Temporary_User

I don't think of this offense as a very bad one, and think I was treated unfairly and am having to deal with a rather hash penalty for it.

When I was younger (17) I was at a party. It was mainly just a large gathering, around 20 kids just hanging out. The cops ended up showing up at 11:30, so a friend and I headed out.
I had four beers that night, and since the cops were probabley around I had my friend drive my car to his place just to be careful. He couldn't drive my car that well (standard) so about half-way I decide I better drive. The party to his house wasnt that far, and his house was 5 blocks from mine.
So after I drop him off, I'm about 2 blocks from home and a cop pulls me over. I was going just over 30 in a 25mph. He askes if I had been drinking and I was honest and told him 4. I still had the 2 in my trunk. I gave a breathalizer, and it read .04 (half the adult limit). Since I was under age, the limit is only .02. So I get a DUI, with probabtion and a bunch of fines. I also get a suspended license for 3months, and high risk insurance after that.
It has been 3 years now, I'm 20 now and just recently got my liscense back (couldnt afford it before). My insurance is still high risk and even for basic insurance is costing me an arm and a leg.

As stated I believe this is a bit much for the crime I did. I just kind of want to know what others think about my mind of it, and want their opinions.

That was when I was living in the states, and I am now living in Canada going to school. So I now can drink legally, but If I'm going out for the night to a bar I'll take a cab. If I do go to a restaurant for dinner, i'll have few drinks with the food, and drive home.

cj2112

You were convicted of a DUI, you are considered a higher risk to the insurance companies, so naturally they're going to charge you more. You broke the law, plain and simple. Now your paying for that choice.

bendsley

I agree with cj2112. The insurance companies are going to do everything to make sure they don't get screwed. You made a bad decision, it sucks and I know it, but you have to live with the consequences.

It will get better over time. I turn 25 at the end of this year and my insurance should go down quite a bit. I can't wait.

__________________
"You hear the one about the fella who died, went to the pearly gates? St. Peter let him in. Sees a guy in a suit making a closing argument. Says, "Who's that?" St. Peter says, "Oh, that's God. Thinks he's Denny Crane."

AVoiceOfReason

You're heading for another one. I've defended a BUNCH of them with this scenerio. A "few" drinks before driving is going to get you in trouble, I fear.

As for the fact situation, I have no tolerance for DWIs, even though I defend them as an attorney, because I drive on the same streets they do. That said, I find it harsh that checking .04, even though a minor, has caused the same problem that checking .14 would. There should be some element of proportionality here, but with the insurance companies, there isn't.

__________________
AVOR

A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

DEI37

I cant' remember which drinking & driving offense it is, but here in Wisconsin, they stay on your record for like 55 years. Fine by me. Drinking and driving is the dumbest thing you can do in a car.

__________________
Generally speaking, if you were to get what you really deserve, you might be unpleasantly surprised.

Marvelous Marv

It looks like the penalty wasn't overly severe, if you still drive after drinking.

Jocose

After my DUI when I was 18 (I am now 26) my Insurance is still insane, though it has come down quite a bit. Some mistakes you just have to keep on paying for for a while. *shrugs* It's good for you.

IC3

If i had my way, Anybody caught drinking & driving would lose their license..Forever. I think sometimes people forget that driving is a privelege not a right.

You wanna drink & drive..Go ahead, But you get caught..Your gonna be walkin, Biking, Running..Whatever, But you wouldn't be driving.

I have no sympathy for anybody who drinks and drives.

I'm not saying you were drunk, But, Say you hit a pedestrian. The cops come, smell alcohol on you..Give you a breathalizer and you blow over..You'd be in alot more shit than what you think you are now.

My stepfather lost his license for drinking and driving, The cop told him that he knew he wasn't drunk but he was over the limit so his hands were tied, He had to arrest him. That was..6 years ago.

My stepfather couldn't afford the fine, So, He didn't pay it. He worked an hours drive from home, So he still drove to work and back..That was it. He got pulled over 3 times.

When he finally went to court to be served his punishment, He hadn't payed any of his fines and was caught driving three times with no insurance and no license. He served 4 weekends in a correctional facility and still owes like 7 thousand dollars in fines.

Most of that is because of his stupidity in not paying the initial fine that he recieved, But, If he hadn't of been drinking and driving..He wouldn't of had to go through any of that shit.

So..IMO, I don't think what you got is harsh at all.

Two of my friends were killed by a drunk driver, Because some asshole who probably thought he was ok to drive..couldn't. What really tore me up inside was that, these two friends..They were together for about 5 years happily and walking home from a movie one night and that drunk fuck ran a redlight, J was killed instantly with his brains all over the road and Sarah was on life support and wasn't expected to make it. Doctors said that if she did make it..She'd be brain dead. They were burried side by side.

Is it really worth it..Drinking & Driving?

__________________
"To win any battle, you must fight as if you were already dead" -Musashi

Jocose

I got arrested for a DUI and a DWI within a very short period of time. Best thing to ever happen to me at 18. Really woke me up and made me realize that I couldn't keep doing stupid things like that. I am a firm believer in second chances, but I think that punishment for DUI's and the like should be much more harsh in the future. It is simply too reckless.

shakran

My thoughts exactly. My wife and I have a simple policy. One of us drinks when we're out unless we're gonna be there for a LONG time. Otherwise, there's always one person who hasn't had any booze that can drive home. When you get right down to it, a coke washes the food down just as well as a beer. If you absolutely MUST have the beer, even at the risk of driving while not at 100% or at the risk of getting another DUI, then you might just have a drinking problem.

IMO the .08 is a rather high limit. Driving is serious stuff that requires concentration. The number of people crashing their cars while cold sober backs me up on that. ANY impairment to your judgement or reaction time should not be tolerated.

Meier_Link

I think that if you're caught driving and your absolutely fucked up out of your gourd you should get harsh punishment. What you did was not that situation. The cop was a grade a cocksucker, and he knew he'd be fucking you up for years.. furthermore he knew you weren't fucked up. It's just an example of the government abusing the power that we give it to govern us...

I think that rather than use a breathalizer (which are proven to be inaccurate in the measure of intoxication) we should use some kind of test of reflex and reaction time... This would not only save the sober and punish the drunk, but would also punish those too slow/stupid/stoned/whatever to be driving as well.

Redlemon

Did anyone here see that Mythbusters episode when they were trying to beat the Brethalyzer machine? I was stunned to see how much they had to drink before they reached 0.08. My sympathy level for people caught DWI dropped from "almost none" to "absolutely none" after seeing that. You know that you are drinking. Don't drive.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

politicophile

An authorized enforcer of the law chooses to enforce the law as it is written, and you think this is an example of governmental abuse of power? Wow, that's all I have to say.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

f6twister

You apparently aren't up to date on current testing procedures. In addition to the old ones like the one leg stand, nose touch and walking the line, there is an additional test which focusus entirely on your eyes. It's called the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test (or HGN). I located an article on it but only posted a partial quote from an article because the entire thing is long. You can find the entire story here.

__________________
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day. Calvin

AVoiceOfReason

As one that has prosecuted, defended and even judged DWI cases, I can tell you that when an HGN test is properly administered, it is FAIRLY reliable. The trouble comes in with the ability of the officer (and the bias--the movement of the eye is sometimes a subjective call) and the fact that some completely stone sober people will exhibit the same jerking movement. Many DWI arrests are now videotaped, and we can see how the driver did on the tests of manual dexterity and mobility, but that one test is not subject to review; it's the officer's word and that's it--the arrestee can't say "my eyes did NOT jerk."

__________________
AVOR

A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

Jinn

I initially wrote a very long reply to this thread, but it was far too long and inflammatory; so I'm going to try to be concise.

There are legitimate reasons for driving under the influence; times when lives could be saved, wrongs could be righted, etc.. and there is not time to "sober up." I realize that the ratio of good reasons to bad reasons is nearly 0, but condemning it completely is unwillingness to accept that there are always exceptions to a rule. I don't desire to ruffle feathers with this argument, just point out that anyone saying that "driving drunk is the worst thing evar!!!" might not have considered the possibility that they could be drunk, yet possess knowledge or resources that could keep many other people from dying. In this situation, I truly wonder how many condemning the behavior would become a hypocrite, and themselves drive drunk.

Alcohol does not (in any way-shape-or-form) effect every person identically. A person over the age of 80 (on average) has the same reaction time (on average) as a DWAI driver. I've tested my own person reaction time, and it is nearly 1/3 of the "average" alert driver. By this logic, I could drink approx. 4 beers (48 ounces at 5.0%) before my reaction time was lowered to the 1-2s range cited in my drivers training manual for the average driver. The chart was an attempt to dissaude would-be drunk drivers by showing the difference between an average driver and an average drunk driver. However, four beers would put me beyond the legal limit, yet I would still perform technical maneuvers with the same speed and efficiency as a "normal" driver if I was not otherwise affected (sleep deprivation, other drugs).

I do respect the law, and I do believe in enforcing the "Spirit" of the law. I think that an obviously intoxicated driver UNDER .008 should be arrested, but a coherent and safe driver above the limit should not necessarily. There are always exceptions to the rule. However, do not take this to mean that the current system should be abolished. I do not wish there to be any more drunk drivers, and I do not think that these reasons could justify removing the current laws. They're imperfect, but laws are put in place to protect the MAJORITY. There are certainly people whom the .08 rule does not apply to, but I unfortunately don't believe there is a more effective way to judge reaction time/driving ability than a current Intoxilyser/Breathalyzer.

To the OP: the above posters got it -- it sucks, the man isnt keeping you down, you were the victim of an unfortunate circumstance but it's already happened and there's nothing you can do about it--- EXCEPT LEARN FROM IT. Take whatever lesson you may.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

timalkin

If you thought that you' could ever be in a position to "save the world," why would you ever drink at all? Drinking is not necessary for your body to function correctly. It is a recreational drug. When people willingly ingest this drug and attempt to operate machinery that is as deadly as any projectile fired from a gun, I tend to have just a little problem with their selfishness.

Original poster: You got what you deserved. Be thankful that nobody died from your choices. Learn from your mistake.

__________________
Trinity: "What do you need?"

Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns."

-The Matrix

Grasshopper Green

That's the way insurance works. Hubby was involved in a single car accident due to snow several years ago, and our premium went through the roof for two years. Having high premiums due to drinking and driving...well, that's a choice you made and have to live with. I really can't feel pity for people who drink and drive.

__________________
"They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king"

Formerly Medusa

thingstodo

I'm not sure where you saw that breathalizers are not acurate. I'm sure there are some that haven't been certified but most are calibrated and certified. Otherwise, they can't be used in court. Also, you can always request a blood test.

To me it doesn't matter if you're out of your gourd or just over the legal linit - you're over, end of story. I've seen too much evidence of people that were just over the limit and how well they think they can drive. Most do much worse they they think.

The cop probably had more reasons to pull you over than going 5 miles over the limit. You'll never know what caught his attention, but they are trained to look for things.

I could go on. The point is, just obey the drinking laws. They are there to protect you and everyone else.

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

meembo

My feeling in general is that people who drink have impaired judgement -- that means that they think they can judge how impaired they are, but they are too impaired to make that decision correctly, and therefore overestimate their capabilities. Blood alcohol levels are fair ways to judge impairment in the general population, and you're busted, so TS.

I have two family members hit by drunk drivers. Neither one of those teeneagers who hit them believed they were impaired. Why even take the risk of being one of those pathetic fuck-ups?

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

Amano

I never saw that episode, but I'm curious, how long did they wait after they downed their drinks to try the Brethalyzer machine? It takes time for your body to absorb any alcohol you consume into your blood stream, and then come back out in your breath. The Breathalyzer isn't measuring alcohol that's "left over" in your mouth/tongue, etc when you drink, but rather it's measuring alcohol that comes out of your pores/bloodstream in your mouth.

So, if you drink, say 5 drinks all within 5 minutes, then rinse your mouth out with water and take a Breathalyzer test, you'll show next to nothing in the test. Wait 30 minutes, though, then you'll be sky high.

I am by no means sympathizing with those with DWI's, or saying that the BAC limit is unnecssarily lenient, but I just absolutely can't stand bad science used to "prove" a point. Not saying that what Mythbusters did was bad science, but the possibility definitely exists with a show like that, IMHO.

Redlemon

Timeframes are hard to judge with the editing, but it was being done under police supervision, so it is likely that they were waiting sufficient time between drinks.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Jinn

It actually has nothing to do with your pores or mouth. Even with two shots of vodka sitting in your mouth, if you can blow deeply from your lungs you'll have a 0.00 BAC (+/- 0.005).

http://science.howstuffworks.com/breathalyzer.htm

EDIT: a bit offtopic, but I was just thinking -- how fun would it have been to be the "tester" for the first "Breathalyzers" ?

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Redlemon

It would have sucked; I don't want someone sticking a needle in my arm when I'm drunk...

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Jinn

booo.. needles. didn't think of that.

Touche.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

thingstodo

Yeah, it's all actually very good science. 80% of what you drink is cleaned from your body through your lungs. The rest is from sweat and urine. Plus, your body absorbs it pretty easy right in the stomache as it isn't really digested. As a result, it can show up very quickly!

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

vautrain

In this case, I think the offense was actually an illegal consumption, not DUI. I don't agree with laws that lower the DUI limit for underage drinkers, it makes no sense to me. Charge them with illegal consumption (and give the penalty some *real* teeth), but don't give them a DUI for blowing a .04, it's a crime they didn't commit.

In short, Temporary_User made a bad choice, that exposed him to getting screwed by an unjust law. I feel bad for him, but that's how life is, sometimes.

As an aside, while I have no sympathy for those who really *do* commit the crime of DUI, I wonder really how many deaths are caused by tired drivers, or drivers impaired by OTC or prescription meds. You hardly ever hear about these, because they are usually just called "accidents", whereas, a DUI is a crime. I think these cases are crimes, every bit as much as DUI.

I have driven when extremely tired before, and it's no fun. I felt my reaction time and judgement were impaired as much as if I had several drinks. There is quite a bit of scientific evidence behind this, as well. But, there is very little attention given this issue by media or government.

Marvelous Marv

Huh? The liver doesn't enter into the process?

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

analog

Agreed, 100%.

With any due respect, are you out of your fucking mind? He blew over the legal limit for a minor- a minor who isn't supposed to be drinking AT ALL. In many states, you can be arrested for blowing positive as a minor. You're not supposed to be drinking if you're a minor ANYWAY, and if you are driving and blow over the limit, you have broken a law. You face the penalties of your stupid, stupid actions. YOU are a Grade-A cocksucker if you believe the police are abusing power by handing out fines and penalties because YOU broke the law.

1. They do. Tests for intoxication also usually include the HGN test, (mentioned earlier) among others, that are also based on the science of the effects of alcohol on the human body. These are not always necessary, as in the case where a person (like the original poster) admits to consuming alcohol. These are more often administered in cases where people claim to be sober or claim to not have consumed alcohol.

2. If you're going to make the statement that breathalizers are "proven to be inaccurate in the measure of intoxication", and don't include SOME form of viable documentation to support that theory, I'm left only with the option of calling bullshit on your theory, and moving on as though you'd said nothing at all.

f6twister

Actually, if you read the initial post, this was a crime that he committed. Temporary_User stated himself: He was driving and blew a .04. That makes it a crime based on the enacted laws of that area. Why should a minor driving under the influence of alcohol be held any less accountable than an adult? Are the effects of the alcohol any different? Are the injuries or death in a resulting accident any less severe? They don't need to change the laws to have the law of illegal consumption with "real teeth". From the sound of things, the penalties already in place have plenty of teeth.

Why doesn't having a lower level for minors make sense to you? You are talking about an age group that should not have any experience with alcohol. Having no experience would make them a higher risk to drive since their bodies are not used to the effects of alcohol. If you disagree with laws that lower the legal limt for underage drinkers, do you also disagree with laws the lower the legal limit for repeat offenders?

The penalties being suffered by Temporary_User are not unique. They apply to everyone who is arrested for a DUI.

__________________
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day. Calvin

f6twister

This is a perfect example of why a teenage drunk driver should held just as accountable as an adult:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/aug05/351143.asp

__________________
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day. Calvin

Jinn

I disagree completely.. there's DUI and there's MIP. Driving Under the Influence should be .08 regardless of age. If you're too drunk to drive, you're too drunk to drive. If the state says that .08 is too much for its citizens, then ALL citizens should be held to this standard. If a minor is driving with .04, he is not guilty of DUI, but MIP or MIC.. (Minor in Possession/Consumption). The fact that he is driving should have absolutely nothing to do with it, UNLESS he's over the DUI limit.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

analog

DUI as an adult carries with it one set of rules and BAC tolerance, DUI as a minor has a different BAC tolerance because, as a minor, you're not supposed to be drinking at all anyway. You can't claim a bias just because you're getting nailed for two infractions at once. Also, do you honestly think that the difference between .02 and .08 can't mean the difference between sober and drunk in a minor? It can in adults, it certainly can in minors. Even if you don't blow over .08, you can still be proven intoxicated and given a DUI, it's not just about the BAC you blow. He said he was drinking, he blew over the legal limit for a minor, he faces the penalties for breaking the law. Starting a petition about a law you feel is "unfair" is one thing- but to wait until you've broken it to start complaining about it? No sympathy for drunk drivers.

AVoiceOfReason

I don't defend minor drinking, but I'd be a liar if I said I didn't do it, and avoiding the obvious if I denied it happened now. I've long believed that the minor DWI laws in Arkansas where I practice are too tough--there isn't enough discretion given to the judge here in handling the .02 as opposed to the .12 Minor DWI. The former doesn't need the full brunt of the law imposed on it; the minor was irresponsible in drinking, not in operating a vehicle.

__________________
AVOR

A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

vautrain

They should not be held *less* accountable, but they should not be held *more* accountable, either. That was my point. If they blow a .08, give them a DUI *and* an illegal consumption, but don't give them a DUI for blowing a .02 or a .04.

By this reasoning, alcoholics over the age of 21 should have a *higher* BAC limit for DUI, since they would be more "used to" the effects of alcohol than a casual drinker. I think your assertion is baseless.

vautrain

I totally agree, they should be held just as accountable as adults, but not more accountable.

As I said, I feel illegal consumption would have been perfectly appropriate in this case. Give them jail time at county or juvenile lockup, depending upon age. Give them $10,000 in fines. Take their car (yep, even if it's daddy's car).

But, if they don't blow a .08, don't give them a DUI.

Master_Shake

That's a lot of money.

The new law here in Pennsylvania isn't DUI or DWI anymore: Now it's DAI, Driving After Imbibing. It's no longer illegal to have a high BAC while you are driving, rather, it is now illegal to have a high BAC within two hours of your last instance of driving.

I think there's a lot of political nonsense that gets tied up with drinking/driving cases. Sure, nobody wants drunks on the roads but the expansion of checkpoints and loosening standards for the police to pull people over just infringes a little more on everybody's freedoms.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

texxasco

I'd say you were pretty damn lucky nobody got hurt, you or anybody else. I know plenty of people who have been the victim of a drunk driver, and a few who were hit by someone who didn't think they were "drunk". I was even hit by a man in south Houston who was both under the influence, and had no insurance, and in my opinion probably couldn't drive better even if he WAS sober. That wreck cost me weeks of doing without my truck, driving a crappy rental, a $250 insurance deductible, and a lot of aggravation. Not to mention my once brand new truck was now no longer "new". I have since recovered the $250 from the SOB who hit me, but I didn't get it by going to court. I used alternate, still legal, methods to recover my money from him. Still though it is a sore subject for me, and from reading many other posts in this thread, it is for others as well.
The best thing you could do for yourself is learn from your experience and stop drinking and driving, period. It doesn't appear as though you have learned your lesson though....maybe the high insurance premiums will eventually convince you...because quiet frankly until you figure it out, you truly are a high risk driver. Until you figure out how to not drink and drive, possibly you might find a little religion and seek a little assistance from a higher power, and pray you don't hurt anybody in the mean time.
I work in corrections and can't tell you how many convicts I have seen over the years that have been locked up because of a DWI that involved loss of life and/or property damage. It's sad because many people JUST DON'T GET IT. I am no fan of insurance companies, nor the rates that they set. But, in your case I'd say they were justified.

__________________
...A Bad Day of Fishing is Better Than a Great Day at Work!

thingstodo

Well yes, the liver does actually metabolize alcohol, but it is excreted from your body via breathing, sweat and urine. You can also test with a blood sample but then you have those nasty needles.

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

Anexkahn

I agree with the premise that a breathalizer is not a valid measure of intoxication, but i do believe it is an accurate measurement tool of alcohol consumption. For example, i've seen people who are perfectly functional in divided attention tests, but will still blow a .10 or higher, and i'm pretty sure that personally, i'd be impared with as low as a .04 BAC.

In Oregon, and i'd venture a guess that many other states, there are actually two elements in a DUII arrrest. First the criminal side for the act of driving while intoxicated, and second the civil license suspenditure.

For the first, regardless of BAC, the officer must prove imparement. For the second part, the BAC is the deciding line.

I've personally seen cases where a criminal dui charge stuck, even when the BAC was under .08. Their license, however, was not suspended as part of the process because they wern't over the legal limit as it pertains to the civil suspenditure.

A double standard for minors (trace+) and adults (.08BAC) in this situation makes complete sense, since minors are not supposed to be drinking at all, their license is subject to suspenditure at any amount. Adults, however, should not be drinking to excess, and .08 is a good measure of that. But for the actual DUII Charge, imparement must be proven for both a minor and adult, and the measure of imparement is the same for adult and minor.

There is no difference between minor and adult when making the initial arrest, both cases must show imparement. The actual BAC only influences the civil license suspenditure and not the criminal portion of the arrest.

I've personally had stops where i knew the driver would blow over a .08, but i still didn't make the arrest because i could not articulate the imparement -- they were just functional drunks.