Arizona's "DUI In The Least Degree" Law (office, money)

[Captain-Jack]

Originally Posted by Zippyman

There may not be a conviction, but there have been arrests based only on an officer's opinion of "impairment", including cases where officer's have claimed to observe "bloodshot eyes" & "the smell of alcohol" from people who tested 0.00 bac. Its a very dangerous statute to have on the books.

Exactly. Your attorney may get you out of a DUI where the cop can't prove "impairment" but it will cost you thousands of dollars out of your own pocket.

I'm just wondering how this law ever went into effect and how long it's been around. I haven't heard of any other state who has such a draconian law on the books.

I feel like I can't even have a beer on the way home from work because it puts me into jeopardy.

[Yakscsd]

Wow what a ridiculous law. As I read it i can be prescribed a drug like Percoset, take it in accordance with directions, and the next day have the metabolized remains in my system, and be charged? Tha'ts an impossible situation.

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by Captain-Jack

Exactly. Your attorney may get you out of a DUI where the cop can't prove "impairment" but it will cost you thousands of dollars out of your own pocket.

I'm just wondering how this law ever went into effect and how long it's been around. I haven't heard of any other state who has such a draconian law on the books.

I feel like I can't even have a beer on the way home from work because it puts me into jeopardy.

That's pretty much how everyone in my family (and any friends who visit) operate here. No alcohol, at all, ever, for the driver.

When these laws were passed, we were assured that "an xxx pound man could hammer six drinks & not hit this "reasonable" limit..".

Effectively, you live like a mormon or risk serious jail time & legal hassles.

I've never ordered a beer with a meal in Arizona, never went to a bar here, never had even one drink at a christmas party - and anyone who values their freedom really can't.

[observer53]

Originally Posted by Captain-Jack

Exactly. Your attorney may get you out of a DUI where the cop can't prove "impairment" but it will cost you thousands of dollars out of your own pocket.

I'm just wondering how this law ever went into effect and how long it's been around. I haven't heard of any other state who has such a draconian law on the books.

I feel like I can't even have a beer on the way home from work because it puts me into jeopardy.

It's been around for at least seven years, if I recall the info I looked up correctly. It got passed by our legislature because they wanted to pass tough DUI laws. I'm willing to bet AZ is not the only state with such a statute. I didn't take my research that far. You can be charged with DUI in many states with less than a .08, if you appear to be impaired.

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by observer53

It's been around for at least seven years, if I recall the info I looked up correctly. It got passed by our legislature because they wanted to pass tough DUI laws. I'm willing to bet AZ is not the only state with such a statute. I didn't take my research that far. You can be charged with DUI in many states with less than a .08, if you appear to be impaired.

Well sure - other states might be like that..- but most at least set an objective medical/numerical threshold for "impaired" that has some basis in science & medicine - like .006.

Again, referring back to when these laws were passed, my old state (Michigan) had a "public information" campaign on the dangers of drunk drivers & even went so far as to take a local newscaster & a bottle of vodka to the state police driving range & get him drunk on camera. A state police officer mixed up screwdrivers, fed them to the newscaster (waited a few minutes), then gave him a breathalizer (to establish his bac) then the keys to a cop car & had him manuver through a road course with cones all over. His "scores" actually improved over "sober" until about .004 bac, and at .005-.006 bac the newscaster was about the same as a "sober" driver. At the time, .010 was "drunk", and anything over .008 was "impaired".

Those laws were reasonable & based on science & anyone could see the results.

Arizona's current law isn't. Anyone who gets popped for "impaired" driving at a bac level that doesn't affect their driving ability is getting railroaded by putitanical drunk-driving laws. The "drugged-driving" portion of the law is even worse - anyone who takes *any* prescription opiod medicine is basically subject to arrest for "impaired" driving for days after taking that medicine, long after it's effects have worn off. The bottom line is, police officers arent qualified to judge "impairment" in the field, and this law gives them "cover" for bad busts.

You'll likely never see an "uprising" or "groundswell" against these overzealous laws, because we've had fourty-years of propaganda villifying "drunk drivers".. just like accused child-molesters or wife-beaters, those who do "drive hammered, get nailed" aren't going to publicly discuss their "impaired" convictions at .002, .003, or .004. The Phoenix New Times *did* do an expose on a (dui attorney's wife) who got popped with a bac level of .000.. (complete with a police report claiming the officer could "smell alcohol".) Those are the *only* cases that will ever make the press, and they'll be quickly shouted down by the psycho-moms-against-ever-drinking-anything-ever. That doesn't mean the law is fair.

If we had some mullah, rabbi, priest or pastor passing "edicts" saying "no drinking evar", Arizonians would be lighting the torches & heating up the tar & feathers. Effectively, we're living under our own version of the Taliban & pretending we're still "free"..

Granted, the "religious police" aren't confiscating cd's with rap music (yet) at our dui checkpoints..but they *are* there with their dogs sniffing for "devil weed" & popping drivers who are "impaired" only in name.

[glenlhein]

Originally Posted by Captain-Jack

Exactly. Your attorney may get you out of a DUI where the cop can't prove "impairment" but it will cost you thousands of dollars out of your own pocket.

I'm just wondering how this law ever went into effect and how long it's been around. I haven't heard of any other state who has such a draconian law on the books.

I feel like I can't even have a beer on the way home from work because it puts me into jeopardy.

You shouldn't have a beer on the way home from work. Don't drink and drive.

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by glenlhein

You shouldn't have a beer on the way home from work. Don't drink and drive.

It's this type of illogical thinking that drives these backwards laws. Glen, upon what facts have you based your opinion that having one beer on your way home from work is harmful?

[Gunluvver2]

I don't know what the answer to the drunk driver problem is. Some people have pi** poor driving skills when they have never had a drink or taken a drug. I think the move during the past thirty years to lower the limits of legal intoxication has proven to be a total failure. I would like to see an accurate comparison of B.A.C levels of drivers involved in Seroius/fatal accidents compared from 1970 to now. I would bet the majority of drivers responsible for a fatal accident had B.A.C levels way over the old .015 legal limit. Bigger dangers are folks texting or on cell phones. Driving while angry is even more dangerous IMO.
GL2

[JAinAZ]

Zippy and Gunluvver, please use the correct numbers. The legal limit is .080, not .008. the old limit (in the 70's) was .150, not .015. The numbers matter.

Gunluvver, if drivers are being a danger to others while talking on cell phones or texting, they will be stopped and cited for reckless driving.

Zippy, I have never heard of a case where a driver was arrested for .008. If you have, could you please supply the article? Arizona law states: from .000 to .050 you are presumed NOT intoxicated; from .050 to .080 there is NO presumption; from .080 and up you ARE presumed intoxicated. If an officer arrests a driver for anything under .080, he had better be able to back up the arrest with signs of impairment that will hold up. If you pass the field sobriety tests, you aren't going to be arrested.

Contrary to the popular slant we are seeing on the news, police officers don't start their shifts saying to themselves "let me see how many lives I can ruin tonight". The state has put the DUI laws in place, and it is the officer's job to enforce those laws. Don't drive impaired and you won't have a problem.

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by JAinAZ

Zippy and Gunluvver, please use the correct numbers. The legal limit is .080, not .008. the old limit (in the 70's) was .150, not .015. The numbers matter.

Gunluvver, if drivers are being a danger to others while talking on cell phones or texting, they will be stopped and cited for reckless driving.

Zippy, I have never heard of a case where a driver was arrested for .008. If you have, could you please supply the article? Arizona law states: from .000 to .050 you are presumed NOT intoxicated; from .050 to .080 there is NO presumption; from .080 and up you ARE presumed intoxicated. If an officer arrests a driver for anything under .080, he had better be able to back up the arrest with signs of impairment that will hold up. If you pass the field sobriety tests, you aren't going to be arrested.

Contrary to the popular slant we are seeing on the news, police officers don't start their shifts saying to themselves "let me see how many lives I can ruin tonight". The state has put the DUI laws in place, and it is the officer's job to enforce those laws. Don't drive impaired and you won't have a problem.

"From my experience working in the east valley, easily 15% (or more) of the time, the blood results come back under 0.08 — many times 0.00."

Mesa PD 0.00 BAC DUI Arrest? | FSN: Forensic Science News

Who wrote that? ^^^^^^^^

A forensic scientist.

Scroll down on that page & you'll see an account of a "sober" dui arrest of Heather Squires.

What did the officer write in his report about her?


“bloodshot and watery eyes.” “Flushed face.” “Strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from breath.”

And then her blood tests came back 0.00.

So no - I'm not willing to accept your account of police officers in general. I don't get to "pick" the one that will pull me over, and many of them are not trustworthy.

Like these guys...

'Brady list' includes 480 officers in Maricopa County alone | azfamily.com Phoenix