Was this the intent of DUI laws?

[Sooner5030]

MADD has way too much power........we can't even float down a river under the influence.

This country has officially gone to shiat.

http://newsminer.com/bookmark/19659421-Juneau-man-gets-DUI-on-raft-in-Chena-River


FAIRBANKS — A Juneau man faces a rare DUI charge for allegedly having a 0.313 breath-alcohol content as he floated through Fairbanks on an inflatable raft Sunday night.

Alaska’s driving under the influence law applies to people operating motor vehicles, water craft and airplanes. The vast majority of charges are for terrestrial motor vehicles.

But when Alaska State Troopers received a report of a “heavily intoxicated” man floating down the Chena River near the Parks Highway bridge at 6:40 p.m. Sunday, a wildlife trooper boat responded and arrested 32-year-old William Modene.

“Modene had been floating on the river for the day and consuming alcoholic beverages the entire time,” troopers wrote in their “daily dispatches” log on their website.

At 0.313, Modene’s breath-alcohol content was almost four times the legal limit for operating a vehicle, 0.08.

Modene was arrested without incident and was cooperative with troopers, trooper spokeswoman Megan Peters said.

Modene posted $2,500 bail on Monday, according to the Alaska court system website.

Under Alaska’s DUI law, operating a water craft means to “navigate a vessel used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water for recreational or commercial purposes on all waters, fresh or salt, inland or coastal, inside the territorial limits or under the jurisdiction of the state.”

Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - Juneau man gets DUI on raft in Chena River

[Curly Bill]

Wow! Pretty retarded!

[okie52]

Insurance studies have shown texters are far more dangerous than drunks....and there are a hell of a lot more of them.

[Midtowner]

DUI laws have changed from something meant to prevent something that's really, really dangerous to an industry unto itself. Also, with DUI laws, somehow your civil rights no longer apply. For some small towns and counties DUI income is a pretty big deal.

First off, consider this: at .08, some more..uh..experienced drinkers are not even going to be impaired. The .08 is an arbitrary number. It used to be higher, but MADD got in Congress' ear and had them deny funding for any state which didn't set the .08 mark. It'll actually be interesting to see the effect of the Obamacare ruling on whether Congress can actually do what they did here. One state has gone to .04 and for drivers under 21, even a trace amount of alcohol on their breath is grounds for a full-on DUI/APC, except that it doesn't go on your record.

As far as your civil rights go, say g'bye to your 4th and 5th amendment rights. Does a police officer need to have any sort of probable cause to administer a DUI test? Nope. They can just go on their gut. Well of course your 5th Amendment right to not incriminate yourself applies, they can't take your breath or blood without your consent, right? Wrong. If you refuse to consent to the breath test, you lose your license for 1 year. Do not collect $200, do not pass go. No hearing, no nothing. But you've refused, so they can't use force to discover your BAC, right? Wrong. They can take a blood sample. I don't know how the hell this happened, but apparently, for 4th Amendment purposes, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy to your blood. The government can restrain you and stick a needle in your body and your civil rights do not apply. So just a second ago, I said your license can be suspended immediately...but in Government class, you heard about this thing called "due process." It was something about notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the government can deprive you of liberty/property, etc. Somehow, the founding fathers apparently meant that right to apply and there must have been an * in there which led to some subtext which said *except for in the case of a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test.

But those breathalyzer tests are 100% accurate. It's science! Nope. They're 1980s technology and quite fallible. For example, if you just left the bar and had a couple of drinks, you're going to read a false positive. It takes several minutes for alcohol to be absorbed and have any effect. The breathalyzer is going to read a false positive though. Also, police officers are trained to administer the test to ensure that there's a false positive. They want you to take a deep breath and blow long and hard. This is to get the air off of the bottom of your lungs. This technique will 'enhance' the reading by 10%-15%. Of course you can hyperventilate or if you do some sort of physical activity which gets your heart rate up, you can get a false negative, but they're trained for that too.

Also, the field sobriety tests don't really work. One thing they like to do is test for a nystagamus (the pen test). If your eyes can't track the pen and lag behind, that's a sign of inebriation. Of course, that's also a sign of about 100 other things including medical conditions and too much coffee, but what the hell, right?

As to the industry comments, a conviction for DUI in city court typically results in a 1-year deferred sentence with a $750-$1,000 fine, about $1,000 worth of additional B.S. fees and your other contribution to the local economy--you'll have to take a drug and alcohol assessment. You'll have to attend some stupid/useless classes, you'll have to attend a Victims Impact Panel and submit to some other testing. As part of your license revocation, you're going to be required to install an Interlock device on your car and carry a modified driver's license for 1 year. This'll cost you $175 installation and another something for a monthly monitoring fee. This requirement also costs folks their jobs because most employers aren't going to let you install one of these bad boys on a fleet vehicle. Also, if you have a CDL, you're going to lose that.

The good news is that a lot of DUI cases are winnable for the defense. There are lots of places the officers can screw up and the equipment can be faulty. A smart/attentive jury is important to get, and most are.

Now don't get me wrong, driving drunk kills people. It's a scourge. The fact is though that the laws designed to prevent it don't do a very good job of that and have simply become a cash cow for counties and municipalities.

[pphilfran]

As usual, another good post from Mid...

[olevetonahill]

As usual, another good post from Mid...
I wont go that far, Cause him an I seem to clash on a lot of things
But on this he's pretty much spot on

Theres a dude down here who has had 14 DUIs that I know of. He keeps paying the fines and such, No jail time yet, but he keeps paying em the money, they love him

My neighbors wife just got her 3rd, No Money, guess what? 5 years

Yes the **** aint right at all , the 1st ole boy continues to drive, the Cops all know he has no license, they let him go till they need to write a ticket and so he gets another Under suspension and goes his merry way

This guy is Not rich but he does make dayum good money, Prolly coulda been rich if he wasnt giving 1/2 what he makes to the city and county

[pphilfran]

I don't always agree with him but for the most part I do...

[yermom]

drunk driving is way too common. they let people off too easy and it's inconvenient to avoid it at times so people look the other way.

still, MADD pisses me off.

mainly on the under 21 thing. you can't convince me that the higher drinking age doesn't cause more drunk driving

not that i don't agree with pretty much everything Mid says

[OU68]

The guy on a raft is a bit of a stretch - but a drunk in one of those big ski rigs - not so good.

[badger]

If you hated not being able to legally drink when you were ages 18-20, blame MADD. They were the ones that successfully got the federal funding for highways yanked from states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21.

Unless the raft had a motor, it shouldn't have been DUI. However, don't get too huffy at MADD over it. There was some river in Texas (Brazos I think?) that had outlawed certain types of alcoholic containers (like cans and bottles) because they were sick of people floating down the river and throwing their garbage along the sides. So, there's precedent for telling people to not float and drink beer at the same time, I guess.

[Midtowner]

In Oklahoma, the vehicle needs to have a motor, so this probably wouldn't fly here. I still wouldn't recommend floating the Mountain fork with a .313, but it ain't a DUI.

Alaska has a different statute.
http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/statutes/title28/chapter35/section030.htm

If it's a watercraft and you're operating it while inebriated, you're goin' to the pokey. It's a cryin' shame. Getting plastered and rafting down a river whilst blackout drunk is what this country was founded on.

[yermom]

in OK, can you not get a DUI on a bicycle?

a buddy in CO had a collision (in his car, while stopped) with a guy on a bike that was drunk and got a DUI or DWI

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Mi esposa está trabajando en un puesto de control de DUI esta noche, en caso de que la policía necesita un traductor español. La semana pasada trabajó registro de la dirección de los delincuentes sexuales que viven en la zona, pero ninguno de ellos necesita traducción de español.

[Midtowner]

in OK, can you not get a DUI on a bicycle?

I've never seen it tried. Our statute specifically says "motor vehicles." As to what is a motor? I'd say it's a combustion engine. I think it'd be pretty out there to suggest that the human being on top of the bicycle is actually a motor. Other states simply say "vehicles." That'd include horses, bicycles and red rider wagons in my book. How would it come out in court? No idea. I'd fight a ticket like that though.


a buddy in CO had a collision (in his car, while stopped) with a guy on a bike that was drunk and got a DUI or DWI

Your buddy got the DUI or the biker? I assume you meant the biker.
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/PDF/COLORADO%20DRUNK%20DRIVING%20LAWS.pdf
Colorado laws seem to discuss "a vehicle," so don't drink and let someone push you around in a grocery cart or you might be at risk for a DUI.

[Midtowner]

Mi esposa está trabajando en un puesto de control de DUI esta noche, en caso de que la policía necesita un traductor español. La semana pasada trabajó registro de la dirección de los delincuentes sexuales que viven en la zona, pero ninguno de ellos necesita traducción de español.

Checkpoints are pointless. All of the studies show that officers make more good contacts on normal patrols. Also, checkpoints discriminate against lower income folks. I've never seen a checkpoint in a nice part of town.

[olevetonahill]

Mi esposa está trabajando en un puesto de control de DUI esta noche, en caso de que la policía necesita un traductor español. La semana pasada trabajó registro de la dirección de los delincuentes sexuales que viven en la zona, pero ninguno de ellos necesita traducción de español.

Vì vậy, người vợ cũ của tôi, chỉ là một con chó.Như vậy, có

[yermom]

I've never seen it tried. Our statute specifically says "motor vehicles." As to what is a motor? I'd say it's a combustion engine. I think it'd be pretty out there to suggest that the human being on top of the bicycle is actually a motor. Other states simply say "vehicles." That'd include horses, bicycles and red rider wagons in my book. How would it come out in court? No idea. I'd fight a ticket like that though.



Your buddy got the DUI or the biker? I assume you meant the biker.
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/PDF/COLORADO%20DRUNK%20DRIVING%20LAWS.pdf
Colorado laws seem to discuss "a vehicle," so don't drink and let someone push you around in a grocery cart or you might be at risk for a DUI.

yes, the biker.

i've heard rumors of DUI possibilities in Norman on bikes, but no one i know of has been pulled over riding home from the bar

[olevetonahill]

yes, the biker.

i've heard rumors of DUI possibilities in Norman on bikes, but no one i know of has been pulled over riding home from the bar

If i were still a Cop, I'd LMFAO at a durnk on a Bike, Unless he was falling over in the street and risking getting himself Killed or causing a wreck

Then I'd prolly take him in on a PI charge

[jkjsooner]

Ridiculous. I've heard of people getting DUI's for riding bicycles as well.

The point is to protect others. If you are not operating a motorized vehicle the probability of seriously injuring others is slim - probably not much higher than if you are just walking. (Downhill skiing could be considered a motorized sport because a motorized device provides the potential energy needed to fly down the slopes - although I do love to have a slight buzz for a run or two after lunch.) If by chance you are doing something that could endanger others there are plenty of laws that could apply.


It's about as ridiculous as cops giving DUI's to people who are sleeping in their car. What kind of signal does that send to someone? Sleep in your car at the bar and have a high chance of getting a DUI or drive a mile home and have a much less chance of getting caught.


Another example, a few years ago in DC a guy had a glass of wine for dinner. Several hours later he got in his car to leave but forgot to put on his lights (easy to do when there are lots of street lights). He got stopped and admitted to the cop that he had had one drink. They did a breathalyzer and he registered .00%. They arrested him because the fact that he didn't have his lights on was all the suspicion they needed. He fought but the charges stuck. The city council was going to change the law because of that. I'm not sure if they did or not.

[jkjsooner]

in OK, can you not get a DUI on a bicycle?

a buddy in CO had a collision (in his car, while stopped) with a guy on a bike that was drunk and got a DUI or DWI

Beat me to it. Okay, so what message are you sending when you give a DUI for riding a bike? You're telling the guy he might as well drive, right? In fact, if they actually did enforce DUI on bicycles you would be more obvious when riding a bike than driving.

Just way too much morality policing sending bad messages.

[yermom]

Ridiculous. I've heard of people getting DUI's for riding bicycles as well.

The point is to protect others. If you are not operating a motorized vehicle the probability of seriously injuring others is slim - probably not much higher than if you are just walking. (Downhill skiing could be considered a motorized sport because a motorized device provides the potential energy needed to fly down the slopes - although I do love to have a slight buzz for a run or two after lunch.) If by chance you are doing something that could endanger others there are plenty of laws that could apply.


It's about as ridiculous as cops giving DUI's to people who are sleeping in their car. What kind of signal does that send to someone? Sleep in your car at the bar and have a high chance of getting a DUI or drive a mile home and have a much less chance of getting caught.


Another example, a few years ago in DC a guy had a glass of wine for dinner. Several hours later he got in his car to leave but forgot to put on his lights (easy to do when there are lots of street lights). He got stopped and admitted to the cop that he had had one drink. They did a breathalyzer and he registered .00%. They arrested him because the fact that he didn't have his lights on was all the suspicion they needed. He fought but the charges stuck. The city council was going to change the law because of that. I'm not sure if they did or not.

"Actual Physical Control" is what they call it, i believe. i used to see that in the police blotter in the paper a lot.

yeah, it's BS. my cousin and a friend got arrested for PI once as they were locking up their car after leaving the bar and waiting on a cab.

[jkjsooner]

Unless the raft had a motor, it shouldn't have been DUI. However, don't get too huffy at MADD over it. There was some river in Texas (Brazos I think?) that had outlawed certain types of alcoholic containers (like cans and bottles) because they were sick of people floating down the river and throwing their garbage along the sides. So, there's precedent for telling people to not float and drink beer at the same time, I guess.

Tubing down the river with a cooler tube of beer is a great American pastime. It's also a great way to meet cool people. If you've never done it I suggest trying it. I've never seen a problem with trash. People brought cans or plastic bottles and people were respectful of the privilege they've been given. (If someone overturned a stray can could get away but people did their very best to not let that happen.)

Anyway, if trash it a problem then surely there's a better way to deal with it than using DUI laws.

[jkjsooner]

Vì vậy, người vợ cũ của tôi, chỉ là một con chó.Như vậy, có

Is that Vietnamese? Impressive if you learned that while there.

[olevetonahill]

Is that Vietnamese? Impressive if you learned that while there.
Bout the only word of that that I learned there was "Cho'"
the rest I got from Google :calm:

[soonercruiser]

If you hated not being able to legally drink when you were ages 18-20, blame MADD. They were the ones that successfully got the federal funding for highways yanked from states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21.

Unless the raft had a motor, it shouldn't have been DUI. However, don't get too huffy at MADD over it. There was some river in Texas (Brazos I think?) that had outlawed certain types of alcoholic containers (like cans and bottles) because they were sick of people floating down the river and throwing their garbage along the sides. So, there's precedent for telling people to not float and drink beer at the same time, I guess.

That was the Guadalupe River, Badger.
Is is simply a beautiful place; and great fun to float with the kids and friends.
But, lots of folks did not pick their trash....and something had to be done.

Had some friends that had a house along the river down stream north of New Braunfels...and the banks were full of trash.

[soonercruiser]

Back when I was a Diwee!

[soonercruiser]

The guy on a raft is a bit of a stretch - but a drunk in one of those big ski rigs - not so good.

Not really a stretch if you've watched some of the Alaska Trooper and rescue TV shows.
If a guy that drunk falls in, odds are the state would expend lots of $$ and resources either rescuing him or recovering the body.
And, meanwhile the river being closed down to do it.
(gotta wait until the TV crew gets there...)
That's where it should come down to State's Rights. What we do in Oklahoma doesn't necessarily fit what they do in New York.

All we can hope for is some judge with a reasonable brain in his/her head to handle the case.
Not like the "sick" New England judges who set their fellow pedofiles free on probation.
:ambivalence:

Kinda reminds me of being a Commander in the military..
Yes, there are rules and regulations. But, if we were responsible, you still had to judge the intent and circumstances.
Problem is, some are too lazy, or just incometent to do so these days.

[jkjsooner]

Bout the only word of that that I learned there was "Cho'"
the rest I got from Google :calm:

Nice Googling skills.

[jkjsooner]

That was the Guadalupe River, Badger.
Is is simply a beautiful place; and great fun to float with the kids and friends.
But, lots of folks did not pick their trash....and something had to be done.

Had some friends that had a house along the river down stream north of New Braunfels...and the banks were full of trash.

Never tubed the Guadalupe because they had heavy rain when I was there and it was closed. We had to tube a little river in New Braunfels near the water park. Sucks that a few idiots ruined the fun and now you can't drink on the river.