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

[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 intact

Refusing 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 it

You 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"

 

[Clarkson]

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!!

 

[Clarkson]

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&#8217;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.

 

[Clarkson]

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.