I was arrested for DUI

[ChefChiTown]

Yes well there's a cautionary tale here if you put yourself into such a position that you might be compromisable then sooner or later you are likely to get stung big time for it just because you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Had the chap not been drinking and driving and the same thing happened do you not think they would have been more lenient under the circumstances?

If the driver of that car wasn't legally drunk, he probably never would've been ticketed for anything. But, since he was legally drunk, he was charged with reckless driving, drunk driving and hitting my friend (whatever that charge is legally called, I don't know), even though my friend was the one who was 100% at fault in that situation.

FYI - My friend wasn't ticketed for jaywalking, even though that is what ultimately caused the accident.

 

[habo9]

Worst night of my life:

Last week I was out on the town with a friend having a good time. We had a good amount of drinks, mostly beer and a few mixed drinks. It was just one of those situations where you think your cool to drive and it finally bit me in the ass.

Cop pulled me over and said I was swerving in between lanes, which I was not. I wasn't driving reckless at all, I was doing 65mph the whole time in the slow lane. Then he made me do the typical bogus tests and then blow twice in the breathalyzer, and he never told me what I blew. Got handcuffed, put in the back of the cop car, and taken down to the police station. Inside, this weird looking lady took a blood sample from my arm with a needle. Then I got booked and spent 9 hours in the drunk tank and it was the longest 9 hours of my life. Finally by the end, I was released and immediately got my car out of the impound. Thing is, they never told me how drunk I was so I'm meeting with a lawyer this week.

Why the worst night of my life? Being arrested, having my car towed, experiencing jail, having my family look down on me, what I'm about to face in court, and what I could have done - I could have killed myself or someone else. This is just my 1st offense so I guess I have some slack, but I have defiantly learned my lesson. I'm telling you right here, drinking and driving is not worth the risk!

Just wanted to share with you all and maybe get advice from anyone who has gone through this nightmare.

Serves you right , you shouldnt have taken the chance !!!!!!!

I hate drunk drivers :glugglug:

 

[tittenman]

If the driver of that car wasn't legally drunk, he probably never would've been ticketed for anything. But, since he was legally drunk, he was charged with reckless driving, drunk driving and hitting my friend (whatever that charge is legally called, I don't know), even though my friend was the one who was 100% at fault in that situation.

FYI - My friend wasn't ticketed for jaywalking, even though that is what ultimately caused the accident.

Yep I wholly agree perhaps the offense of the jaywalking was overlooked and perhaps should have been considered a contributing factor in the whole thing (not sure if your friend would appreciate you saying that). Unfortunately rightly or wrongly if the "smoking gun" is found next to you then its always very hard to argue otherwise your involvement. I suspect the first thing the officers suspected was once drink was involved that it was a DUI offense (am I right?). Did your friend mention to officers the extent of his actions?

 

[Hot Mega]

Then he made me do the typical bogus tests and then blow twice in the breathalyzer, and he never told me what I blew. Got handcuffed, put in the back of the cop car, and taken down to the police station. Inside, this weird looking lady took a blood sample from my arm with a needle. Then I got booked and spent 9 hours in the drunk tank and it was the longest 9 hours of my life. Finally by the end, I was released and immediately got my car out of the impound. Thing is, they never told me how drunk I was so I'm meeting with a lawyer this week.

The breathalyzer you blew in at the scene is completely voluntary as are the field sobriety tests which are simply used to establish probable cause for an arrest for suspicion of DUI. If you choose to blow in breathalyzer the only one you must blow in is the one at the police station.

I'm not sure which state you were arrested but usually you are given the option of which test (blood, breath or urine) you want to take. Even if you aren't you usually have the right to determine which test you will take. The fact that the officer immediately wanted to test your blood suggests he believed you were not only under the influence of alcohol but other drugs as well.

Again based on the kind of drinking you claimed you were engaged in (a couple of beers and a couple of mixed drinks is at least 3 or 4 hrs. of metabolizing)...it's likely you were over the legal limit and the blood test results won't be available for appx. 7 days.

If it's your first offense....I believe in California usually a first offense will be 3 months in a first offenders thought reform class, 3-6 mos. D/L suspension eligible for restricted after a month of a hard suspension, probably about $1k to $1500 in fines and 3 yr. summary probation.

Some people in this thread don't understand that merely drinking and driving, being over the legal limit and (physically) drunk driving are different things. While the law views above the legal limit and drunk as being the same most people are clearly not drunk at or slightly above the legal limit.

I think a person who has a drink or two all things being equal represents no greater hazard than the average driver. In fact, anecdotally they may be safer as they may be more cautious while a sober driver may inherently take more risks.

People who are physically drunk don't belong on the roads under any circumstance IMO. It's those who I believe are primarily responsible for the accidents and deaths. Not people who merely have alcohol in their system.

If a person has a drink or two then drives that is no more stupid than people who do all sorts of other hazardous things while driving. The only thing which makes it more stupid is exposing yourself to the excessive penalties you may face for merely being over the legal limit and not physically drunk.

 

[Boothbabe]

I think a person who has a drink or two all things being equal represents no greater hazard than the average driver. In fact, anecdotally they may be safer as they may be more cautious while a sober driver may inherently take more risks.

Unbelievable, simply unbelievable! I have never read such utter stupidity! Every test ever done in the Netherlands (and I assume other countries as well) has shown that people, even if they have consumed only 2 glasses of beer cannot judge risky situations as well as a sober person and are more likely to take unnessecary risks. You can lie to yourself all you want but that's a statistical fact.

 

[23lebron23]

no one should drive drunk but also i think that it is stupid that states still allow people to hold a phone and talk, text, smoke, put makeup on, eat, and put music on as high as they can. they all are going to cause you to loose consentration.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Yep I wholly agree perhaps the offense of the jaywalking was overlooked and perhaps should have been considered a contributing factor in the whole thing (not sure if your friend would appreciate you saying that). Unfortunately rightly or wrongly if the "smoking gun" is found next to you then its always very hard to argue otherwise your involvement. I suspect the first thing the officers suspected was once drink was involved that it was a DUI offense (am I right?). Did your friend mention to officers the extent of his actions?

I can't answer those questions because I wasn't there. I just know what he told me. I know there were witnesses, but I have no idea what they told the police either.

:dunno:

 

[ChefChiTown]

Unbelievable, simply unbelievable! I have never read such utter stupidity! Every test ever done in the Netherlands (and I assume other countries as well) has shown that people, even if they have consumed only 2 glasses of beer cannot judge risky situations as well as a sober person and are more likely to take unnessecary risks. You can lie to yourself all you want but that's a statistical fact.

Just to play Devil's advocate here...

Are people allowed to drive while talking on the cell phone and/or texting in the Netherlands? Because, here in the US, (I heard this on the news just the other night) it is a statistical fact that talking on a cell phone/texting causes 5 times the amount of accidents that drunk driving does. So, technically, driving while talking on a cell phone and/or texting is much more dangerous then driving while intoxicated.

So, do you feel the same way about people who use their cell phone while driving or is it just drunk drivers?

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just asking.

 

[Hot Mega]

Unbelievable, simply unbelievable! I have never read such utter stupidity! Every test ever done in the Netherlands (and I assume other countries as well) has shown that people, even if they have consumed only 2 glasses of beer cannot judge risky situations as well as a sober person and are more likely to take unnessecary risks. You can lie to yourself all you want but that's a statistical fact.

But how many people during normal driving face acutely sharp judgment tasks and are deciding whether or not to take unreasonable risk?? The only people who do are those who are inherently poor, irresponsible or risky drivers.

In terms of the facts, I think they somewhat support my point. Otherwise how could the number of accidents which don't involve alcohol be many, many times more than those that do involve alcohol?? I mean, if sober people are inherently less risky than people who have been drinking how could there ever be any accidents among sober people? Certainly you wouldn't expect it to be many times more than people who have been drinking.

The only thing true is alcohol reduces inhibitions with some people and suppresses reflex, nervous and sensory response.

While a person's judgment may be altered somewhat by drinking and they may in some circumstances take more risks than otherwise, it's actually case by case where it makes a relevant difference. In other words, if for example a person has a couple of drinks...has to drive 2 miles, pass 5 traffic lights and make a left turn to get home...is that person now more inclined to run the red lights? Probably not (unless of course they are inherently risky in the first place). Where would the judgement necessary to make a difference come into play?

Again the question is, to what degree does it become a factor in something as reflex, instinctive and simple as normal driving?

I believe two reasonable people can look at the same issue and simply disagree on it with no hard feelings.

I haven't ducked any issue you've brought up. Even if you disagree, I feel I've made a serious effort to reasonably assert my point of view. I haven't insulted you nor your opinion. So I don't know about you but when I debate a person and they've done none of those things and nothing they've stated has demonstrably undercut my point of view...then there comes a time where you just have to acknowledge you respectfully disagree.:dunno: Then there's the end of it.

 

[Lucky7000]

But how many people during normal driving face acutely sharp judgment tasks and are deciding whether or not to take unreasonable risk?? The only people who do are those who are inherently poor, irresponsible or risky drivers.

...ETC....

Just gonna pop in here - There is no such thing as "normal driving" Unless you're out in the middle of a desert or something. You ALWAYS have to be able to make sudden judgments as you never know who or what is going to serve in front of you and at what angle. This is 100 fold in major cities. If anyone is going behind the wheel of anything, it's absolutely horrible for him or her to assume that there won't be any need for sudden reactions. If you can't be in the capacity to make rapid decisions while in a couple thousand pound vehicle going anywhere from 20-100 MPH, then you should not be driving - alcohol or not.

Granted, the amount of alcohol needed to actually affect the person's reactions vary per person, as a rule of thumb - drive dry. Or sell your car and ride the bus.

 

[Hot Mega]

Just gonna pop in here - There is no such thing as "normal driving" Unless you're out in the middle of a desert or something. You ALWAYS have to be able to make sudden judgments as you never know who or what is going to serve in front of you and at what angle. This is 100 fold in major cities. If anyone is going behind the wheel of anything, it's absolutely horrible for him or her to assume that there won't be any need for sudden reactions. If you can't be in the capacity to make rapid decisions while in a couple thousand pound vehicle going anywhere from 20-100 MPH, then you should not be driving - alcohol or not.

Granted, the amount of alcohol needed to actually affect the person's reactions vary per person, as a rule of thumb - drive dry. Or sell your car and ride the bus.

Okay. Let's assume everything you say is true...then there should be no circumstance where people go years and years and years while drinking then driving without having accidents.

If the task was so judgment intensive and fraught with risk...you shouldn't be able to do it 5 times without incident after having drank....let alone thousands and thousands of times.

Only a person being unreasonable would attribute those overwhelming odds to luck IMO.

Again, setting aside personal perspective...those are the facts.

 

[Boothbabe]

Just to play Devil's advocate here...

Are people allowed to drive while talking on the cell phone and/or texting in the Netherlands? Because, here in the US, (I heard this on the news just the other night) it is a statistical fact that talking on a cell phone/texting causes 5 times the amount of accidents that drunk driving does. So, technically, driving while talking on a cell phone and/or texting is much more dangerous then driving while intoxicated.

So, do you feel the same way about people who use their cell phone while driving or is it just drunk drivers?

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just asking.

No, people aren't allowed to talk on a cell phone (unless it's handsfree but I think that should be illegal as well) or send text messages while they drive. It's not even allowed to hold a cell phone in your hand while you're driving. I also feel the same way about people who use a cell phone while they're driving. When you're driving a car your attention should be focussed on only one thing, driving.

I also want to explain something. @ any given time the number of people who drive while under the influence of alcohol is far far less than drivers that are sober. That's why there are less alcohol related accidents. It doesn't make driving with alcohol in your system any less dangerous. @ any given time there are also far more people who talk on a cell phone while they drive, that's why it causes more accidents compared to driving under the influence of alcohol. This also doesn't make drinking and driving any less dangerous.

It's not rocket science, it's very easy to understand.

 

[Hot Mega]

I also want to explain something. @ any given time the number of people who drive while under the influence of alcohol is far far less than drivers that are sober. That's why there are less alcohol related accidents. It doesn't make driving with alcohol in your system any less dangerous. @ any given time there are also far more people who talk on a cell phone while they drive, that's why it causes more accidents compared to driving under the influence of alcohol. This also doesn't make drinking and driving any less dangerous.

It's not rocket science, it's very easy to understand.

Forget the science and the question of why there are accident's period for a sec..but looking in practical terms...explain this....

Okay. Let's assume everything you say is true...then there should be no circumstance where people go years and years and years while drinking then driving without having accidents.

If the task was so judgment intensive and fraught with risk...you shouldn't be able to do it 5 times without incident after having drank....let alone thousands and thousands of times.

Only a person being unreasonable would attribute those overwhelming odds to luck IMO.

Again, setting aside personal perspective...those are the facts.

 

[Boothbabe]

If the task was so judgment intensive and fraught with risk...you shouldn't be able to do it 5 times without incident after having drank....let alone thousands and thousands of times.

The man who killed my nephew was fined 9 times before for drinking and driving

 

[Hot Mega]

The man who killed my nephew was fined 9 times before for drinking and driving

Well I know to people who suffer the affects of statistics...there's only only one statistic they care about..their loved one.

But that still doesn't answer my question.

 

[Boothbabe]

But that still doesn't answer my question.

Yes it does, he was lucky. And you know what, i'm done with this thread. I'm also done with you because the only thing you're interested in is defending drinking and driving.

 

[tittenman]

Unbelievable, simply unbelievable! I have never read such utter stupidity! Every test ever done in the Netherlands (and I assume other countries as well) has shown that people, even if they have consumed only 2 glasses of beer cannot judge risky situations as well as a sober person and are more likely to take unnessecary risks. You can lie to yourself all you want but that's a statistical fact.

That comment is absolutely spot on, in some Scandinavian countries namely Sweden there is a zero tollerance on drink driving (ie if you plan to get behind the whel you are not allowed any alcohol) no excuses!

In the UK drink driving used to be a huge problem in the 1970s many hundreds of deaths per year, but then the government got tough and tackled the problem with much stiffer sentences, this soon caused a change in drivers attitudes and the drink drive accidents have come down steadily ever since.

 

[Hot Mega]

Yes it does, he was lucky. And you know what, i'm done with this thread. I'm also done with you because the only thing you're interested in is defending drinking and driving.

"he was lucky"?? The guy was fined 9 times for drinking and driving..ultimately killed someone. I'd say he was anything but "lucky"

As I said, there are people who have driven literally thousands of times after having drank and ne'er a one accident. That's not a defense, that's a simple fact.

Finally, I'm sorry you feel the way you do merely because we have a difference of opinion on an issue. But if you've concluded I'm defending drinking and driving...you haven't read a meaningful word I've posted in this thread.

You and I both have suffered what I believe to be deeply personal losses where alcohol was involved. I don't know if it changed or drives your perspective and you now vilify any notion of drinking and driving. But I don't fault that...it's a somewhat reasonable perspective under the circumstances. I just conclude my uncle was a victim of circumstance for which there are many. If I internalize and took on every circumstance a loved one could be subject to fall victim...I hardly think I would be able to focus on anything else.

You should have read what I wrote instead of reading into what you thought my posts sounded like.

Drinking and driving is an easy target and certainly it's impossible to defend from typical outrage....but we can't so consume ourselves in the outrage that we're unable to appraise the facts.

 

[Hot Mega]

That comment is absolutely spot on, in some Scandinavian countries namely Sweden there is a zero tollerance on drink driving (ie if you plan to get behind the whel you are not allowed any alcohol) no excuses!

edit

 

[Hot Mega]

That comment is absolutely spot on, in some Scandinavian countries namely Sweden there is a zero tollerance on drink driving (ie if you plan to get behind the whel you are not allowed any alcohol) no excuses!

I would think every place with DUI laws has a zero tolerance...as does the US.

As far as if you plan to drive you are not allowed to drink....I suppose that could be moderately enforceable at the expense of some freedoms...(i.e. how is it determine if you plan to drive at some restaurant or how is it determined you plan to drive before you drink at your home). But if the zero tolerance involves no level of measurable alcohol...you should know that eating allot of fruits and using certain mouthwashes produces measurable amounts of alcohol.