Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphin3
For those that have been "in" the system what is going on with the DUI laws in this country? Granted it is not something that should not be punished but for a violent or repeat offender to get out on little or no bond and someone whom is and has always been a good citizen to have to deal with $30,000-$50,000 bonds and numurous penalties as well as fines,many times even before being found guilty or going to court is against our civil liberties that our fourfathers fought for. Something needs to be done to look into the way these cases are delt with. The actual offerders need to be examined and that taken into account. Is this person a contributing member of society or is he a derilict? Does he make a good living or does he struggle? Imposeing large monitary burdens on the average public does not make for a better society. Just one more apt to comit crimes. Education and counceling would be a much better penalty. Please add comments. Whose making out here. The lawyers? Bailbondsman? Judges?
I think we need to take a real look at reforming the DUI laws and really getting at the few who are causing the problems- those who drink to a lush and repeat offenders. The law should be adjusted to reflect the true value of the offense. There is a big difference between .008 and .30. Laws should reflect that. I think that between .008 and .12, the charge should be something like "driving while inhibited" or something less than a DUI and chargeable as a $200 fine. Between .12 and up, the fines should slide up to $2000.00 and a sentence of picking up trash and a loss of license except to go and from work and school for 60 days.
Repeat DUI offenses should bring fines up to $10,000, permanent loss of license and seizure of registered vehicles. Only if the offender refuses to comform should jail enter the picture. There are ways to make people change their ways without using jail space.
I agree with [URL="//www.city-data.com/forum/members/dc-at-the-ridge-137542.html"]DC at the Ridge[/URL] if MADD cared about people so much then why do they put so much pressure that people sitting in a car go to jail. And you guys want to tell me nothing is corrupt with that???????????????????
um Memphis1979 drinking two drinks and driving is driving responsibly and drinking responsibly. Getting hammered and driving is not and if you get hammered and drive you are taking the risk ruining your life but that's the risk your taking. I've took that risk and paid for it once. Some what.. it cost me some money and the charge got dropped. I don't crave alcohol and have to get drunk every weekend. I maybe have a few once a month. But guess what.. my public image would be ruined if i have a couple of drinks and drive and i'm then considered a drunk. society is so stupid!!!
It depends on the drinks, and depends on your size.
I'm a man who is over 6 foot tall, and weighs over 200 pounds. I can drink two beers, and be below the legal limit.
If you were a woman, and had relatively low weight, you'd have a problem with the two beers.
No, if you go to the bar, and have a couple of drinks, you should plan for a ride home. I'm sure you know someone who can give you a ride home. If not, call a taxi. If there are no taxis in your community, you have an excellent chance of opening a business.
I was out with my fiancé’ celebrating Cinco Demayo on May 5th of this year in Phoenix, AZ and was the designated driver all night. On the way home we decided to stop at a strip club around 12:30 AM, and within a 45 minute time span I had 2 drinks of Hennessy, straight up. We left the club around 1:15 AM, and were pulled over by a motor cycle cop at 1:20 AM. As he approached the window of the vehicle I could sense beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was going to attempt to get me for a DUI. The first thing he told me was that he pulled me over for speeding, which I couldn’t dispute because I didn’t check the speed ometer before I pulled over. The officer asked for my license and registration and asked me if I had anything to drink. I admitted that I had 2 drinks, and he asked me to step out of the vehicle. He administered 3 field sobriety tests, and during the course of these tests he was doing many things to distract me, and his tone of voice was very loud and demanding. After he didn’t give me any feed back to let me know if I passed or failed the tests, he whipped out a breathalyzer and asked me to blow into it. Up until that point I fully cooperated with him, but due to his demeanor and the way he was being so forceful and rude I refused to blow in the breathalyzer, so he immediately arrested me and I was transported to a DUI van.
Now before I get into the discussion of what happened in the DUI van I’d like to express my opinion on the rights of US citizens under the United States Constitution. The search and seizure clause under the fourth amendment has been destroyed. The due process clause of the 14th and 5th amendments have been destroyed, as the police no longer have to video record field sobriety tests or time spent in the DUI van. If the police officer says you failed the sobriety tests you have no proof to dispute this, whether it is true or not true. DUI laws have become so strict that the burden of the proof of innocence has been shifted from the state to the defendant. The definition of legally intoxicated started at .15, was lowered to .10, and now is currently at .08. How many people know that there is a DUI offense that states if you are impaired to the slightest degree you receive the same punishment as a DUI with a blood alcohol concentration level of .08 or higher? I didn’t know about this new law until I was charged with 2 dui offences in one shot (Can you say double jeopardy?). Impaired to the slightest degree means that you could have one sip of alcohol, get pulled over by a cop, take the field sobriety tests, and if the cop says you failed you could be charged with a DUI and be perfectly sober. Everyone would like to see individuals who choose to drink too much, become legally intoxicated, and for whatever reason think they can drive a vehicle safely, not be allowed to drive. But for the sake of everyone’s rights under the United States Constitution, US citizens should be free to travel anywhere they please, and do whatever they please as long as they don’t infringe on the life, liberty or property of another citizen. That being said, it is not against the law to drink, and then drive, but it’s against the law to drink, become legally intoxicated, and then drive. Perfectly innocent US citizens are being charged with DUI’s, not to protect the public from drunk drivers, but to generate as much revenue as possible for city governments and for Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and state legislatures to exercise power. Oh yeah, and MADD generates approximately 50 million dollars in donations, and pays out about 12 million dollars in salaries every year.
Ok, back to what happened when I was transported to the DUI van. I really didn’t want to let these people draw my blood, because I knew I wasn’t drunk or impaired to the slightest degree. I was in the DUI van with the officer who arrested me, and the officer who drew my blood. I was told that if I didn’t willingly allow my blood to be drawn, a search warrant would be faxed to a judge, who was on standby; the search warrant would be signed on the fly, and faxed back to the DUI van. This process takes less than 5 minutes. At that point the officers can call for backup, hold you down, taser you and do whatever they need to do to forcefully draw your blood to have it tested. This really seemed crazy and unconstitutional to me, but I have heard of people being killed by police when they don’t cooperate, and I really didn’t feel like dying that day, so I let them take my blood after they made it perfectly clear that I was not leaving that DUI van until my blood was drawn! I was also informed that if a search warrant had to be issued my driver’s license would be suspended for one year. I was later informed by the MVD that even if you refuse to submit to the field sobriety tests your driver’s license would be suspended for one year. The police officer informed me that I had the right to refuse before he started each of the field sobriety tests, but never mentioned that my driver’s license would be suspended for a whole year if I refused. I found out later that the breath test is inadmissible in court, and they were going to forcibly draw my blood anyway whether I submitted to the breath test or not.
I was treated so unfairly during the entire process that I decided to fight the 2 DUI offenses I was charged with, no matter what the consequences. At this point I didn’t care if I was given the death penalty. What I found to be really sad, is when I attended my first court appearance almost all the other individuals charged with DUI offenses pleaded guilty, because they thought they had no chance of receiving a fair trial, due to the DUI laws being so strict. Well, here are the 2 DUI offenses I was charged with:
Driving While Impaired to the Slightest Degree, A.R.S. §28-1381(A)(1)
It is unlawful to drive, or to be in actual physical control, of a vehicle while under the influence of any intoxication liquor, any drug, or any combination of liquor or drugs. It is not necessary to be “drunk.” The State is only required to prove that a person’s ability to operate their vehicle was impaired “to the slightest degree.”
Driving With an Blood Alcohol Concentration of .08% or Above, A.R.S. §28-1381(A)(2)
It is unlawful to drive, or to be in actual physical control, of a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of .08% [.04% if commercial vehicle, A.R.S. §28-1381(A) (4)] or higher within two hours of driving or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. The blood alcohol concentration must be a result of alcohol consumed either prior to driving or while driving, or being in actual physical control. Both of these offenses carry the exact same punishment.
The bad part regarding your driver’s license is that as soon as the officer decides to administer the field sobriety tests you are issued an Admin Per se, and your license is suspended for 3 months, no matter if you’re found not guilty, if you are brave enough to have a trial by jury.
I was found not guilty of both DUI offences after the evidence was heard by a jury of my peers. Although the officer lied multiple times while under oath, no video recordings of the field sobriety tests or time spent in the DUI van were available the jury still found me not guilty. One thing the judge continuously stressed to the jury is that it is not against the law to drink and then drive.
The DUI laws have been made so strict, and being impaired to the slightest degree does really mean that it is virtually against the law to drink and then drive! The public just hasn’t been informed of this yet.
Thank you,
BAUDDL – Brother Against Unconstitutional Drunk Driving Laws
You won't get any sympathy from me. I lost one relative and a classmate because of drinking and driving. I also have an alcoholic uncle who has been drinking and driving for so long the local police know to pull him over if they see him driving. He was recently pulled over and arrested and it may be his last. Not only was he driving drunk, he was also smoking pot which he had in the car with him. His liver is so far gone that if he goes to prison he may die there. Local charity hospital said if he tries to quit cold turkey he will die. I'd rather see him in prison or in a grave than know he killed someone because he was drunk at the wheel.
Did you know that MADD raises over 50 million dollars in donations and pays out 12 million dollars in salaries every year? And that MADD gives cash awards to police man who makes the most DUI arrests? MADD is no longer all about protecting the piblic from drunk drivers. Did you know that the woman who started MADD in 1980 resigned from the organization in 1985 after she saw that MADD was no longer about protecting the public from drunk drivers, but about power and money?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
