $1,200.These units are GAYRONTEED to instantly calibrate your blood alcohol content to any set level you desire.Yep that's right folks, you have the full range here from Absolutely Sober all the way to Pushing Up Daisies ! Impress your friends or purposely screw with law enforcement and laboratories.Do it in the comfort of your own back yard or use the handy travel kit that comes FREE and take it on the road with you.These units are going fast and are of limited supply.Don't be left behind without this new technology folks.Call today 1-800-iam-dumb or log onto drunksgonewild.com.............sale price does not include tax,tags,title and license..........Not recommended for children, choke hazzard........I am not responsible for anyone who actually does push up daisies......and please folks use the helium selenium ionizing trans-dimensioning blue-green laser alcohol calibration systems responsibly........Good Day! :cool:

[BrAinPaiNt]

Here is some advice ...DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!

Take a cab, go with a designated driver, if you are at a friends house just stay the night.

It is killing me about people arguing about taking a test or not taking a test and what is best. The best is not to Drink and Drive.

Of course if you do wish to drink and drive how about doing it on a highway or area that is closed to all other motorists. That way if you want to kill yourself you can do so. Just don't do it on a public road where you are putting other motorists lives at risk because of your selfishness and stupidity.

I don't need a lawyer to give me advice about what to do in that situation because I choose not to put myself in that situation.

-rant over-

[Vintage]

Here is some advice ...DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!


Yeah. That is the best advice. No one is arguing against that. I can't speak for other people on their thought process, but I have done it on occasion where my BAC was clearly above any legal limit. I was 18. I just graduated from H.S. H.S. graduation parties were going on. I didn't use good judgement. And part of it was that some of my friends and I felt invinceable because nothing bad ever happened to us.

Stupid, yeah. Never denied that. We were incredibly lucky we never even got to much as a drinking ticket, pulled over, or anything...


Take a cab, go with a designated driver, if you are at a friends house just stay the night.


And again, this is solid advice. And now, I adhere to this almost perfectly.


It is killing me about people arguing about taking a test or not taking a test and what is best. The best is not to Drink and Drive.


Because it is sound advice. There has been times where I've gone to a bar and had A beer. One. And I've driven back. Or a restaurant. One beer (and I am a big guy) is not even close to impairing me. But if I got pulled over, I am not submitting to a breathalyzer. Part of it is also an extreme disdain/lack of trust for police. I also would not submit to a voluntary search of my car either (and I have nothing to hide either). Its my rights as a citizen to refuse to cooperate in either case.

[peplaw06]

Here is some advice ...DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!

Take a cab, go with a designated driver, if you are at a friends house just stay the night.

It is killing me about people arguing about taking a test or not taking a test and what is best. The best is not to Drink and Drive.

Of course if you do wish to drink and drive how about doing it on a highway or area that is closed to all other motorists. That way if you want to kill yourself you can do so. Just don't do it on a public road where you are putting other motorists lives at risk because of your selfishness and stupidity.

I don't need a lawyer to give me advice about what to do in that situation because I choose not to put myself in that situation.

-rant over-No one is condoning drinking and driving.

That said, probably over 75% of the people reading this have done it at some point. I realize there is a sensitivity to this issue, and that's ok.

But a lawyer clearing up what a citizen's rights are in that situation is not condoning the behavior. It would be like me telling Summer it's best not to consent to a search of his vehicle when he has a dead body in the trunk. He has the right to refuse the search. I'm not condoning him hauling a corpse around.

I'm glad you don't put yourself in those situations, but some people do, and they still have rights. If you have a beef with that, take it up with your congressman.

[AbeBeta]

Its my rights as a citizen to refuse to cooperate in either case.

That is not entirely correct -- when you get a driver's license in many states, one of the conditions is submitting to such a test if pulled over. Again, in many states, this suspension is automatic and is often upheld even if you are not convicted of DUI.

As in many cases, you trade rights for privileges. Just as it is your RIGHT to drink as much as you want, if you drive with too much alcohol in your system, you lose that privilege.

[iceberg]

I think it's easy to assume what I meant.

i think that's a dangerous game on this board. i know what you said and that gets people in to heated arguments all the time about what was *meant* by what was said. but you see, i put on there it was .072 NOT .72 so i think you know i figured it out.

for all the other .whatevers, in cancun i likely hit .25, passed out by 4:30pm, and the entire next day i couldn't eat, drink anything close to resembling alcohol and cokes in cancun are terrible.

if someone hit .47, that's a prize they can have cause i don't want it.

[iceberg]

Why am I not surprised you failed to read his reply admitting he made a mistake....?

he didn't - he said he felt safe in assuming people knew what he meant, not "oops...yes. .072..."

he left it open for speculation.

[superpunk]

Remember when Sean Taylor was pulled over, and refused a breathalyzer? Here's the court's decision to overturn his penalty, or something. I don't know what it all means, but unless you're positive you won't blow in excess, refusing seems like a good move, from what I've read. Having a license suspended for a few weeks isn't a terrible thing. DUI, OTOH...

FACTS

On September 1, 2004, Officer Hamm of the South Carolina Highway Patrol responded to a report of a vehicle accident on Interstate 26 in Berkley County. When Officer Hamm arrived at the scene of the accident, paramedics were treating Taylor for his injuries. During a break in the treatment, Officer Hamm approached Taylor’s vehicle. As he approached, he smelled an odor of beer emanating from the area around Taylor. Officer Hamm arrested Taylor for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Due to the extent of Taylor’s injuries, Taylor was transported to the hospital.

At the hospital, Officer Hamm determined Taylor could not take a breath test due to the heavy mouth injuries he sustained from the accident. Officer Hamm requested a blood sample from Taylor. Taylor refused to provide a blood sample, and refused to sign the implied consent form. Because Taylor refused to sign the form, Officer Hamm read it out loud, but did not provide Taylor a tangible copy. Thus, Taylor heard his implied consent rights but neither read nor signed the implied consent form.

Because Taylor refused chemical testing, Officer Hamm issued him a notice of suspension of his driver’s license. Shortly thereafter, Taylor requested a hearing to challenge the suspension of his license. On October 13, 2004, the hearing officer sustained the suspension of Taylor’s license. Taylor then petitioned the trial court to review the administrative hearing officer’s order. The trial court heard Taylor’s petition and reversed the hearing officer’s order. The Department now appeals the trial court’s order.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The South Carolina Administrative Procedures Act establishes the standard of review for an appeal from an order of an administrative agency. Section 1-23-380(A)(6) of the South Carolina Code (2005) provides:

The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are:

(a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. . . .

“The findings of an administrative agency are presumed correct and will be set aside only if unsupported by substantial evidence.” S.C. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles v. Nelson, 364 S.C. 514, 519, 613 S.E.2d 544, 547 (2005). “Substantial evidence is not a mere scintilla of evidence, nor the evidence viewed blindly from one side of the case, but is evidence which, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion the administrative agency reached in order to justify its action.” Id. “In reviewing a final decision of an administrative agency, the circuit court essentially sits as an appellate court to review alleged errors committed by the agency.” Id.

DISCUSSION

The Department argues the trial court erred in reversing the order of the administrative hearing officer. We agree.

In South Carolina, operating a motor vehicle is a privilege of the State, not a right of the individual.

The license to operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state is not a property right, but is a mere privilege subject to reasonable regulations under the police power in the interest of the public safety and welfare. Such privilege is always subject to revocation or suspension for any cause relating to public safety. However, the privilege cannot be revoked arbitrarily or capriciously.

Sponar v. S.C. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 361 S.C. 35, 39, 603 S.E.2d 412, 415 (Ct. App. 2004). As part of this privilege, individuals operating motor vehicles implicitly consent to chemical tests of their breath, blood, or urine to determine whether they are driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2950 (Supp. 2004).

The implied consent laws of this State attempt to balance the interest of the State in maintaining safe highways with the interest of the individual in maintaining personal autonomy free from arbitrary or overbearing State action. The South Carolina Supreme Court articulated this policy in S.C. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles v. Nelson, 364 S.C. 514, 521, 613 S.E.2d 544, 548 (2005), when the court stated:

The implied consent laws are driven by public policy considerations. The State has a strong interest in maintaining safe highways and roads. One way to accomplish this goal is to enact laws directed at minimizing drunk driving.

Section 56-5-2950 of the South Carolina Code provides:

No tests may be administered or samples obtained unless the person has been informed in writing that:

(1) he does not have to take the test or give the samples, but that his privilege to drive must be suspended or denied for at least ninety days if he refuses to submit to the tests and that his refusal may be used against him in court;

(2) his privilege to drive must be suspended for at least thirty days if he takes the tests or gives the samples and has an alcohol concentration of fifteen one-hundredths of one percent or more;

(3) he has the right to have a qualified person of his own choosing conduct addition independent tests at his expense;

(4) he has the right to request an administrative hearing within thirty days of the issuance of the notice of suspension; and

(5) if he does not request an administrative hearing or if his suspension is upheld at the administrative hearing, he must enroll in an Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program.

The aforementioned administrative hearing must be held within thirty days after request for the hearing is received. S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2951(F) (Supp. 2004). By statute, the “scope of the hearing must be limited to whether the person: (1) was lawfully arrested or detained; (2) was advised in writing of the rights enumerated in Section 56-5-2950; [or] (3) refused to submit to a test pursuant to Section 56-5-2950 . . . .” S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2951(F).

The Department argues the trial court erred in reversing the administrative hearing officer’s order because Taylor did not demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the fact that he did not receive a copy of the implied consent form from Officer Hamm. We agree.

In State v. Huntley, 349 S.C. 1, 6, 562 S.E.2d 472, 474 (2002), the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the trial court and held that the results of a breathalyzer test should not have been suppressed for a violation of section 56-5-2950 because the defendant was not prejudiced by the violation. The trial court suppressed the breathalyzer test results because the breathalyzer operator tested the breathalyzer machine with a simulator test solution containing an alcohol level of .10 percent rather than the .08 percent mandated by statute. The supreme court reasoned that because the test merely determined the reliability of the breathalyzer machine’s results it was “irrelevant whether the simulator test [was operated] using an alcohol level of .10 or .08 percent.” Id. The supreme court concluded, “Even if the breathalyzer operator did not use the simulator test solution at the alcohol concentration required by [section 56-5-2950], [the defendant] was not prejudiced.” Id. Thus, the supreme court reversed the suppression of the breathalyzer test results because the defendant was not prejudiced by the statutory violation committed by the breathalyzer operator. Consequently, the Huntley decision dictates that a violation of section 56-5-2950 without resulting prejudice will not lead to a suppression of the evidence obtained pursuant to this section.

Taylor argues he was not informed of the implied consent rights in writing as provided by section 56-5-2950. Taylor does not argue that he did not receive the implied consent rights, or that he would have provided a blood test if he had received the implied consent rights in writing. Therefore, Taylor was not prejudiced by the fact that Officer Hamm read the implied consent rights out loud. Because Taylor was not prejudiced, the trial court erred in reversing the administrative hearing officer’s order.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is

REVERSED.

KITTREDGE, WILLIAMS, JJ., AND CURETON, A.J., CONCUR.

Who knows what any of that means, and I didn't read it all, but he got cleared.

I've been reading along, and noone's condoning or encouraging drunk driving. Noone's giving tips on "how to beat the breathalyzer." Just discourse about what the best course to take legally might be - no different than advice on what to do if you may have been speeding, and would prefer to have nothing on your driving record.

Enough with the overreactions. Save the drama for your Hugh Grant.

[Hoov]

That is not entirely correct -- when you get a driver's license in many states, one of the conditions is submitting to such a test if pulled over. Again, in many states, this suspension is automatic and is often upheld even if you are not convicted of DUI.

As in many cases, you trade rights for privileges. Just as it is your RIGHT to drink as much as you want, if you drive with too much alcohol in your system, you lose that privilege.

In PA we have the implied consent law, if you refuse a blood alcohol test you automatically are charged with DUI and lose license for 1 year. When you sign for a renewal of your license the fine print says i agree to the impled consent law. Therefore anyone who has a PA driver license has already consented to a breathalizer and blood alcohol test at the police officers discretion any time you are pulled over.

In fact, if you refuse a blood alcohol test, you get charged with a DUI and the loss of license or penalty that goes with that and you get a year license suspension tacked on for refusing, so you get charged twice for the same offense.

This happened to me, after blowing a .11 when the legal limit was .10 i was taken to the hospital, a nurse told me i could refuse the blood alcohol test, that is was my right, so i signed that i was refusing the test. The officer went ballistic on me for about 5 m inuets then told me i penndot would suspend my license for 1 year, i said what happens if i fail the blood test, he said you lose your license for a year. So i thought, well i'll just forfeit my license to penndot, at least i wont get charged with DUI on my record or fined and the suspension is the same......WRONG !!!

I still got charged with DUI because refusal of blood test is automatic admission to guilt under the implied consent law, so i got charged, fined out the wazoo, had to do community service, w/e in jail, safe driving clases, substance abuse counseling, and 2 years suspension - 1 for DUI and 1 for refusing the test. And a breathalizer for 1 year on my car after that i paid 1,000$$ to have installed, and what a pain that thing was, it went off every 10 minuets and if you missed the signal cause the radio was on your car shuts off and you have 10 days to get the thing serviced and recalibrated or your car locks up and you need a tow. And how many times did that thing fail me in the morning for residual alcohol on my breath from the night before, it was so sensitive even chewing gum will set it off. all in all it cost me close to 10,000$$ in fines, lawyer fees (i had to go to court twice since charged twice for same offense), payment for classes, insurance cost increases.

Then it showed that i had 2 seperate suspensions on my record and it looked like i had 2 DUI's in the same year and i almost lost my ability to remain a licensed health professional which would have ended my carreer.

[03EBZ06]

Maybe you just want to stand up for your rights as a free American and not be part of the sheeple crowd
Do you have a driver license? If so, why?

[BrAinPaiNt]

No one is condoning drinking and driving.

That said, probably over 75% of the people reading this have done it at some point. I realize there is a sensitivity to this issue, and that's ok.

But a lawyer clearing up what a citizen's rights are in that situation is not condoning the behavior. It would be like me telling Summer it's best not to consent to a search of his vehicle when he has a dead body in the trunk. He has the right to refuse the search. I'm not condoning him hauling a corpse around.

I'm glad you don't put yourself in those situations, but some people do, and they still have rights. If you have a beef with that, take it up with your congressman.

I don't recall saying anyone is condoning drinking and driving. Maybe that is a bit of guilt on your part thinking I did.

Nor did I say nobody is allowed due process or rights given to them.

:confused:

[AbeBeta]

Do you have a driver license? If so, why?

It is his "right as an American" to have a license -- but apparently, it is also his right not to read the agreement he signed when he got that license.

[Doomsday101]

It is his "right as an American" to have a license -- but apparently, it is also his right not to read the agreement he signed when he got that license.

It is your right to apply for a license.

[03EBZ06]

It is his "right as an American" to have a license -- but apparently, it is also his right not to read the agreement he signed when he got that license.

My point was if he isn't a sheeple like everybody else, why bother with getting license like other sheeples.

I could be wrong but I do believe license is privilege. A privilege which can be revoked for various reasons.

[AbeBeta]

It is your right to apply for a license.

It is -- but you get that license under certain conditions -- one being you can pass a driving test, another being you agree to the terms of the license -- in most states one of the terms is that you submit to testing when pulled over.

[AbeBeta]

My point was if he isn't a sheeple like everybody else, why bother with getting license like other sheeples.

I could be wrong but I do believe license is privilege. A privilege which can be revoked for various reasons.

Like many "principled" folks, I see a real pick and choose attitude.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I could be wrong but I do believe license is privilege. A privilege which can be revoked for various reasons.

Yes it is a privilege not a right.

You don't pass the written and drivers test you don't get the license. Also as you state it can be revoked due to certain situations.

[Verdict]

And in some states, the penalty is harsher if you refuse the test.

I am not able to speak on "other states", but I think you might be mixing apples with oranges. In most jurisdictions, a criminal prosecution for DUI is considered separate and distint from your drivers license revocation, though the two are intertwined.

I would have a hard time believing that any law could withstand constitutional scrutiny if it imposed a greater punishment as a result of the accused availing himself of his right against self incrimination.

[Verdict]

automatic 4 month suspension

your basically looked at as being guilty

take the test

Better put the law books down before you hurt yourself, or others. :laugh2:

[Doomsday101]

It is -- but you get that license under certain conditions -- one being you can pass a driving test, another being you agree to the terms of the license -- in most states one of the terms is that you submit to testing when pulled over.

I agree. I'm just saying it is not a right to have a license you have the right to apply for one and if you can pass the driving and written test. The state can also revoke your license

[peplaw06]

I don't recall saying anyone is condoning drinking and driving. Maybe that is a bit of guilt on your part thinking I did.

Nor did I say nobody is allowed due process or rights given to them.

:confused:

You're right, you didn't say it. But there was a string of posters there, Adam, Alex, Burm and to some extent yourself who seem mildly appalled that a lawyer would be giving someone advice on what your rights were in regards to taking a breathalyzer. You just happened to be the last one to post on it, so I quoted you. It was more of an address to all of you. I apologize if it seemed like I was ripping on you.

There's no guilt on my part. It's something I deal with pretty regularly.

[Verdict]

from a certified DUI lawyer

Q. Should I take the breathalyzer?

A. The answer is almost always yes.
If you don’t take the breathalyzer then the police can charge you with refusing to take the breathalyzer. This carries the same penalties as drunk driving, except jail time. It is also in addition to any sentence for drunk driving. For example, for a first time drunk driving offense you can lose your license for up to one year. And, if you refuse to take the breathalyzer, you can lose your license for up to one additional year! Thus, for a first time drunk driving offense and a refusal to take the breathalyzer, you are facing a loss of license for two years.

Another reason to take the breathalyzer is that it is very easy for the police to prove a refusal. The standard of proof is less - preponderance of the evidence - and anything other than an unequivocal yes is a refusal. It is harder for the police to prove the correct operation of the breathalyzer than a refusal to take the breathalyzer.

you're too easy FuzzyWuzzydoesn'thaveaclue

What jurisdiction do you live in? Do you have any direct authority citing this law you refer to? This sounds like a law that is ripe for being struck down on constitutional grounds.

[ABQCOWBOY]

In PA we have the implied consent law, if you refuse a blood alcohol test you automatically are charged with DUI and lose license for 1 year. When you sign for a renewal of your license the fine print says i agree to the impled consent law. Therefore anyone who has a PA driver license has already consented to a breathalizer and blood alcohol test at the police officers discretion any time you are pulled over.

In fact, if you refuse a blood alcohol test, you get charged with a DUI and the loss of license or penalty that goes with that and you get a year license suspension tacked on for refusing, so you get charged twice for the same offense.

This happened to me, after blowing a .11 when the legal limit was .10 i was taken to the hospital, a nurse told me i could refuse the blood alcohol test, that is was my right, so i signed that i was refusing the test. The officer went ballistic on me for about 5 m inuets then told me i penndot would suspend my license for 1 year, i said what happens if i fail the blood test, he said you lose your license for a year. So i thought, well i'll just forfeit my license to penndot, at least i wont get charged with DUI on my record or fined and the suspension is the same......WRONG !!!

I still got charged with DUI because refusal of blood test is automatic admission to guilt under the implied consent law, so i got charged, fined out the wazoo, had to do community service, w/e in jail, safe driving clases, substance abuse counseling, and 2 years suspension - 1 for DUI and 1 for refusing the test. And a breathalizer for 1 year on my car after that i paid 1,000$$ to have installed, and what a pain that thing was, it went off every 10 minuets and if you missed the signal cause the radio was on your car shuts off and you have 10 days to get the thing serviced and recalibrated or your car locks up and you need a tow. And how many times did that thing fail me in the morning for residual alcohol on my breath from the night before, it was so sensitive even chewing gum will set it off. all in all it cost me close to 10,000$$ in fines, lawyer fees (i had to go to court twice since charged twice for same offense), payment for classes, insurance cost increases.

Then it showed that i had 2 seperate suspensions on my record and it looked like i had 2 DUI's in the same year and i almost lost my ability to remain a licensed health professional which would have ended my carreer.


That's the way it is here in NM as well. If you refuse a test, you automatically receive a year's revocation and could face an additional year of revocation if you are found guilty of DUI. Here, if you are suspected of driving under the influence, you are driven to a field unit where you are tested. If you refuse to be tested, the court bases it's judgement on the only evidence it has, which is typically the statement of the arresting officer and jailors. If you are arrested, and refuse, in this state, you spend a minimum of 48 hours in jail as it is assumed it is aggrivated based on lack of test results. Typcially, in an instance such as this, it will cost you 2500 dollars in fees and fines. You will be forced to install and interlock system for a period of no less then 1 year. You car will be towed and in some cases, auctioned if you do not have the means to pay fees. If it is an aggrivated DWI, you lose the car period. In this state, legal limit is .08 if you are 18 or older. .02 if you are under the age of 18. In this state, you can beat a DWI charge but it doesn't mean you can avoid losing your license. The MVD is responsible for revocation of your license. There is a hearing process but the window for that is 10 days and you must file for a hearing within that specified time frame or you lose all rights for review. You will also be foreced to attend DWI school which carries probation based on recommendations of your instructors. You can not miss classes or you fail the course and automatically revert to the more sever penalties allowable. What that is, I don't know. While on probation, you can not have any legal offenses or the DWI charges are brought back up and catagorized as Aggrivated, which carries jail time and lose of vehical in some instances. They do not play around here. NM has some of the stiffest DWI laws in the country.

[AbeBeta]

I am not able to speak on "other states", but I think you might be mixing apples with oranges. In most jurisdictions, a criminal prosecution for DUI is considered separate and distint from your drivers license revocation, though the two are intertwined.

I would have a hard time believing that any law could withstand constitutional scrutiny if it imposed a greater punishment as a result of the accused availing himself of his right against self incrimination.

Most states have an "implied consent" law -- this deals specifically with the suspension of your license -- it bypasses the legal system entirely and enacts an administrative suspension of your license. In California there are a number of refusal enhancement policies that are more severe as well -- this hits the legal end.

[Sam I Am]

So all he was doing wrong was speeding.

How many folks here never did that?

Actually, if his BAL was .072 by the time he gave blood, then he probably was at least .08 when he was pulled over. Problem is, they can only go by the test results. If I were the Bears, I would cut him too. After everything that has happen to him and he pulls a Pacman Jones driving around at some idiot hour when you have been drinking. (drunk or not)

Tank == Idiot == Cut for good reason.

[Doomsday101]

What jurisdiction do you live in? Do you have any direct authority citing this law you refer to? This sounds like a law that is ripe for being struck down on constitutional grounds.

Texas Law is pretty simple and clear that if you refuse to take the sobrity test you will lose your driver licenses and it happens

[iceberg]

regardless of what the local laws are, our own "rights" and so forth - if you simply don't want to have to know all this - DON'T DO IT.

people tend to put themselves in bad situations then blame the world for sucking. i think we all know the "drama magnet" who's life is always in turmoil and they're always up in a roar about something. they blame the world for their problems when in the end it's the choices they made along the way in life that make their life something they hate.

amazing to me.

[Alexander]

That's the way it is here in NM as well. If you refuse a test, you automatically receive a year's revocation

Most states are like this.

Lesson: don't take legal advice from a discussion on a football message board.

[AbeBeta]

Actually, if his BAL was .072 by the time he gave blood, then he probably was at least .08 when he was pulled over. Problem is, they can only go by the test results. If I were the Bears, I would cut him too. After everything that has happen to him and he pulls a Pacman Jones driving around at some idiot hour when you have been drinking. (drunk or not)

Tank == Idiot == Cut for good reason.

It also means that unless he was driving around for several hours that he wasn't very drunk to start with.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Most states are like this.

Lesson: don't take legal advice from a discussion on a football message board.

That would be incorrect IMO. The lesson here is don't drink and drive. Don't put yourself in a position to have a life altering decision made by somebody else. If your a young person, don't take the chance of ruining your life before you ever have opporutnity to really start it. If your older, think hard about what you have to lose before you lose it.

To me, that's the lesson from this particular thread.

[Doomsday101]

Most states are like this.

Lesson: don't take legal advice from a discussion on a football message board.

Well officer I was talking to some guys on a football message board and they said I did not have to take your damn test. Yeah I could see that working out well. :lmao:

[adamknite]

Most states are like this.

Lesson: don't take legal advice from a discussion on a football message board.

:laugh2: You know, one would think that would be common sense.

[Verdict]

Texas Law is pretty simple and clear that if you refuse to take the sobrity test you will lose your driver licenses and it happens

What you are saying is mostly true, however you are mixing apples with oranges. A driver's license revocation is, generally speaking, an administrative action that is "civil" in nature. It is a separate and distinct action from the criminal prosecution for the DUI charge, which is a criminal prosecution, which seeks to impose "punishment" upon the accused in the nature of fines, costs, and potentially incarceration for a period of time.

Also, do not be misinformed. I have had cases where the driver was "alleged" to have refused the test and did not lose his license. Most of the posters here are posting based upon what they "heard" or "what happened to them or someone they know" and not based upon legal knowledge. EVERY case is unique. The outcome of every case depends on so many different factors, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to go through every permutation. Just know this .... nothing is as black and white as it may seem.

[AbeBeta]

Most states are like this.

Lesson: don't take legal advice from a discussion on a football message board.

I appreciate the legal advice -- but we all need to remember that lawyers are going to give a limited opinion that focuses on the legal aspects of a case -- i.e., what makes it easier for them to win a case with

[Doomsday101]

What you are saying is mostly true, however you are mixing apples with oranges. A driver's license revocation is, generally speaking, an administrative action that is "civil" in nature. It is a separate and distinct action from the criminal prosecution for the DUI charge, which is a criminal prosecution, which seeks to impose "punishment" upon the accused in the nature of fines, costs, and potentially incarceration for a period of time.

Also, do not be misinformed. I have had cases where the driver was "alleged" to have refused the test and did not lose his license. Most of the posters here are posting based upon what they "heard" or "what happened to them or someone they know" and not based upon legal knowledge. EVERY case is unique. The outcome of every case depends on so many different factors, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to go through every permutation. Just know this .... nothing is as black and white as it may seem.

Oh please you Jr Perry Mason, If you refuse the take the sobriety test the court will revoke your DL. I'm not misinformed I see it here at the courts enough and have talked to enough Judges here at Harris county to know what the deal is. You want to play lawyer be my guest but your advice will only get people in deeper trouble than they need. But then what do you care as a lawyer you get paid either way regardless of what happens to the client

[burmafrd]

I wonder where some get the idea that 2 hrs after their last drink someones level has not dropped?

[theogt]

Most states are like this.

Lesson: don't take legal advice from a discussion on a football message board.It's whatever. If you know you're not going to pass one, the punishment is much worse than having your license suspended for a while. Most likely you'll be convicted and have your license suspended for even longer. You can ignore the helpful "tips" given to you (THOUGH NOTHING I'VE STATED IS INTENDED AS LEGAL ADVICE AND SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS SUCH) if you like. It's of no consequence to me.

[Sam I Am]

What you are saying is mostly true, however you are mixing apples with oranges. A driver's license revocation is, generally speaking, an administrative action that is "civil" in nature. It is a separate and distinct action from the criminal prosecution for the DUI charge, which is a criminal prosecution, which seeks to impose "punishment" upon the accused in the nature of fines, costs, and potentially incarceration for a period of time.

Also, do not be misinformed. I have had cases where the driver was "alleged" to have refused the test and did not lose his license. Most of the posters here are posting based upon what they "heard" or "what happened to them or someone they know" and not based upon legal knowledge. EVERY case is unique. The outcome of every case depends on so many different factors, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to go through every permutation. Just know this .... nothing is as black and white as it may seem.

It is Civil and this is how it works in Texas.

What Happens if You're Stopped

If you're stopped, be ready to show your driver license, proof of insurance and vehicle registration. If you refuse to take a blood or breath test, your driver license will be automatically suspended for 180 days.

Automatic License Revocation

The ALR law took effect January 1, 1995. ALR is a civil, administrative process unrelated to criminal court proceedings.

How ALR Works:

A law enforcement officer determines that there is reasonable suspicion to stop a driver and probable cause to arrest the motorist for drunk driving.
If the officer has reason to believe that the driver is impaired, a set of field sobriety tests is administered. If the driver performs poorly, the driver is arrested for DWI.
Once at a police station or sheriff's office, the driver is asked to take a chemical test to measure his blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level. This is usually a breath test.
The officer serves the offender with a notice that his driver license will be suspended if he or she refuses to take the test or fails it (registering a .08 BAC or greater).
The officer confiscates the Texas driver license and issues a temporary driving permit.
The offender has 15 days from the date that the suspension notice is received to request a hearing. If no hearing is requested, then the suspension goes into effect on the 40th day after notice was served (usually 40 days after arrest).
The driver pays a $125 fee to reinstate the license after a period of suspension.
The ALR process also applies to individuals arrested for boating while intoxicated (BWI) who refuse to take a chemical test.

[Verdict]

Well officer I was talking to some guys on a football message board and they said I did not have to take your damn test. Yeah I could see that working out well. :lmao:

That is pretty funny stuff. What would be a lot funnier is if a drunk takes Bob Sacamano's advise and finds out where that will get him.

I am not intending to give legal to anyone on this message board. Each person should consult a lawyer within his or her jurisdiction for legal advice, if they should need it. I am just letting posters know that many of the posts here are completely uninformed. Then again, that is not a new concept.

[Hoov]

regardless of what the local laws are, our own "rights" and so forth - if you simply don't want to have to know all this - DON'T DO IT.

people tend to put themselves in bad situations then blame the world for sucking. i think we all know the "drama magnet" who's life is always in turmoil and they're always up in a roar about something. they blame the world for their problems when in the end it's the choices they made along the way in life that make their life something they hate.

amazing to me.
pretty much sums it up.

when i was young we were always out tokin and drinking under age, of course we had no house to party in so we just went out and did our thing. i cant count the number of times parties got raided, we got pulled over in cars or confonted trespassing where we shouldnt have been.

we'd get all bent about it, like it was our right to catch a buzz and why wont the authorirties leave us alone. looking back it was all stupid but thats just the way it was and once certain substances opened up a pandoras box we were all very curious to experiment and "expand our minds" so to speak.

anyway, once you get older and have more responsibilities you have to come to grips with the fact that if you dont play by the rules sooner or later you pay the price.

[AbeBeta]

I wonder where some get the idea that 2 hrs after their last drink someones level has not dropped?

I wonder where some get the idea that he took his last drink the second before he got in the car.

The reason why .08 is used instead of .10 is at least partly to take this issue into account.

[Verdict]

Oh please you Jr Perry Mason, If you refuse the take the sobriety test the court will revoke your DL. I'm not misinformed I see it here at the courts enough and have talked to enough Judges here at Harris county to know what the deal is. You want to play lawyer be my guest but your advice will only get people in deeper trouble than they need. But then what do you care as a lawyer you get paid either way regardless of what happens to the client

I do not understand why you would call me names, Doomsday. LOL. I can see that you are passionate about this issue, but it does not change the fact that you are uninformed.

I do not clainm to know the law in Texas, but generally speaking, a person is criminally prosecuted in a different court than the administrative court where the person's license is suspended.

I am paid, by my clients, because I believe that I am very good at what I do for a living. I think most of my clients would strongly echo that sentiment as well.

[Sam I Am]

I wonder where some get the idea that it takes 2 hours to administer a test?

The reason why .08 is used instead of .10 is at least partly to take this issue into account.

If he took an actual blood test, then it wasn't performed on the side of the road.

[AbeBeta]

If he took an actual blood test, then it wasn't performed on the side of the road.

But you can be sure he's not sitting around waiting for the test -- cop calls ahead, brings him in, test done.

[Verdict]

It is Civil and this is how it works in Texas.

I think I have been saying the two matters are separate and distinct as a general rule.

[Seven]

Most states are like this.

Lesson: don't take legal advice from a discussion on a football message board.

Yeah!! Big Al...............................nice!! :bow:

[Doomsday101]

I do not understand why you would call me names, Doomsday. LOL. I can see that you are passionate about this issue, but it does not change the fact that you are uninformed.

I do not clainm to know the law in Texas, but generally speaking, a person is criminally prosecuted in a different court than the administrative court where the person's license is suspended.

I am paid, by my clients, because I believe that I am very good at what I do for a living. I think most of my clients would strongly echo that sentiment as well.

As you said you don't know Texas Law.

[Sam I Am]

But you can be sure he's not sitting around waiting for the test -- cop calls ahead, brings him in, test done.

If he had 7 twelve ounce beers within a single hour (being male at 300lbs) within a single hour his BAC could drop .015. (7 beers would put him at .085) So, he could be at .085 (over the limit) and within a single hour (very reasonable) he could then be at .070 which is below the legal limit. At testing, he was .072. It's pretty much a sure thing that at the time he was pulled over he was at least right at .08 BAC, but I'm willing to bet he was above .08.

Do the Math yourself (http://www.beertown.org/education/calc/bac/bac.aspx).

[Hoov]

I wonder where some get the idea that he took his last drink the second before he got in the car.

The reason why .08 is used instead of .10 is at least partly to take this issue into account.
remember that if you drink 2 beers real fast, the BAC wont register for about half hout to an hour after. so sometimes the BAC can be higher a short time after instead of lower as most people would assume.

[Hoofbite]

Do the "ESTIMATION" yourself (http://www.beertown.org/education/calc/bac/bac.aspx).

thought i would fix that for you......

[superpunk]

As you said you don't know Texas Law.

Then we will fight in the shade.

[Sam I Am]

thought i would fix that for you......

Thanks, I was over the legal limit when I wrote it. I know I was because I did the "ESTIMATH". ;)

[dboyz]

DUI/DWI law varies to some extent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If someone wants true legal advice, they should talk to an attorney that is aware of the laws in that particular state.

[AbeBeta]

If he had 7 twelve ounce beers within a single hour (being male at 300lbs) within a single hour his BAC could drop .015. (7 beers would put him at .085) So, he could be at .085 (over the limit) and within a single hour (very reasonable) he could then be at .070 which is below the legal limit. At testing, he was .072. It's pretty much a sure thing that at the time he was pulled over he was at least right at .08 BAC, but I'm willing to bet he was above .08.

Do the Math yourself (http://www.beertown.org/education/calc/bac/bac.aspx).

You can spin that any way you want -- but the law is .08 for a reason -- you don't think that sort of thing is taken into account? .08 is a very low limit and that is for a reason -- at least partially to address the drop in BAC.

If I'm the cops, I'm done with this case -- you think any lawyer couldn't destroy the "but he likely was above .08 when we got him" argument?

[AbeBeta]

remember that if you drink 2 beers real fast, the BAC wont register for about half hout to an hour after. so sometimes the BAC can be higher a short time after instead of lower as most people would assume.

also, if you've eaten recently....

[Sam I Am]

You can spin that any way you want -- but the law is .08 for a reason -- you don't think that sort of thing is taken into account? .08 is a very low limit and that is for a reason -- at least partially to address the drop in BAC.

If I'm the cops, I'm done with this case -- you think any lawyer couldn't destroy the "but he likely was above .08 when we got him" argument?

I said in an earlier post, this part of it is done. Although, I beleive the Bears still did the right thing. Johnson was absolutely stupid for what he did. Driving after having drinks at 3:30am.

[AbeBeta]

I said in an earlier post, this part of it is done. Although, I beleive the Bears still did the right thing. Johnson was absolutely stupid for what he did. Driving after having drinks at 3:30am.

And I'd say stupid or not, he tested legal. So it is a non-offense.

[Verdict]

As you said you don't know Texas Law.

You don't seem to either.

[Doomsday101]

You don't seem to either.

Evidently more than you do Mr. Mason. :laugh2:

[stealth]

Evidently more than you do Mr. Mason. :laugh2:


gonna step in on this one, dwi charges hold with them many more thousands of dollars in fees and fines and classes than a simple license suspension does. If you refuse the test get license suspended for it then you are pretty much done beyond court costs and law fees. If you do not refuse and you get charged with dwi you are looking at a giant PITA and a huge strain on your pocket. You seem to be overlooking many of the issues associated with a dwi versus a license revocation. Fact is you aren't looking to avoid losing your license by refusing you are looking to avoid dropping another ten grand.

[Doomsday101]

gonna step in on this one, dwi charges hold with them many more thousands of dollars in fees and fines and classes than a simple license suspension does. If you refuse the test get license suspended for it then you are pretty much done beyond court costs and law fees. If you do not refuse and you get charged with dwi you are looking at a giant PITA and a huge strain on your pocket. You seem to be overlooking many of the issues associated with a dwi versus a license revocation. Fact is you aren't looking to avoid losing your license by refusing you are looking to avoid dropping another ten grand.

They will not drop the DWI charges because you refuse to take the test it will be used aginst you in the court.

[superpunk]

They will not drop the DWI charges because you refuse to take the test it will be used aginst you in the court.

Is that so, Perry Mason?







WAR lame comebacks. unWAR Jim Rome

[burmafrd]

Just amazing how everyone keeps totally passing by the FACT that he had been drinking and driving. Illegal technically or not, he was drinking and he was driving. I wonder if certain people here would still be all hot to defend him if he had been in an accident and killed someone. LEGALLY DRUNK OR NOT.

[Doomsday101]

Is that so, Perry Mason?







WAR lame comebacks. unWAR Jim Rome


That is so, you have a better chance of proving the test was faulty than not taking it at all. I have been told this by both county attorneys and judges that I work with.

[superpunk]

That is so, you have a better chance of proving the test was faulty than not taking it at all.
Yes.

But is it really so?
I have been told this by both county attorneys and judges that I work with.

Well, I work with about 18 judges and magistrates from the greater Texas bureau of ruling on drunk people, and have for 27 years, and they almost completely disagree with you.

So, I think I'll go with what they have to say.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Is that so, Perry Mason?







WAR lame comebacks. unWAR Jim Rome


It's definatly the case in this state. If you refuse to be tested, revocation of license is automatice with no apportunity for DMV review and the escolation of sevarity of charges. If found guilty, it is viewed as aggravated which means that there is no chance for first offenders program, a manditory 48 hours jail time, up to 90 days incarciration on top of the initial 48 hours, interlock system and a years probation. You will definatly get charged and the question of guilt we be based on the testimony of the arresting officers and your jailors.

In this state, it's not designed to make it easy to escape penalty. DWI is a revenue center here. Lots of money is generated off these kinds of violations so it's likely that if you refuse to be tested, you won't win unless there are truely mitigating circumstances. If your guilty, there going to get you and the penalty is going to be significantly stiffer for not cooperating in the first place.

[AbeBeta]

Just amazing how everyone keeps totally passing by the FACT that he had been drinking and driving. Illegal technically or not, he was drinking and he was driving. I wonder if certain people here would still be all hot to defend him if he had been in an accident and killed someone. LEGALLY DRUNK OR NOT.

So now people can't have ANY alcohol before driving?

[DallasEast]

Just amazing how everyone keeps totally passing by the FACT that he had been drinking and driving. Illegal technically or not, he was drinking and he was driving. I wonder if certain people here would still be all hot to defend him if he had been in an accident and killed someone. LEGALLY DRUNK OR NOT.What I find amazing is this huge discussion about the legality of driving drunk. What does any of this have to do with Tank Johnson? As far as the Bears are concerned, Johnson could not a) drink any alcohol period, b) drive at any time afterwards before it passed completely from his system, and c) get caught by law enforcement. He was down to his last strike under their zero tolerance policy. He fouled out with both eyes wide open. Is there anything else worth mentioning about this story..?

[BrAinPaiNt]

What I find amazing is this huge discussion about the legality of driving drunk. What does any of this have to do with Tank Johnson? As far as the Bears are concerned, Johnson could not a) drink any alcohol period, b) drive at any time afterwards before it passed completely from his system, and c) get caught by law enforcement. He was down to his last strike under their zero tolerance policy. He fouled out with both eyes wide open. Is there anything else worth mentioning about this story..?

It is the offseason.

That is really all that needs to be said.

We will argue about anything no matter if it really has anything to do with the article.

Tank not over the legal limit....I ask this...

Mary Ann or Ginger.

I am going with Mary Ann.

:D

[DallasEast]

It is the offseason.

That is really all that needs to be said.

We will argue about anything no matter if it really has anything to do with the article.

Tank not over the legal limit....I ask this...

Mary Ann or Ginger.

I am going with Mary Ann.

:DGinger, but it wasn't because of her eyes, hair, mouth, arms, hands, waist, butt, legs, feet, toes...


Saaay, what was the topic again? :D

[Seven]

It is the offseason.

That is really all that needs to be said.

We will argue about anything no matter if it really has anything to do with the article.

Tank not over the legal limit....I ask this...

Mary Ann or Ginger.

I am going with Mary Ann.

:D

Both.

Somebody! Give me an :bow: , brother!

[ABQCOWBOY]

It is the offseason.

That is really all that needs to be said.

We will argue about anything no matter if it really has anything to do with the article.

Tank not over the legal limit....I ask this...

Mary Ann or Ginger.

I am going with Mary Ann.

:D

Well, depends. Ginger is probably a bit more adventures by nature but I'd bet that if Mary Ann had a couple of Beers in her, you'd probably have a tiger by the tail.

;)

[AbeBeta]

It is the offseason.

That is really all that needs to be said.

We will argue about anything no matter if it really has anything to do with the article.

Tank not over the legal limit....I ask this...

Mary Ann or Ginger.

I am going with Mary Ann.

:D

Having been with both, I side with Mary Ann.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Well, depends. Ginger is probably a bit more adventures by nature but I'd bet that if Mary Ann had a couple of Beers in her, you'd probably have a tiger by the tail.

;)

By the pig tails....grrrrowl. :laugh2:

[ABQCOWBOY]

By the pig tails....grrrrowl. :laugh2:

:lmao2:

[superpunk]

Both.

Somebody! Give me an :bow: , brother!

Amen!

[Iago33]

Why anyone would ever drive after drinking at all is beyond me. And this guy couldn't get a ride?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Why anyone would ever drive after drinking at all is beyond me. And this guy couldn't get a ride?

Ginger and Mary Ann took all of his money at the bar so he could not call a cab.

[Hoov]

Why anyone would ever drive after drinking at all is beyond me. And this guy couldn't get a ride?

conveinence. most people who drive everyday eventually find themselves in a situation where friends or associates are meeting up and with little notice and grab a snack, dinner and have a drink at happy hour or whatnot.

So you dont have time to drive a half hour or more home to drop off your car and another 45 minuets to waut for the bus to take you back (if there even is a bus that comes by your house or a cab - which is extra expense) so they go saying i wont drink or i'll just have one.

Then after 2 or 3, what are you going to do with your car when everyone is leaving ? If you get a cab or bum a ride with a friens (who likely has also been drinking) how will you get to work early in the morining without your car, how will you pick your car up ? so you say to yourself, i feel fine, its not that long of a drive, i'll just be careful.

[Iago33]

Ginger and Mary Ann took all of his money at the bar so he could not call a cab.

He should learn from Pacman and keep it in a garbage bag--harder to misplace.

[Verdict]

Evidently more than you do Mr. Mason. :laugh2:

What is amazing to me is how strong your convictions are, when you have admitted that you have absolutly zero personal knowledge of any of the foregoing. I also do not understand why you want to make this personal. I thought that you were one of the more reasonable objective posters on this board. Maybe I was mistaken.

Regardless it is amazing how you steadfastly argue a point when the only knowledge that you possess is admittedly hearsay.

[AbeBeta]

conveinence. most people who drive everyday eventually find themselves in a situation where friends or associates are meeting up and with little notice and grab a snack, dinner and have a drink at happy hour or whatnot.

So you dont have time to drive a half hour or more home to drop off your car and another 45 minuets to waut for the bus to take you back (if there even is a bus that comes by your house or a cab - which is extra expense) so they go saying i wont drink or i'll just have one.

Then after 2 or 3, what are you going to do with your car when everyone is leaving ? If you get a cab or bum a ride with a friens (who likely has also been drinking) how will you get to work early in the morining without your car, how will you pick your car up ? so you say to yourself, i feel fine, its not that long of a drive, i'll just be careful.

Well explained Hoov. Get ready for the righteous indignation that will soon follow.

[adamknite]

Well explained Hoov. Get ready for the righteous indignation that will soon follow.


If you're staying out till 3 drinking and suddenly find yourself without a sober ride home, then maybe you should have thought ahead. There is no excuse, I repeat no excuse to be on the road endangering other's lives just because you weren't responsable enough to think of a way to get home!

maybe if the thought enters your head that you might not be able to get home you should order a CocaCola instead of a beer, more refreashing.... less dangerous.

[iceberg]

What is amazing to me is how strong your convictions are, when you have admitted that you have absolutly zero personal knowledge of any of the foregoing. I also do not understand why you want to make this personal. I thought that you were one of the more reasonable objective posters on this board. Maybe I was mistaken.

Regardless it is amazing how you steadfastly argue a point when the only knowledge that you possess is admittedly hearsay.

what is amazing is how many episodes of gilligans island they did and no one ever got caught making out. i'm also not sure the skipper was referring to gilligan all the time when he talked about his "little buddy".

by and large i'd have to say mary ann also. but then again i preferred baily in wkrp in cincy as well.

brainpaint - in wkrp - jennifer or bailey? bailey here.

[iceberg]

If you're staying out till 3 drinking and suddenly find yourself without a sober ride home, then maybe you should have thought ahead. There is no excuse, I repeat no excuse to be on the road endangering other's lives just because you weren't responsable enough to think of a way to get home!

who can look for a ride home with all this ginger/mary ann debate going on?

[adamknite]

who can look for a ride home with all this ginger/mary ann debate going on?

:laugh2: I say Ginger dammit.

[ABQCOWBOY]

what is amazing is how many episodes of gilligans island they did and no one ever got caught making out. i'm also not sure the skipper was referring to gilligan all the time when he talked about his "little buddy".

by and large i'd have to say mary ann also. but then again i preferred baily in wkrp in cincy as well.

brainpaint - in wkrp - jennifer or bailey? bailey here.

What, are you an idiot? Bailey, not question. :D

[iceberg]

What, are you an idiot? Bailey, not question. :D

since i picked bailey before the idiot commentary, i would suppose not utnil a jennifer fan comes along then i'm an idiot for picking bailey.

[DallasEast]

http://www.mydatabus.com/public/dallaseast/e/bender.jpg

Leave the drinking to robots! Pathetic humans!

[ABQCOWBOY]

since i picked bailey before the idiot commentary, i would suppose not utnil a jennifer fan comes along then i'm an idiot for picking bailey.


:laugh2:

True, true. You got me.

[BrAinPaiNt]

what is amazing is how many episodes of gilligans island they did and no one ever got caught making out. i'm also not sure the skipper was referring to gilligan all the time when he talked about his "little buddy".

by and large i'd have to say mary ann also. but then again i preferred baily in wkrp in cincy as well.

brainpaint - in wkrp - jennifer or bailey? bailey here.

Neither Jennifer or Bailey did much for me. One looked to much like a reformed hippy chick and the other looked too fake.

Give me Barbara Eden and her Evil Sister from I dream of Jeannie.:D

[Hoov]

If you're staying out till 3 drinking and suddenly find yourself without a sober ride home, then maybe you should have thought ahead. There is no excuse, I repeat no excuse to be on the road endangering other's lives just because you weren't responsable enough to think of a way to get home!

maybe if the thought enters your head that you might not be able to get home you should order a CocaCola instead of a beer, more refreashing.... less dangerous.

Sure, when you put it like that. And its true that many people get tanked like that 3 or more nights a week and repeatedly drive home and that is absurd.

But there is a stigma that everyone who has a DUI on record is an alcoholic with criminal intent and a lowlife. In reality there are many DUI's that occur when someone is driving after a few drinks on a dinner date or social affair which is a completely different scenario from the one you are describing.

[AdamJT13]

But there is a stigma that everyone who has a DUI on record is an alcoholic with criminal intent and a lowlife.

Alcoholic? Not necessarily.

Criminal intent? Not likely.

Lowlife? Definitely, at least at that moment.

[Hoov]

Alcoholic? Not necessarily.

Criminal intent? Not likely.

Lowlife? Definitely, at least at that moment.I'll have to disagree there. plenty of decent people have a drink at business dinners or at a social function and drive not even knowing they are over the limit. it takes very little to put someone over the .08 limit. i weigh 163 lbs, 2 beers and i am DUI.

How about the guy that is home after work and has 2 drinks or has 2 drinks on a saturday afternoon, when his wife tells him run to the wawa down the road and pick up this or that. He gets pulled over for failing to use a turn signal with a cop across the street, he felt fine and didnt realize he was anywhere near .08 but now everyone will think he has a serious drinking problem and what is wrong with him, endangering others. When in his mind it was a simple trip to the wawa less than a mile to get some cigareetes or something and he didnt even start to feel the effects of the 2 beers he just drank in the past hour. Sometimes its just not being aware.

[AdamJT13]

I'll have to disagree there. plenty of decent people have a drink at business dinners or at a social function and drive not even knowing they are over the limit. it takes very little to put someone over the .08 limit. i weigh 163 lbs, 2 beers and i am DUI.

How about the guy that is home after work and has 2 drinks or has 2 drinks on a saturday afternoon, when his wife tells him run to the wawa down the road and pick up this or that. He gets pulled over for failing to use a turn signal with a cop across the street, he felt fine and didnt realize he was anywhere near .08 but now everyone will think he has a serious drinking problem and what is wrong with him, endangering others. When in his mind it was a simple trip to the wawa less than a mile to get some cigareetes or something and he didnt even start to feel the effects of the 2 beers he just drank in the past hour. Sometimes its just not being aware.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for anyone who drinks and drives for any reason.

[Hostile]

I'll have to disagree there. plenty of decent people have a drink at business dinners or at a social function and drive not even knowing they are over the limit. it takes very little to put someone over the .08 limit. i weigh 163 lbs, 2 beers and i am DUI.

How about the guy that is home after work and has 2 drinks or has 2 drinks on a saturday afternoon, when his wife tells him run to the wawa down the road and pick up this or that. He gets pulled over for failing to use a turn signal with a cop across the street, he felt fine and didnt realize he was anywhere near .08 but now everyone will think he has a serious drinking problem and what is wrong with him, endangering others. When in his mind it was a simple trip to the wawa less than a mile to get some cigareetes or something and he didnt even start to feel the effects of the 2 beers he just drank in the past hour. Sometimes its just not being aware.I'm not trying to push the envelope here, but this falls under the "I've done it, so it isn't that bad category." There is a part of me that understands this.

The bottom line is and always will be, if you're going to drink or have had something to drink, don't drive.

The person who does what you describe above isn't a lowlife simply because nothing happened. All of that changes when something does happen. Tell me truthfully, if someone killed your child and the BAC registered .068 (pretty well below the limit) aren't you still going to wonder what that person was doing behind the wheel?

Not driving after you've had drinks is the only moral and ethical answer. Nothing from the store is worth the risk. I wish people did not go to bars to drink. I really do. I prefer they go home FOR THE NIGHT and have their drinks where they can't possibly hurt someone. I have yet to figure out how to stop someone from leaving someone's house after drinking other than the taxi rule. I wish people would abide by this.

It simply isn't worth the risk. Now, have people driven and not hurt someone? Sure. It happens constantly and I'm not naive. I understand what Adam is saying though. At that moment...you have to wonder. You can object to the word low life, choose another word, or simply choose to be offended by it. I don't think any of that changes the fact that if someone has been drinking they should not get behind the wheel.

[burmafrd]

according to abersonce its not a problem as long as you are under the limit.

[iceberg]

according to abersonce its not a problem as long as you are under the limit.

according to some, stopping by the bar for a beer or two on the way home is "wrong".

know your limits and know when you're effected. if you pass that, don't drive.

it's not rocket science people.

[superpunk]

according to abersonce its not a problem as long as you are under the limit.

Yes.

According to abersonc.

And the law. :cool:

[AdamJT13]

know your limits and know when you're effected. if you pass that, don't drive.

How many people are able to make that judgement after they've been drinking?

I'm guessing quite a few people have driven drunk and killed someone -- maybe even themselves -- after thinking they were OK to drive.

And I'm guessing even more people who didn't crash have driven while impaired after thinking they were OK. Scientific studies have shown that it doesn't take much to be impaired. But everyone thinks they're OK -- especially when their judgement is impaired.

[iceberg]

How many people are able to make that judgement after they've been drinking?

I'm guessing quite a few people have driven drunk and killed someone -- maybe even themselves -- after thinking they were OK to drive.

And I'm guessing even more people who didn't crash have driven while impaired after thinking they were OK. Scientific studies have shown that it doesn't take much to be impaired. But everyone thinks they're OK -- especially when their judgement is impaired.

they set a limit for a reason. i'm not gonna argue morality or ethics, or whatever cause i think it's butt-nugget stupid to argue about.

no one wins this argument.

be responsible or pay the price.

[Hoov]

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for anyone who drinks and drives for any reason.
Not expecting sympathy, nor would i want it.

I do object to the term lowlife, nevertheless, i myself do not drink and drive any longer so i guess the rehabilatative program and punishment was successful in my case.

[AdamJT13]

they set a limit for a reason.

That's correct, and "not knowing you're over the limit" or just driving "to the wawa less than a mile to get some cigareetes" or "not starting to feel the effects" are no excuses for violating the law and putting lives at risk.

[Hoov]

I'm not trying to push the envelope here, but this falls under the "I've done it, so it isn't that bad category." There is a part of me that understands this.

The bottom line is and always will be, if you're going to drink or have had something to drink, don't drive.

The person who does what you describe above isn't a lowlife simply because nothing happened. All of that changes when something does happen. Tell me truthfully, if someone killed your child and the BAC registered .068 (pretty well below the limit) aren't you still going to wonder what that person was doing behind the wheel?

Not driving after you've had drinks is the only moral and ethical answer. Nothing from the store is worth the risk. I wish people did not go to bars to drink. I really do. I prefer they go home FOR THE NIGHT and have their drinks where they can't possibly hurt someone. I have yet to figure out how to stop someone from leaving someone's house after drinking other than the taxi rule. I wish people would abide by this.

It simply isn't worth the risk. Now, have people driven and not hurt someone? Sure. It happens constantly and I'm not naive. I understand what Adam is saying though. At that moment...you have to wonder. You can object to the word low life, choose another word, or simply choose to be offended by it. I don't think any of that changes the fact that if someone has been drinking they should not get behind the wheel.

good insight, you may be right as to me not getting as bent as some here because i have done it myself. actually before the last DUI which was about 5 years ago, i was the type to give up my keys all the time with no arguement. In fact the night of my DUI a friend had agreed to drive my car so i started drinking at a concert and he bailed in the middle of the show, it was like an hour ride back home so i thought about calling a cab but decided i could wait it out in the parking lot and sober up.

As far as drinking at bars, well if you are single and at home alone - that is no fun. I'll tell you what would be an answer, if bars and clubs were forced to provide a shuttle bus for a small fee and make a safe ride home available, that would cut down on some of the offences.

I mean, with the limit as low as it is, almost everyone siitting in any bar is close or over the limit. and what do waiters and bartenders do ? they push another drink to increase their tip. Can you honestly imagine that people will go to the bar and not drink, people who do not like to drink generally hate bars and find the atmosphere boring.

so as long as bars and clubs serve alcohol, people who go there will drink and most likely drink more than the legal limit.....and all these people have to get home somehow.

[iceberg]

That's correct, and "not knowing you're over the limit" or just driving "to the wawa less than a mile to get some cigareetes" or "not starting to feel the effects" are no excuses for violating the law and putting lives at risk.

who said it was? but you're coming across as if someone stops by the bar for a single beer won't be able to stop and will come staggering out at 2am.

who said there was an excuse for violating the law? go argue with them cause *i* never said it. i said know your limits and be responsible.

[stealth]

That is so, you have a better chance of proving the test was faulty than not taking it at all. I have been told this by both county attorneys and judges that I work with.


and them being on that side of the fence surely doesn't make them at all biased?

call a lawyer and ask them, I have been told by at least practicing attorneys in dallas that no matter what refuse the test.

[Doomsday101]

and them being on that side of the fence surely doesn't make them at all biased?

call a lawyer and ask them, I have been told by at least practicing attorneys in dallas that no matter what refuse the test.

County attorneys office does not hear these type of cases that is the DA department so the lawyers telling me this say this from an unbiased stand point. Lets just hope you don't put yourself in this situation because I'm afraid you may be very disappointed in this advice. Don't worry though I'm sure they will be willing to represent you after all win or lose they still get paid. :laugh2:

[AbeBeta]

according to abersonce its not a problem as long as you are under the limit.

That's the law. But you go ahead with the high and mighty act.

[AdamJT13]

That's the law.

Not everywhere. In some places, such as Arizona, you can be under the limit and still be charged with DUI if you're impaired.

[AbeBeta]

Not everywhere. In some places, such as Arizona, you can be under the limit and still be charged with DUI if you're impaired.

But the "limit" is there for a reason. I believe it is actually a different charge if you are "impaired"

[AdamJT13]

who said it was? but you're coming across as if someone stops by the bar for a single beer won't be able to stop and will come staggering out at 2am.

I never said that. I said people who "stop by for a few drinks" don't always have the ability to know whether they're impaired because they've been drinking and their judgement already is impaired.

who said there was an excuse for violating the law? go argue with them

I already am.

i said know your limits and be responsible.

Like I said, people who have been drinking enough to have to make that judgement often aren't able to make a correct judgement because they're already impaired.

[AdamJT13]

But the "limit" is there for a reason. I believe it is actually a different charge if you are "impaired"

Not in Arizona. It's a DUI if you're impaired even "to the slightest degree."

[AbeBeta]

Not in Arizona. It's a DUI if you're impaired even "to the slightest degree."

and that's a very tough charge to make stick -- I'd guess that can be used only if someone is falling down during the field test or driving crazy. I'd love to know how many people have actually been charged (and it stuck) under the law -- sounds like it is simply a piece of leverage for the prosecutors.

[ConcordCowboy]

and them being on that side of the fence surely doesn't make them at all biased?

call a lawyer and ask them, I have been told by at least practicing attorneys in dallas that no matter what refuse the test.

Don't know Texas' law but in Ohio...You can refuse all you want...

You actually get a Worse suspension if you refuse.


Ohio's D.U.I. Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IF YOU DRINK AND DRIVE, YOU ARE COMMITTING A SERIOUS CRIME WHICH HAS SWIFT AND SURE CONSEQUENCES THAT ARE HARD TO IGNORE.

Administrative License Suspension (ALS)

If you are stopped for drunk driving and you refuse to take the sobriety test, or if your test results exceed the legal limit of Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC), the officer can take your driver's license on the spot, and the suspension begins immediately.

Depending on previous offenses or refusals, you can have your license automatically suspended for a period of 90 days to five years.

The administrative suspension is independent of any jail term, fine or other criminal penalty imposed in court for a DUI offense.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1st Offense

Administrative License Suspension (ALS) for a prohibited BAC;

ALS for test refusal = one year license suspension;

Jail - Minimum of three consecutive days or 3-day driver intervention program;


If you get caught the first time you get a 6 month license suspension.

Fine - Minimum $200 and not more than $1,000;

Court License Suspension - 6 months to 3 years.

The vast majority get a 6 months license suspension for the first time...NOT one year that you will get if you refuse the test.