So you've been pulled over for drunk driving...

[twobrewers]

1. I rarely touch an alcoholic beverage.

 

2. When I do, I never drive. Even one beer is too many in my opinion.

 

I am just curious what your rights are after you are pulled over for drinking and driving. Charles Barkley refused the breathalyzer. (Which I've heard many people do) Instead, Charles went to the hospital and had the blood test done instead. This obviously takes some time because they need to wait to get the results back. In the meantime, I believe he is issued a DUI citation. (Which if the test comes back negative, he can obviously fight)

 

Profootballtalk.com (Whose author is a lawyer), reported that Charles should have refused the blood work as well - as that is within his legal rights. I've heard that you can refuse the breathalyzer, but then you have to take a blood test.

 

I've also heard that if you think you are too drunk to drive - you should take the breathalyzer because it is sometimes wrong. If you think you are sober enough to drive - you should take the blood test to make sure you get an accurate reading.

 

Now, after reading at profootballtalk.com - being forced to take a blood test doesn't make much sense. The government can't really force you to stick a needle in your arm anymore than they can force you to breath into a breathalyzer.

 

So who is right - can you refuse both a breathalyzer and a blood test?

 

[And That]

It would be pretty hard to arrest anyone for drunk driving if you are not allowed to test them scientifically for drunkenness. I'm not a legal expert by any stretch, but I would guess the answer to why the police are allowed to legally extract blood from your body on suspicion of drunk driving has to do with the government's ability to control who is allowed to legally drive (i.e., through driver licensing and the criteria needed to get one). The government *allows* you to drive and may take away that privilege. Testing for drunkenness seems to be within their jurisdiction of potentially taking away the privilege to drive. If they weren't allowed to test objectively test for drunkenness, their authority over drunk driving wouldn't have a whole lot of teeth.

[homer]

I thought some states automatically suspended your license if you refused all the field tests. I might be wrong on that though.

[cwolf2012]

Most states will issue you a ticket for refusing to give a sample, which usually carries a 6 month suspension of license plus fine. I'm unsure what the fine is.

[milwaukeesportsfan]

I'm pretty sure that if you refuse the breathalyzer, you license is automatically suspended. I'm not sure for how long, but I think it's for a year. If you take the breathalyzer and are subsequently found guilty, I believe the suspension is only 6 months. That's why refusing to take a breathalyzer is such a stupid move. You immediately give yourself another six months of riding the bus.

[homer]

That's why refusing to take a breathalyzer is such a stupid move. You immediately give yourself another six months of riding the bus.

Well if you're hammered, 6 months on the bus means you got off easy.

[Dmiles23]

Yeah, I think in Wisconsin you get a ticket for refusing the breathalyzer. When I went to UWW, I always enjoyed watching the city court on tv on Thursdays... yeah, everyone else was out drinking and I was watching the city court. But that happened a couple times where a kid refused the breathalyzer and was automatically given a ticket. But man, if anyone is in Whitewater and is having a bad Thursday, I recommend tuning into that once. Some of the stuff the kids come up with is pure comedy!!

[blatzlight]

You should always refuse a breathalyzer so you give your lawyer a fighting chance in court. If you are found not guilty, you will not get any suspension of your license. You should always claim that you have an ear infection which is throwing your equalibrium off as your excuse for eratric driving. If you take the breathalyzer and fail you leave your lawyer no ammunition to use in the courtroom.

 

In Wisconsin, the State has the right to take your blood for a blood test.

[Patrick425]

What's the difference between OWI, DWI, DUI..etc? I know it's "Opperating while intoxicated", "Driving while intoxicated", "Driving under the influence".....but what causes a person to get issued one and not the other?

[And That]

Patrick, I believe the difference between all the acronyms you listed are just what local authorities call the offense. They are all essentially DWI.

[ttsather]

It would be pretty hard to arrest anyone for drunk driving if you are not allowed to test them scientifically for drunkenness. I'm not a legal expert by any stretch, but I would guess the answer to why the police are allowed to legally extract blood from your body on suspicion of drunk driving has to do with the government's ability to control who is allowed to legally drive (i.e., through driver licensing and the criteria needed to get one). The government *allows* you to drive and may take away that privilege. Testing for drunkenness seems to be within their jurisdiction of potentially taking away the privilege to drive. If they weren't allowed to test objectively test for drunkenness, their authority over drunk driving wouldn't have a whole lot of teeth.

Yep, you've pretty much nailed the rationale behind Wisconsin's Implied Consent Laws (more info here). When you accept your license, you have consented to the test(s) and preemtively agreed to the consequences of your potential refusial. It's treated as a contract and/or breach thereof, essentially.

 

There are plenty of requirements on the testing, so it'd be hard for me to say if (given a lot of resolve to try to get a charge tossed) you'd be better off taking the tests and challenging them or refusing and then challenging the consent itself.

 

A person's first offense is civil, which is (I'm speculating here) likely how potential conflicts to representation and self-incrimination rights are resolved. After that, I'm not sure how the system functions other than the offenses do become criminal.

[Minigoon]

What's the difference between OWI, DWI, DUI..etc? I know it's "Opperating while intoxicated", "Driving while intoxicated", "Driving under the influence".....but what causes a person to get issued one and not the other?

DUI is the term for driving under the influence which includes being high. I'm not sure about the difference between the other 2. It might have to do with whether or not the person was observed driving or if they were found in a ditch behind the wheel.

[sgtcluels]

I thought refusing to take a breathalyzer meant you automatically pleaded guilty to a dui. Guess we need a lawyer.

[PaulRigdon]

take a cab. its cheaper than a dui

[statman0007]

Actually, I believe the breathalyzer is only used to determine if they are going to take you in for a blood test. According to one of my professors, breathalyzer evidence can't be used in court because they are not always cleaned properly in between uses which makes the accuracy of the readings questionable. It's the blood test that is considered the conclusive evidence. They have calculations to determine what your blood alcohol level would have been at the time the car was pulled over, so it's not like Barkley was able to "sober up" while they took him to the station. I believe that my professor said that the case is thrown out if the breathalyzer is brought up by the prosecuting attorney. If the defendant brings up the breathalyzer, it's fair game for the prosecution to talk about the breathalyzer test.

 

That said, I think your approach twobrewers is the best one. People aren't going to be able to "beat the system". The only way to stay out of trouble and more importantly not hurt anyone is to just not drive after drinking.

[bigredrobbo]

What I find most interesting in Wisconsin is that we sometimes expend as much energy on the legalities, and loopholes to drunk driving rather than issuing a blanket condemnation of what is a criminal act, after all.

[Dmiles23]

According to one of my professors, breathalyzer evidence can't be used in court because they are not always cleaned properly in between uses which makes the accuracy of the readings questionable.

This is definitely not true. From the court hearings I watched, the judge actually used what the person blew as to the size of the fine they received.

[patrickgpe]

 

What's the difference between OWI, DWI, DUI..etc? I know it's "Opperating while intoxicated", "Driving while intoxicated", "Driving under the influence".....but what causes a person to get issued one and not the other?

 

my friends and i had this discussion while driving to watertown to celebrate new years. It is possible to get a DUI and not be of the legal limit. If you blow, say a 0.04 but fail a field sobriety test you get a DUI. This apparently is just a traffic ticket. Driving over the legal limit results in a DWI. I know my sister got pulled over last year and got a DUI and DWI.

 

 

Not to be preachy either because I am not without sin and I know i have shared this story before on this forumn, but while i was 21 I was driving home from water street now knowing i was over the legal limit and got pulled over for speeding, but was not asked if i was drinking or anything. Ever since then I will not get behind a wheel after drinking at all. That definitely scared me straight on that one.

[AdvantageSchneider]

What I find most interesting in Wisconsin is that we sometimes expend as much energy on the legalities, and loopholes to drunk driving rather than issuing a blanket condemnation of what is a criminal act, after all.

Technically the first OUI offense is not a criminal act.

 

• First offense OWI is a forfeiture violation subject to a fine of $150 to $300, plus an OWI surcharge of $365, and license revocation from six to nine months, except for first offense OWI with an AC of 0.08 or more, but less than 0.10, there is no surcharge or other additional fees.
• Second offense is a misdemeanor offense with a fine range of $350 to $1,100 plus the $365 surcharge, jail from five days to six months, and mandatory license revocation from 12 to 18 months.

You obviously have not been reading the jounral sentinel's series, "Let's Ban Drinking in Wisconsin".

[sheetswannabe]

If you get pulled over in Wisconsin for a DUI be happy, if youre in any other state you are in deep. Wisconsin is the most laid back state for drinking and driving. In my Criminal Justice classes the books always point out how the first OWI is not a criminal offense. Now Germany on the other hand....

[nodakfan17]

While I have no legal basis for my opinion, I have always heard that if you are pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving, you should refuse a breathalyzer but say that you are willing to comply with a blood test. A good friend of mine was pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving two years ago. He knew that he was close to the legal limit, but claimed that his poor driving was caused by his car windows, which he failed to scrape off properly because he was only traveling a short distance. He was asked to take a breathalyzer test, but politely declined in favor of a blood test. At this point the officer let him go with a warning. My guess is that the time and energy of the officer were better spent taking someone off the streets who was an obvious hazard to others. My friend got the message, though- loud and clear.

[SeriesFinale]

At risk of sounding like a MP parking lot soak, stuff like this is a big reason I like living in cities with large public transportation systems and cab fleets

[mothershipconnection]

At risk of sounding like a MP parking lot soak, stuff like this is a big reason I like living in cities with large public transportation systems and cab fleets

 

No doubt. I hate that Texas is obsessed with it's trucks, and public transportation is nil. Short of a limited number of very expensive cab companies that you have to call and wait for (they don't hang out downtown waiting for a fare), you have no way of getting home without driving. If it weren't for my GF being a very light social drinker, I couldn't get hammered unless I stayed at home. Even back in Eau Claire we had a couple cab companies that could get you home for under 10 bucks. You could go out and take a cab home every Friday and Saturday for a year for less than $1000. With us typically splitting it 3-4 ways, even from an emotionless financial standpoint, there was no reason to risk driving.

[bigredrobbo]

What I find most interesting in Wisconsin is that we sometimes expend as much energy on the legalities, and loopholes to drunk driving rather than issuing a blanket condemnation of what is a criminal act, after all.

You obviously have not been reading the jounral sentinel's series, "Let's Ban Drinking in Wisconsin".

Oh, I've been reading it - I just don't think that those most likely to drink and drive have.

 

The number of people I know of who drove from bar to bar on New Year's Eve would seem to back that up too.

[paul253]

I thought some states automatically suspended your license if you refused all the field tests. I might be wrong on that though

 

I know that, at least in Milwaukee, once you've been arrested you are issued 2 citations and your license is automatically suspended. If you refuse to give the breathalyzer when you're at jail, then instead of suspending your license, they revoke it. I'm not sure what the difference is, but I know getting a license back from being revoked is much harder. I think with suspension once you pay your fines its no longer suspended, but when revoked you have to wait until you're eligible to be reinstated.

 

I also know in Milwaukee that they don't take blood until I believe the 3rd offense. I also had a friend who worked for Waukesha County and he said they took blood all the time, so i think what determines whether they take blood or breath is department policy.