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

[blatzlight]

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.

Milwaukee County will take blood first time if needed. A friend of mine is a prosecutor and we actually were discussing this at dinner the other night.

[hauser42]

WI on a third offense I believe they are required to take a blood sample.

[BREWCREW5]

I have a lot of experience in OWI cases. I'm not going to say why.

 

I can tell you that most of what is being said here is not accurate so take it with a grain of salt.

[1992casey]

I can tell you that most of what is being said here is not accurate so take it with a grain of salt.

 

What's right and what's wrong?

[BREWCREW5]

What's right and what's wrong?

The right would be the ones who have stated people should simply not drink and drive!

 

There is a misunderstanding mostly with the testing of how OWI's are processed. People should understand that Wisconsin lets officers do certain things (like doing forced blood draws on the first and subsequent offense OWI's). Many times, deparment policy says how officers will do the chemical testing.

 

People need to understand what Implied Consent is.

 

Im not going to explain everything about OWI because it is a very long and difficult to understand process. People should understand though that it is a VERY big problem in Wisconsin. I give praise to the Journal Sentinal for their "wasted in wisconsin" section.

[TracyThom]

As BrewCrew5 said, there is a lot of bad information here.

 

-As far as OWI, DUI, DWI, etc., the verbage all depends on the state. In Wisconsin, the state statute is 346.63(1)(a). The full description of the statute reads: Operating while under the influence of an intoxicant, controlled substance, or other drug. Wisconsin uses the word Operating instead of Driving because you can be charged with OWI if you are seated behind the wheel of a vehicle that is running. Technically you are not driving, but you have the ability to operate the vehicle.

 

-People are confusing the terms Breathalyzer, PBT, and Intoximeter. The phrase Breathalyzer usually refers to the PBT, or preliminary breath test. This is the handheld machine that the officer usually has with him in his squad. The Intoximeter is the machine at the police department/Sheriff's Department/jail.

 

Officers cannot base their arrest solely on the results of the PBT. PBTs can only be used to confirm their suspicions. For instance, if someone does horrible on their field sobriety tests, yet only blows a .02 on the PBT, the officer may then believe that the driver might have drugs in their system. An individual does have the right to refuse a PBT. However, the officer should have already made up his mind to arrest or not arrest before requesting the PBT anyway. The exception is Boating While Intoxicated. A person must submit to PBT if stopped for BWI.

 

-As far as field sobriety tests, a person may refuse to do them. However, if a person refuses field sobriety tests, the courts have stated that the person is then considered to have failed them. Based on driving behavior, odor of intoxicants, and refused field sobriety, it's then handcuffs time.

 

-Department policy decides whether the officer requests a breath, blood, or urine sample. For instance, if Rhinelander PD's policy states that breath is the primary test for 1st offense OWI, the person must submit to a breath test. They cannot say, "I won't do a breath test, but I will submit to a blood test." That would be considered a refusal. HOWEVER, if they submit to the breath test, the arrested person can then request an alternate test. So, if they give the breath sample, they can then request a blood sample as well.

 

-If a person refuses the test, their license is automatically revoked for 9 months. I'm not 100% certain about this, but I have been told that people who refuse breath tests cannot get occupational licenses. If someone submits to the test and their sample is above the legal limit, their license is then suspended for 6 months. They are then issued a second citation (State Statute 346.63(1)(b) ) Operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration or restricted drug presence.

 

-As far as refusals go, some departments will force blood draws on 1st offense OWI. All departments I know will force on 3rd+ offense. So if you refuse, you are subject to the refusal penalties, AND the officer will hold you down and take the blood anyway. Sucks to be you.

 

-As far as the difference between suspension and revocation, operating after suspension is a civil forfeiture. Operating after revocation (when the reason for revocation is OWI related) is a misdemeanor. Many departments take people to jail on operating after revocation offenses.

 

Any more questions, fire away.

 

EDIT: Not sure why my post showed up looking so strange. Sorry.

 

 

(edit: fixed post strangeness --1992)

[paul253]

Milwaukee County will take blood first time if needed. A friend of mine is a prosecutor and we actually were discussing this at dinner the other night.

 

Im sorry, I meant the city, not the county. The city does blood draws on 3rd and subsequent offenses and any owi that causes injury.

 

Thom....thats some very good information, thanks.

[blatzlight]

They are all downtown. Same place. They can and will draw on the first if deemed necessary.

[paul253]

They are all downtown but they are not the same place. The city cops take offenders to the city jail, and the county cops take the offenders to the county jail ,which is like a block or two away. The people at the city jail end up being taken to the county jail eventually, but not before getting booked at the city jail first. I have a lot of friends who are city cops and they say they don't take blood until the 3rd and subsequent offense or any OWI accident which causes injury. I'm sure they can, like Thom says, but i think their department policy dictates they do it that way.

[AdvantageSchneider]

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

I've been reading it too, and it's a shame so many trees had to die and they've yet to really prove WI has a larger drunk driving problem than any other place. The emotional evidence they use is about the weakest form of argument you could make.

 

If you really wanted to save lives they should be on a crusade to get rid smoking in public places. Smoking causes far more deaths a year in Wisconsin than drunk driving does.

 

 

(edit: long nested quote --1992)

[logan82]

My guess as to why blood tests are only done for a 3rd+ offense is that blood tests are expensive(relative to other tests). When there is an injury at my workplace that requires a doctor or emergency room visit, they tell us to only have the person do a urine test because blood tests cost more.

[BREWCREW5]

I've been reading it too, and it's a shame so many trees had to die and they've yet to really prove WI has a larger drunk driving problem than any other place. The emotional evidence they use is about the weakest form of argument you could make.

According to MADD, Wisconsin is the worst in the country bro.

[Thurston Fluff]

I don't know about all the states legalities but when the state's Attorney General was arrested for OWI, after an accident no less, she refused to take a breathalyzer. If the state's top prosecutor thinks that's the best option I guess I'd take that route and let the lawyers work it out. If nothing else you can threaten to go to court and have a jury hear your case. The prosecution may just allow you to plea out to avoid a costly trial.

Either way it's academic to me since, like most of us here, I chose not to drink and drive.

[Chio151]

I am shocked to this day that there are (many) people I know who see no issue with driving 'a little' drunk. Understand this: it will ruin your life.

 

Until we find a way to control the inbred opinion that people can assess their own sobriety level and driving ability, we will not make any progress. In the meantime, make some mandatory minimums on 2nd and 3rd offenses. I'm sick and tired of all these sleazy lawyers advertising how they can work the system to ensure your are available to kill someone next time.

[TracyThom]

I don't know about all the states legalities but when the state's Attorney General was arrested for OWI, after an accident no less, she refused to take a breathalyzer. If the state's top prosecutor thinks that's the best option I guess I'd take that route and let the lawyers work it out. If nothing else you can threaten to go to court and have a jury hear your case. The prosecution may just allow you to plea out to avoid a costly trial.

Either way it's academic to me since, like most of us here, I chose not to drink and drive.

Former Attorney General Keg Goldschlager also thought she had the right to an attorney while on the roadside. Nope, you don't.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I have a very good friend who's serving a 25 year stint for killing a family of three while driving drunk. It was his 6th offense, and 9th offense of driving with no license. His lawyer had managed to keep him out of jail for any prolongued period of time He's told me he hopes he never gets out, because he knows he'll do it again.

 

My wife's best friend was killed by a drunk driver (who was behind the wheel of a semi) who crossed the center line and ran her car over with his trailer. He didn't pull over for 2 miles, and that was only because the wreckage was blocking up his trailer wheels.

 

Instead of figuring out how to beat the wrap after you get caught, try not driving while drunk instead.

[BREWCREW5]

twobrewers wrote:

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?

 

 

In Wisconsin, police have the right to do forced blood draws even on the first offense drunk driving. They wont hand you a needle and tell you to stick yourself with it. They will ask if you will submit to the testing. If you refuse....

 

3 to 4 cops will hold you down by force. A lab tech will then draw your blood from any vein she can find. Your blood is considered evidence.

 

As stated previously, it depends on that police department's policy when and if blood is drawn. But in Wisconsin, they can FORCE blood even the first time.

[blatzlight]

twobrewers wrote:

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?

 

 

In Wisconsin, police have the right to do forced blood draws even on the first offense drunk driving. They wont hand you a needle and tell you to stick yourself with it. They will ask if you will submit to the testing. If you refuse....

 

3 to 4 cops will hold you down by force. A lab tech will then draw your blood from any vein she can find. Your blood is considered evidence.

 

As stated previously, it depends on that police department's policy when and if blood is drawn. But in Wisconsin, they can FORCE blood even the first time.

They sure can. In Milwaukee they are often preformed at the Blood Center of Wisconsin on 18th and Wisconsin.

[gypcasino]

driving 'a little' drunk.

 

Exactly what I thought I was when I was on my way home from the East Side to Wauwatosa and somehow ended up in Hales Corners.

 

Understand this: it will ruin your life.

 

Or at least cost you a crapload of money. My car insurance is through the freaking roof.

[BuckyTuba]

In North Carolina, Police set up DUI checkpoints (yes, that's legal here) and they check random spots. Everyone gets checked to see if they're drinking. I had the misfortune of hitting one of these checkpoints after going out to dinner with my girlfriend and her parents (in from Detroit). I didn't have any water in the car, so my breath smelled of alcohol (I had 1.5 glasses of wine and a beer over 3 hours before the test). The officer had me get out of the car and do a breathalyzer. I passed the test and was let on my merry way. I was scared poopless.

 

The next week my best friend in the state hit a checkpoint, and he got a ticket for an expired safety sticker.

 

You can refuse the breathalyzer, and they'll take you to the station. Once you get there, you can request a witness to delay it another 45 minutes or so. One of my friends had a buddy who blew a .27 when he got back to the station and he had a lawyer get him off the hook. Unbelievable scumbag lawyer IMO.

[olliegjw]

I have no problem with harsher penalties for people with multiple violations. However, I would not want harsher penalties for 1st time offenders unless they raise the limit. The current rate of .08 is too low. I can not remember seeing a person from .08 to .15 causing a fatality. All of the ones in the J-S series, the drivers have been over .15 that I have seen. Most of the multiple offenders are also well over .10.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I have no problem with harsher penalties for people with multiple violations. However, I would not want harsher penalties for 1st time offenders unless they raise the limit. The current rate of .08 is too low. I can not remember seeing a person from .08 to .15 causing a fatality. All of the ones in the J-S series, the drivers have been over .15 that I have seen. Most of the multiple offenders are also well over .10.

Maybe harsh penalties for first time offensders will keep them from becoming 2nd time offenders. Again, the easiest way to avoid being ticketed for DUI at .09 is to not drive after having a drink. There've been too many studies to count that even after 1 drink a person's senses are impaired as compared to being stone sober.

[bigredrobbo]

I have no problem with harsher penalties for people with multiple violations. However, I would not want harsher penalties for 1st time offenders unless they raise the limit. The current rate of .08 is too low. I can not remember seeing a person from .08 to .15 causing a fatality. All of the ones in the J-S series, the drivers have been over .15 that I have seen. Most of the multiple offenders are also well over .10.

So if a drunk driver causes an accident that doesn't kill anyone, that's okay? Hmmm, that's some strange logic. If anything, I'd lower the BAC to a number which doesn't have drivers playing the "I think I can squeeze in X number of drinks before I'm over the limit" game. A smaller BAC limit would cause you to think about not drinking at all if you plan on getting behind the wheel.

 

Plus, the JS series did highlight just ONE case from every county in the state. It was by no means a comprehensive list of every fatality.

 

They do say that rationalization is the second strongest human urge. I think this thread backs that up...

[Dragonbait]

Been pulled over, suspected drunk driving.

 

Driving to work, 2:30am, apparently touching the "fog line" on a curve constituted that.

Best thing was, the cop had a headlight out.

[BREWCREW5]

Been pulled over, suspected drunk driving.

 

Driving to work, 2:30am, apparently touching the "fog line" on a curve constituted that.

Best thing was, the cop had a headlight out.

 

Good to see the police were doing there jobs here.

 

Driving to work at 2:30 AM, one would think you would be very appreciative of officers stopping drunk drivers so the drunks can't take you away from your family.