FC: Drunk PSU official, charged with DUI (.25% BAC), almost crashes into police officer

[Obliviax]

Please cite the law which says having one drink is enough for a DUI arrest. What you cited above isn't it. The only exception in PA is commercial vehicle drivers who must be 0.00%. Above you claim cops arrest people for DUI only because they were swerving. Really?? They just pull that charge out of thin air with no other evidence?? They don't perform field sobriety tests just for kicks.

Sorry but you're off base on this one. I get the impression you think cops are a bunch of dumb asses who are out there pulling people over and fabricating serious criminal charges. I hope I never drive through your corner of Ohio because it sounds like something from the south in the 50s.

I have..on several occasions.

​

ANY of the following apply:​

​

(a) The person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them.​

​

(b) ....​

​

​

In this case, "any" means each single-lettered instance can be used to arrest someone for a DUI. The very first one says if you are "driving under the influence." Period. This isn't limited to "drinks" but can be ambien, MJ, Xanax, Codine, etc. DUI isn't limited to booze.

Edit, another...perhaps I should be using the term OVI instead.

Impaired driving charges are no joke. When an individual operates a vehicle while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or drugs, they may find themselves facing an arrest for Operating a Vehicle Impaired or for Driving Under the Influence, depending on which state they are in. It's important to note that an OVI and DUI carry essentially the same meaning as they both pertain to similar behaviors. Although some states such as Ohio contend that the term DUI has become outdated which is why they have adopted the new term OVI to refer to any crimes involving a person operating a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.​

​

Operating Under the Influence: This term is the only other besides OVI which has strong legal verbiage in favor of conviction since it too removes the need for the vehicle to be motorized and uses vague language to describe the inebriation of the defendant.

Why Understanding The Difference Between An OVI or DUI Matters

Although the terms are used almost interchangeably there are subtle differences between them and as such it is necessary to be aware of the differences. No matter whether you are a criminal lawyer, a prosecutor, or an individual facing these sorts of charges, understanding that the state you practice law in, or have been convicted in will play an important role in how a defense is prepared is crucial.

 

[TheBigUglies]

This isn't correct. It means that the officer CAN and a prosecutor can. They, in most cases, choose not to.

Often, it has been used to "pile on" where the officer feels the person is guilty of something but can't get the goods or where the state wants to "pile on" for some other charge to improve their negotiating position during plea bargaining.

But my wife has had several cases where officers pull people over and cite them for DUI because they were swerving. In one case, a woman was turning left at a red light. The road she was turning onto had two lanes with a turning lane. At close to midnight, she stopped, waiting until the light turned green, and then proceeded. There were no cars in any of the three lanes she was turning to (left, right, center turning lane). An officer pulled her over because her car wheel went over the left yellow line separating the turning lane from her lane. My wife recorded a half dozen cars, in a single green light, that turned left and did the exact same thing and presented it to the prosecutor.

That is just dumb that the officer would pull someone over for that. My biggest pet peeve is people that do lazy left turns and are actually turning into the on coming lane when turning left. How the hell can you actually judge where the fricken lines are all the time? Every truck should be pulled over then because they do it every time they turn. The cops need to change this rule for pulling people over.

 

[Obliviax]

That is just dumb that the officer would pull someone over for that. My biggest pet peeve is people that do lazy left turns and are actually turning into the on coming lane when turning left. How the hell can you actually judge where the fricken lines are all the time? Every truck should be pulled over then because they do it every time they turn. The cops need to change this rule for pulling people over.

Yep. to be fair, in the case I referenced, it was late at night and the officer suspected drinking. When he approached the car, the woman driving was kind of pissy. So he kind of copped an attitude himself. In her case, she had a drink but ended up being below the .08 limit. The officer was combined the erratic driving with the low limit of booze. while being above .08 makes you a dead duck, being between .00 and .08 does not get you "off" depending upon the officer.

 

[NittPicker]

I have..on several occasions.

​

ANY of the following apply:​

​

(a) The person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them.​

​

(b) ....​

​

​

In this case, "any" means each single-lettered instance can be used to arrest someone for a DUI. The very first one says if you are "driving under the influence." Period. This isn't limited to "drinks" but can be ambien, MJ, Xanax, Codine, etc. DUI isn't limited to booze.

Again, one drink doesn't equate to "under the influence" no matter often you cite the above law. That's the purpose of the SFSTs. A person can have one drink and ace the tests = not under the influence. I've seen that. A person can have one drink and some drugs then bomb the tests = under the influence. I've seen that as well. Also again, the SFSTs are used to determine "under the influence" for both alcohol, drugs, or some combination. Nothing you've posted has said "one drink" equals under the influence. I found the below from an Ohio law firm after a quick Google search. (Dominy Law Firm, LLC) Clearly there's more to being "under the influence" than simply having one drink. As noted below, there's much more needed to prove the case.

Ohio law makes it illegal to operate a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs. The phrase ‘under the influence’ has a certain meaning in Ohio law. It means the alcohol and/or drugs noticeably impaired the driver’s mental processes, actions or reactions. To prove a driver was under the influence, the prosecution must prove the alcohol and/or drugs affected the driver’s brain, nervous system or muscles in a way which would impair the driver’s ability to operate a vehicle.

To prove a charge of OVI ‘impaired’, the prosecution introduces the testimony of police officers, the testimony of other witnesses, cruiser videos, body cam videos, and other evidence. The evidence typically includes the driver’s performance on field sobriety tests. Although field sobriety tests are designed to predict blood alcohol concentration, a driver’s performance on field sobriety tests is often admitted in court for ‘impaired’ charges to help prove the driver was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

I'd say agree to disagree but that's not the case here.

 

[Obliviax]

Again, one drink doesn't equate to "under the influence" no matter often you cite the above law. That's the purpose of the SFSTs. A person can have one drink and ace the tests = not under the influence. I've seen that. A person can have one drink and some drugs then bomb the tests = under the influence. I've seen that as well. Also again, the SFSTs are used to determine "under the influence" for both alcohol, drugs, or some combination. Nothing you've posted has said "one drink" equals under the influence. I found the below from an Ohio law firm after a quick Google search. (Dominy Law Firm, LLC) Clearly there's more to being "under the influence" than simply having one drink. As noted below, there's much more needed to prove the case.

Ohio law makes it illegal to operate a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs. The phrase ‘under the influence’ has a certain meaning in Ohio law. It means the alcohol and/or drugs noticeably impaired the driver’s mental processes, actions or reactions. To prove a driver was under the influence, the prosecution must prove the alcohol and/or drugs affected the driver’s brain, nervous system or muscles in a way which would impair the driver’s ability to operate a vehicle.

To prove a charge of OVI ‘impaired’, the prosecution introduces the testimony of police officers, the testimony of other witnesses, cruiser videos, body cam videos, and other evidence. The evidence typically includes the driver’s performance on field sobriety tests. Although field sobriety tests are designed to predict blood alcohol concentration, a driver’s performance on field sobriety tests is often admitted in court for ‘impaired’ charges to help prove the driver was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

Anyway, I've nothing left to add. I'd say agree to disagree but that's not the case here.

OK, fair enough. After thinking about his, I think "OVI" is the better term. My wife's cases, and she's had several, where an officer charges a person for OVI. If that person is over .08, done deal. There is no defense. But if that person is between .00 and .08, the officer has to have additional evidence of impairment. That may be drugs or that may be driving erratically. But let me tell you, if an officer states you are driving erratically and you've said you had a drink good luck in front of a jury of retired school teachers. When the officer gets up there and testifies in person with their uniform with medals, stripes, and guns, it is a 99.99% fate acompli. My wife has had an ongoing battler with one particular patrolman and she feels he has gone too far (and, as noted, is being rewarded for it). I guess it is the way the system works.

 

[NittPicker]

OK, fair enough. After thinking about his, I think "OVI" is the better term. My wife's cases, and she's had several, where an officer charges a person for OVI. If that person is over .08, done deal. There is no defense. But if that person is between .00 and .08, the officer has to have additional evidence of impairment. That may be drugs or that may be driving erratically. But let me tell you, if an officer states you are driving erratically and you've said you had a drink good luck in front of a jury of retired school teachers. When the officer gets up there and testifies in person with their uniform with medals, stripes, and guns, it is a 99.99% fate acompli. My wife has had an ongoing battler with one particular patrolman and she feels he has gone too far (and, as noted, is being rewarded for it). I guess it is the way the system works.

I'm sure jurisdictions vary. I've had DAs who had standing policies of not charging anyone who was under 0.08% unless there were other factors involved (underage, crash, etc.). Even at that, those factors would need to be run by the DA before charges were filed. Refusals were a bit different but it all goes back to the jurisdiction. Everyone has their own little kingdom.

 

[Obliviax]

I'm sure jurisdictions vary. I've had DAs who had standing policies of not charging anyone who was under 0.08% unless there were other factors involved (underage, crash, etc.). Even at that, those factors would need to be run by the DA before charges were filed. Refusals were a bit different but it all goes back to the jurisdiction. Everyone has their own little kingdom.

I think that is fair. Although, with the legalization of MJ, may change.

 

[wbcbus]

that isn't true here in my community. "under the influence" is based on the officer's discretion. If you go over the center line and get pulled over then admit to having take a prescription drug, the officer can write you up for being under the influence. And that is clearly what the law I liked says.

any of the following apply:

(a) The person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them.

(b) ....

I'm sorry friend, but just having a drink or taking a prescription drug alone is not enough, it has to be that the drink or drug impaired the driver. An officer's "discretion" does not prove the requisite jury instructions. It has to be shown that "the consumption of (alcohol)(drug of abuse)(alcohol and a drug of abuse) so affected the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the defendant so as to impair, to an appreciable degree, his ability to operate the vehicle, then the defendant was under the influence." That does not mean a single drink is an admission of guilt to anything.

Of course an officer can charge someone with whatever they want if they're terrible. That doesn't mean it's legitimate. You might as well say consuming oxygen is a chargable offense then, since it's an inherent element of every crime.

 

[wbcbus]

OK, fair enough. After thinking about his, I think "OVI" is the better term. My wife's cases, and she's had several, where an officer charges a person for OVI. If that person is over .08, done deal. There is no defense. But if that person is between .00 and .08, the officer has to have additional evidence of impairment. That may be drugs or that may be driving erratically. But let me tell you, if an officer states you are driving erratically and you've said you had a drink good luck in front of a jury of retired school teachers. When the officer gets up there and testifies in person with their uniform with medals, stripes, and guns, it is a 99.99% fate acompli. My wife has had an ongoing battler with one particular patrolman and she feels he has gone too far (and, as noted, is being rewarded for it). I guess it is the way the system works.

If someone agreed to a test and came in lower than 0.08 and did not test positive for other drugs, I've never once heard of that resulting in a charge. If you're 0.07 plus a drug, well then of course you're charged, and should be.

Funny you mention the medals, stripes, and guns. The only OVI case I ever lost was where the Sheriff's deputy was the defendant. State highway patrol was the arresting officer. The deputy refused to say anything other than what was absolutely necessary to comply with the officer (so as to avoid putting slurring language on recording), and refused any tests. His defense, and I kid you not, and was supported by his girlfriend in trial testimony, is that he was swerving because she was blowing him.

 

[Obliviax]

If someone agreed to a test and came in lower than 0.08 and did not test positive for other drugs, I've never once heard of that resulting in a charge. If you're 0.07 plus a drug, well then of course you're charged, and should be.

Funny you mention the medals, stripes, and guns. The only OVI case I ever lost was where the Sheriff's deputy was the defendant. State highway patrol was the arresting officer. The deputy refused to say anything other than what was absolutely necessary to comply with the officer (so as to avoid putting slurring language on recording), and refused any tests. His defense, and I kid you not, and was supported by his girlfriend in trial testimony, is that he was swerving because she was blowing him.

All fair. The issue is that the officer has to have a reason why they test for drugs. And that goes back to my first comment which was "never tell the officer you had even one drink." The field sobriety test is completely arbitrary. I told the story of the officer making 50 ish woman stand for 30 seconds in high heels. (just try it) Then when she complained he gave her the option to stand in her stocking feet on the 20ish degree ground. It is really hard to get the drug in unless the officer has a reason why he/she can blood test them. A breathalyzer doesn't measure Ambien and MJ is only going to make things worse.

You bring up a funny and interesting point. Obviously, the driver was "under the influence" and that should have been justification (Charles Barkley tried to get off by telling officers that he got a call from the best BJ woman on the planet). It shows you how arbitrary "under the influence" is. And if you are smart enough to Not give the officer a legal pass to get a blood test, you are better off. BTW, in Youngstown, everybody drives around with sealed bottles of whisky in their glove compartments. Why? A famous judge blew threw a red light and ran into a closed Wendy's late at night. A few people gathered while they waited for the cops. The judge opened his glove box, grabbed a couple of bottles of whisky, and knocked them down in front of the witnesses. When asked if he was drinking by the officers when they arrived, he said only to calm his nerves after the accident. (he was coming from a bar to his home) The officer realized his breathalyzer and blood tests were useless. They went to the bar when the bartender said the judge only drank tea and paid in cash.

 

[Obliviax]

I'm sorry friend, but just having a drink or taking a prescription drug alone is not enough, it has to be that the drink or drug impaired the driver. An officer's "discretion" does not prove the requisite jury instructions. It has to be shown that "the consumption of (alcohol)(drug of abuse)(alcohol and a drug of abuse) so affected the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the defendant so as to impair, to an appreciable degree, his ability to operate the vehicle, then the defendant was under the influence." That does not mean a single drink is an admission of guilt to anything.

Of course an officer can charge someone with whatever they want if they're terrible. That doesn't mean it's legitimate. You might as well say consuming oxygen is a chargable offense then, since it's an inherent element of every crime.

We'll have to agree to disagree. My wife has had several occasions defending clients who were pulled over for reckless driving (going over the line) and then failing a field sobriety test leading to a blood test. When that test came back above 00 but below .08, they were charged for OVI based on their reckless driving. In the one case that I discussed, the one where they spent a lot of time going over the dash cam to show the perp went just inches over the line, the judge said she had no recourse than to find the woman guilty based on the letter of the law.

I would also say that most judges in my area come from the prosecutor's office and are all govt employees (from one political party). They trust whatever the officer says unless proven otherwise. In other words, guilty until proven innocent.