Drunk driver hits judge who spared him jail time

[Ikari]

Not at all, if your an alcoholic who drinks an average of 40 beers a week.

hahaha, you know nothing. Dismissed.

If there is no reason for the traffic stop, then they get off. If there was a reason for the stop, then who gives a ****.
My state doesn't do that

Don't believe you

... Don't know which state does..

Happens in Colorado. One member of this board himself got into trouble this way. Was able to plea down even though he never drove.

Also, to explain the reason why a state MIGHT enact such a law, is to prevent the use of loopholes to get people off in DWIs. Ive dealt with guys who jumped into the back seat of a vehicle after a stop to try to get off on the officer's inability to identify who the driver of the vehicle was. However, the guy was so drunk he tried to move faster than he was capable of and ended up losing his shoe to getting stuck on the accelerator. WIN!

Don't care. Driving is the operable word. If he wasn't driving, if the cop can't prove he was ever driving; can't convict him of DUI. But it happens. Even if you apparently don't know about it.

The checkpoints are to enforce the law and raise awareness of the fact that we are out there enforcing it.

We know the little community girl scouts are out enforcing the law.

Never heard of thousandS (or even one thousand) dollar fine for DWI, and Ive arrested about 300 DWI offenders in 3 years. Even my habitual DWI offender who got 18 months active didn't get a fine over 400 bucks. How much you decide to pay a lawyer is your business, don't include that in the amount that the state is costing you, because the state isn't getting that money.

Then you don't know jack ****. Total cost for DUIs, first time DUIs is in the thousands of dollars (higher if you start factoring in the state mandated things like classes and therapy and community service which you have to pay for, etc.). The actual fines are several hundred dollars. Maybe I should move to your state, sounds like you don't enforce DUIs there. But more likely you're just ignorant of the whole process.

Maybe in the backwards ass retard state that you live in. In the real world, its not.

Then you have a funny definition of the "real world" which doesn't seem to include reality.

Oh lord... go pack another bowl for ****s sake.

Bite me fanboy. The courts have the same likelihood of acting against the People, same as any other branch of government. Or do you want to hide your head in the sand over that one too? You seem to be good at it.

WRONG. How many hours to you sit in a court room in a given month? How many DWI cases have you tried before a court? Until you have proven experience and not hippie conspiracy bull**** I suggest you shut your trap.

WRONG. I've known people who have passed road sobriety tests but failed the BAC...off to jail with them. I think maybe you don't want to admit the abuse which takes place. That, or you really are actually ignorant of it all.

I don't.
The government pays for the roadways to be maintained, they spend money to make travel easier for the citizens. When crashes occur its Police Officers (government) who come to provide investigation (with the possibility of being called to testify, assisting YOU in your civil suit), first responder medical aid and assistance. Thus the government has a right to regulate what people do on the highways for the safety of all of the motoring public.

The government doesn't fund any of that genius. That's my money, that's the People's money. I fund the roadways, I tell the government to maintain it. I fund the dumb ass police officers who sit around fund raising for the State even more. That's not the government, that's the People. It's our property, and the government has to have probable cause before they can do anything about it.

If you don't like it.... walk. Because driving a motor vehicle on the public streets and highways is not a right, its a privilege.

A privilege I've paid for many times over in regular taxes, license fees, etc. It's mine, and the greedy ass cops and government can back the **** off. Take take take...it's all they do. Thanks for proving that point.

 

[Caine]

Then you don't know jack ****. Total cost for DUIs, first time DUIs is in the thousands of dollars (higher if you start factoring in the state mandated things like classes and therapy and community service which you have to pay for, etc.). The actual fines are several hundred dollars. Maybe I should move to your state, sounds like you don't enforce DUIs there. But more likely you're just ignorant of the whole process.

LOL Please tell me what validates your experience with the whole process then wizard.

I arrest about 10 DWI offenders per month, try them in court, and am present to see what type of punishment they receive when they are found guilty. Please, tell me I don't know what the **** im talking about.

Bite me fanboy. The courts have the same likelihood of acting against the People, same as any other branch of government. Or do you want to hide your head in the sand over that one too? You seem to be good at it.

Paranoia paranoia everybody's coming to get MEEEEE...

Your such a paranoid person, what is wrong with you?
Must be a meth user.

WRONG. I've known people who have passed road sobriety tests but failed the BAC...off to jail with them. I think maybe you don't want to admit the abuse which takes place. That, or you really are actually ignorant of it all.

And about 9/10 drunks I arrest self proclaim that they have passed the field sobriety tests..... if only they knew what constitutes passing or not.... lol

The government doesn't fund any of that genius. That's my money, that's the People's money. I fund the roadways, I tell the government to maintain it. I fund the dumb ass police officers who sit around fund raising for the State even more. That's not the government, that's the People. It's our property, and the government has to have probable cause before they can do anything about it.

Wrong again, In the state of North Carolina, an officer has to have a "reasonable suspicion" to stop a motor vehicle. Must have "probable cause" to charge an individual with a crime.

Genius.

A privilege I've paid for many times over in regular taxes, license fees, etc. It's mine, and the greedy ass cops and government can back the **** off. Take take take...it's all they do. Thanks for proving that point.

Ahh.. your just flipping out because you got caught huh... lol..

You sound like a hippie paranoid freak.

 

[Caine]

The chances of this are astronomical!
DId you know that someone is more likely to die of an asprin overdose than get hit with a intoxicated driver? The odds of you getting the wrong treatment in a hospital and DYING from it are 465% more than dying in a accident with a intoxicated driver.

I honestly feel that the DUI laws are far far overreaching. They should have tiers of penalties depending on the BAC content. NOT one punishment for all.
And actually the fines should be a percentage of earned income and not a blanket amount. To some people $3000 is nothing. To others that live paycheck to paycheck its a huge mountain that will be close to impossible to meet.

0.08 - 0.14 $300 fine and one week license suspension

0.15 - 0.2 $700 fine and two months license suspension

0.21 - 0.25 $2000 fine and a year suspension + alcohol treatment classes that cost $2000 AND you must go every week for 6 months + 40 hours of community service

0.26+ $5000 fine + year suspension + alcohol treatment classes + 200 hours of community service + attend AA or something equilvelant for 6 months

One week suspension?

Im sorry, I see enough 2nd 3rd and 4th time DWI offenders under my state's current suspension provisions...

I'll stick with keeping drunks off the road.

 

[Caine]

Some might be if they never drank. Me? Hell no. Which is why I hate the arbitrary ".08 means drunk". No it doesn't. For some it does. Some people don't hold their alcohol. For others it's certainly not.

Well, im just glad that the laws don't specifically say DRUNK driving.

Drunk is such a subjective term.

IMPAIRED driving is the law.

 

[Ikari]

I'll stick with keeping drunks off the road.

I'll stick with keeping cops in their place.

 

[Ikari]

LOL Please tell me what validates your experience with the whole process then wizard.

I arrest about 10 DWI offenders per month, try them in court, and am present to see what type of punishment they receive when they are found guilty. Please, tell me I don't know what the **** im talking about.

I know the ins and outs of DUI law. You can find the information readily. DUI is a scam, nothing more, nothing less. There's an actual crime at heart and reasonable punishment for that; but we've long ago left it behind. It's now outrageous. Fact is if you get a lawyer, first DUI can cost up to 10,000 dollars. And now in addition to expensive classes and expensive therapy they've lopped on the first time offense, there is also interlock for cars which in Colorado became mandatory. You pay for the install, you pay the monthly bill. Furthermore, people can be arrested for DUI without driving, which in and of itself shows the use of the DUI....girl scout cookies. Hell, the cops watch the bars, watch people get into their cars, and then pull them over. Sure they're supposed to have "valid reason"; but that's a lie. Cops pull over whomever they want whenever they want. And if they get themselves a drunk, no one's going to care why they pulled them over. And it doesn't really matter as there are hundreds of BS excuses cops can give to claim reasonable suspicion. But the whole thing could have been avoided had the cop interceded before the guy got into the car, instead of waiting till he does so he can pull them over. But no, instead they wait. Why? Money. That's why. You can claim some big noble cause, but it's a lie. It's money.

Colorado DUI and DWAI arrests trigger two separate cases: the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) action, where a person's driving privileges can be suspended, and the court case, where a variety of drunk driving (DUI) punishment is available.

Colorado DUI LAW For anyone charged with drunk driving, DUI or DWAI in Colorado, it is vital to note that persons arrested for DUI have only 7 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing with the DMV. If someone arrested for drunk driving does not request the hearing on time, their license will be suspended, automatically. Period. A request to the Colorado Department of Revenue (which includes the Colorado DMV) requires a hearing within 60 days, and the driver's license to remain in good standing at least until the outcome of the DUI / DWAI hearing.

DUI / DWAI defendants in Colorado can be charged with DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two), or DWAI. Colorado DWAI, which stands for Driving While Ability Impaired, is a lesser-offense, where the person's blood alcohol level (BAC) is .05 or higher.

Colorado drunk driving (DUI / DWAI) arrests can relate to driving under the influence, or violation of the "per se" laws. Driving under the influence means driving a vehicle when a person has consumed intoxicants which affects the person to a degree that he or she is substantially incapable, mentally or physically, to exercise clear judgment, sufficient physical control, or due care in the safe operation of a vehicle.

:: top ::

Colorado DUI per se charges are slightly different. The DUI per se charge is brought against those arrested for DUI who provide a breath or blood alcohol sample of .08% or higher. It does not matter what the driving pattern is like, or whether the person arrested performed Field Sobriety Tests with textbook precision. It is a charge that is based purely on body chemistry.

Colorado DWAI (driving while ability impaired) is similar to Colorado DUI, except that to be convicted of Colorado DWAI, the prosecution is only required to prove that the defendant was affected to the slightest degree, so that the person is less able than he or she ordinarily would have been to exercise clear judgment.

Colorado, like many other states, imposes both criminal penalties and administrative driver's license penalties for a Colorado DUI conviction. That is why it is critical to contact a Colorado drunk driving defense lawyer right away, to protect your rights both in court and with the Colorado DMV (part of the Colorado Department of Revenue).

:: top ::

DUI arrests of persons from other states will still require a DMV Hearing to protect their driving privileges. Colorado is a member of the Interstate Driver's License Compact, which shares information about DUI and DWAI convictions and driver's license actions with other member states. There are 45 states that belong to this compact.

As to prior convictions for purposes of increasing punishment for a Colorado DUI or DWAI, prior DUI or DWAI convictions remain on record for a defendant's lifetime for criminal sentencing purposes, five years for DMV in considering lengths of Suspensions and Revocations for repeat alcohol incidents (although licenses can be revoked or suspended independent of the results in criminal court), and 7 years for Habitual Traffic Offender designation which requires 3 Major Incidents (driving under the influence of alcohol, reckless driving, driving under restraint, vehicular assault, vehicular homicide, and hit and run involving resulting in death or injury).

Colorado DUI LAW The maximum punishment for a DUI in Colorado is one year in jail, a $1000 fine, 96 hours of useful public service, an alcohol evaluation, an alcohol education course, and up to 86 hours of alcohol therapy. A BAC over .20 requires 10 days jail. Second and third offenses carry higher maximums and require jail. Typically, a first-offense DUI will include minimum punishments of unsupervised probation for 1 or 2 years, 48 hours of useful public service, an alcohol evaluation, an alcohol education course, and fines, fees, and court costs amounting to approximately $500. You must also abstain from drinking for 1 year.

However, a skilled Colorado DUI / DWAI defense lawyer can help you avoid or minimize all potential consequences of a drunk driving arrest in Colorado. If you, or someone you care about, has been charged with DUI, drunk driving, DWAI, or any drinking and driving offense in Colorado, let one of the DUI LAWS attorneys give you a free consultation.

There you have it. The max fine of 1000 is only the court side, it doesn't include court costs, it doesn't include the other things they sentence you to like MADD panels, the dumb classes, the alcohol evaluation, community service, etc. First time offense, several thousand dollars down the drain.

Paranoia paranoia everybody's coming to get MEEEEE...

Your such a paranoid person, what is wrong with you?
Must be a meth user.

More childish insults for someone who apparently can't argue his side.

And about 9/10 drunks I arrest self proclaim that they have passed the field sobriety tests..... if only they knew what constitutes passing or not.... lol

It doesn't matter, you can pass the field sobriety test. All that matters is your BAC.

Wrong again, In the state of North Carolina, an officer has to have a "reasonable suspicion" to stop a motor vehicle. Must have "probable cause" to charge an individual with a crime.

That's what they say, but I don't believe them. Cops are always supposed to have reasonable suspicion. But it seems to me that they take that to mean a few hours before and after the bars close.

Genius.

Yes I am, I do have a PhD in Physics after all. Smarter than the average human.

Ahh.. your just flipping out because you got caught huh... lol..

Nope, because the crime is demonized to the point where we excuse gross government and police action against the people. There is a legitimate crime, there is a legitimate punishment. We've passed it long ago. It's no longer about the crime, it's about the Benjamins.

You sound like a hippie paranoid freak.

You sound like a statist, excusing the fascism of the government.

 

[Caine]

I know the ins and outs of DUI law. You can find the information readily. DUI is a scam, nothing more, nothing less. There's an actual crime at heart and reasonable punishment for that; but we've long ago left it behind. It's now outrageous. Fact is if you get a lawyer, first DUI can cost up to 10,000 dollars. And now in addition to expensive classes and expensive therapy they've lopped on the first time offense, there is also interlock for cars which in Colorado became mandatory. You pay for the install, you pay the monthly bill.

I agree that sometimes the "maximum" fines and such are a bit high, you cannot gauge the punishment of the crime on the maximum punishment, because this is saved for the worse case scenarios. However, what the legislature has put the fines and other costs at is not my concern, Its my job to enforce the laws, not worry about what the person is going to have to pay. I didn't make that idiot get out there on the roadway drunk.

Furthermore, people can be arrested for DUI without driving, which in and of itself shows the use of the DUI....girl scout cookies.

Ive already addressed that issue. While I don't agree, and in the state of NC you can't make an arrest for a drunk person passed out in the back seat of a vehicle that is running, using that as the standard is far from the norm. What the law says as far as how it can be enforced and how it is actually enforced are two completely different things.

Hell, the cops watch the bars, watch people get into their cars, and then pull them over. Sure they're supposed to have "valid reason"; but that's a lie. Cops pull over whomever they want whenever they want. And if they get themselves a drunk, no one's going to care why they pulled them over.

Again, a lie from someone who is doing the equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and screaming LALALALALALA.

And it doesn't really matter as there are hundreds of BS excuses cops can give to claim reasonable suspicion. But the whole thing could have been avoided had the cop interceded before the guy got into the car, instead of waiting till he does so he can pull them over. But no, instead they wait. Why? Money. That's why. You can claim some big noble cause, but it's a lie. It's money.

While I won't lie that what you say doesn't happen, its rare. It doesn't happen often enough to even bring it up as a main point.

And again, its not money, no officer is motivated to raise funds for the state in that manner, your just a paranoid freak.

There you have it. The max fine of 1000 is only the court side, it doesn't include court costs, it doesn't include the other things they sentence you to like MADD panels, the dumb classes, the alcohol evaluation, community service, etc. First time offense, several thousand dollars down the drain.

And yet people still do it. They are ignorant fools.

More childish insults for someone who apparently can't argue his side.

Don't know many who can argue with "Your a liar because I don't like DWI or Cops and refuse to believe anything you say even though you have experience in this and I don't"

It doesn't matter, you can pass the field sobriety test. All that matters is your BAC.

Umm.... No.
If you don't have probable cause to make an arrest, than your BAC results do not get submitted into evidence, and the case is dismissed. I have dealt with this a number of times as well, when a judge decided I didn't do enough testing to establish probable cause before an arrest, "enough" testing being I just did one of the 6 tests I usually do. While another judge had decided that that one test was enough to make the arrest. It all depends on the judge.

That's what they say, but I don't believe them. Cops are always supposed to have reasonable suspicion. But it seems to me that they take that to mean a few hours before and after the bars close.

That does factor in, but they have to have a legitimate reason to stop a vehicle or the case will be thrown out. They also have to be able to articulate that reason to stop the vehicle as valid.
Ive actually had 2 cases thrown out for this reason. One because I was not "trained in speed estimation" when I stopped a vehicle going about 30 over the limit. The other because it was a stop light I was observing from a distance and the judge didn't believe I could see the stop line from there.

Nope, because the crime is demonized to the point where we excuse gross government and police action against the people. There is a legitimate crime, there is a legitimate punishment. We've passed it long ago. It's no longer about the crime, it's about the Benjamins.

Regardless of what you say. I know the truth about my motivations to enforce DWI laws. And its to prevent the type of fatal crashes that I have had to clean up in my short 4 year career, as well as the violent ones that left the drunk driver or another party in the hospital for weeks, as well as the ones that cause thousands upon thousands of dollars of property damage. The fact is, There is no other crime on the books that causes more property damage/loss and physical injury/death than that that DWI costs as a combined total. I've also never met a single law enforcement officer who is actually motivated, or cares, about being a "state fundraiser" like you constantly claim.

This debate is over, I refuse to continue debating with someone who has consistently called me a liar on a topic I have thorough experience with while failing to validate their own experience.

 

[Ikari]

I agree that sometimes the "maximum" fines and such are a bit high, you cannot gauge the punishment of the crime on the maximum punishment, because this is saved for the worse case scenarios. However, what the legislature has put the fines and other costs at is not my concern, Its my job to enforce the laws, not worry about what the person is going to have to pay. I didn't make that idiot get out there on the roadway drunk.

The max punishment in terms of fines is almost always handed out. Not so much in terms of jail time, but then again I don't think the purpose is to throw people into jail as much as it is to extract as much money from them as possible.

Ive already addressed that issue. While I don't agree, and in the state of NC you can't make an arrest for a drunk person passed out in the back seat of a vehicle that is running, using that as the standard is far from the norm. What the law says as far as how it can be enforced and how it is actually enforced are two completely different things.

If that were actually true, it would be better. But too many people have been arrested for being drunk in their car. Many were waiting for rides to show up and sat in their car to escape the weather. It's not reasonable. They have to be driving, they have to be doing something wrong before the cop can even try to arrest them. But as much as you want to say otherwise, I've seen plenty of times when things happen the opposite of what you say. Maybe you're just the one honest cop out there.

Again, a lie from someone who is doing the equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and screaming LALALALALALA.

No, hell in town there is a cop famous for doing that here. He patrols a couple streets near campus and if it's after 1 AM, he'll pull over just about anyone. Most people don't end up with tickets, it's clear that he's just searching out DUIs. Hell, our police chief (Chicago cop...go figure), just got fired last year for being one of the most corrupt and amoral jerks out there. Had one of his guys "fix" an accident report for him when he crashed his cruiser into a rock and claimed it was a hit and run while he was teaching. The first cop actually investigated, found out what really happened, reported the truth, and was reassigned for his troubles. He also was one of the highest paid public servants outside of politics.

And I'm supposed to believe that cops never go outside the book to do things and that they can get away with it for the more demonized of crimes. Yeah right. This **** is just in Ft. Collins, it's a small town. I hate to even imagine what the big city cops are doing.

While I won't lie that what you say doesn't happen, its rare. It doesn't happen often enough to even bring it up as a main point.

And again, its not money, no officer is motivated to raise funds for the state in that manner, your just a paranoid freak.

No, this happens all the time. You're just trying to make it seem like this isn't standard practice. But it is. For awhile, they had a pattern to which bars they'd sit out there and watch, but people figured it out so now they spread themselves out a bit more. But it never fails. If you walk back from the bar you'll always find where the cops are hiding watching the bars. You'll see them from time to time just watch people get into a car, and as soon as they take off, they get up right behind them and then pull them over a little while longer. I guess they claim that seeing you exit a bar is "probable cause".

And yet people still do it. They are ignorant fools.

Fools they may be, but that doesn't give the State license to abuse the **** out of them and steal a bunch of their money.

Don't know many who can argue with "Your a liar because I don't like DWI or Cops and refuse to believe anything you say even though you have experience in this and I don't"

Well I've backed mine up, even cited the law in my State. You have "I'm a cop and I say so" excuse. Doesn't fly. Cops are one of the last groups of people you should ever trust, right below politician.

Umm.... No.
If you don't have probable cause to make an arrest, than your BAC results do not get submitted into evidence, and the case is dismissed. I have dealt with this a number of times as well, when a judge decided I didn't do enough testing to establish probable cause before an arrest, "enough" testing being I just did one of the 6 tests I usually do. While another judge had decided that that one test was enough to make the arrest. It all depends on the judge.

A) There should be standards. B) In CO, your BAC is enough. I already cited the law. You can pass a field test with flying colors, if your BAC is too high; off to jail. So before you sit there all smug "ummm....no", maybe you should have read the actual law I posted. I mean, if you wanted to be fair and intellectually honest in this debate. Not just using the "I'm a cop and I say so" excuse.

That does factor in, but they have to have a legitimate reason to stop a vehicle or the case will be thrown out. They also have to be able to articulate that reason to stop the vehicle as valid.
Ive actually had 2 cases thrown out for this reason. One because I was not "trained in speed estimation" when I stopped a vehicle going about 30 over the limit. The other because it was a stop light I was observing from a distance and the judge didn't believe I could see the stop line from there.

Well maybe your state does a much better job protecting the citizen against abuses from the police and government. But here, that's not the case at all.

Regardless of what you say. I know the truth about my motivations to enforce DWI laws. And its to prevent the type of fatal crashes that I have had to clean up in my short 4 year career, as well as the violent ones that left the drunk driver or another party in the hospital for weeks, as well as the ones that cause thousands upon thousands of dollars of property damage. The fact is, There is no other crime on the books that causes more property damage/loss and physical injury/death than that that DWI costs as a combined total. I've also never met a single law enforcement officer who is actually motivated, or cares, about being a "state fundraiser" like you constantly claim.

You know your motivations. As I said, maybe you're the one honest cop out there. But you don't know the motivations of others. The police chief we eventually were able to get fired was notorious for DUI crackdowns. To the point where it cut into enforcing other laws (though there's not so much violent crime in Ft. Collins). He loved it. Always had his officers out and about specifically looking to issue more DUIs. Bastard is probably back in Chicago doing the same **** now. Told his class (law enforcement) that it's ok to give drugs to people to get information, **** like that. Standard police officer.

This debate is over, I refuse to continue debating with someone who has consistently called me a liar on a topic I have thorough experience with while failing to validate their own experience.

Run away if you want. I don't think I actually called you a liar, I merely said what DUIs are actually used for. While you may have issued a lot, perhaps you still don't have a full appreciation of what they're used for and everything which comes with it. Hell if you went to those alcohol evaluations they send people to and were honest about your drinking habits, I wonder how many hours of therapy they'll send you to. Not because you need it, but because they'll use any excuse to make you have to go to therapy which is longer and more expensive than the classes and you can only start once you've finished the classes.

The whole system is nothing but one giant scam built around a demonized and emotionalized crime.

 

[Caine]

Well, since I really can't argue with your knowledge of Colorado Law. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on many of the issues.

One of the reasons I feel I am so particular about the process is because I work in a wealthy area of the 2nd largest banking city in the nation. Because of this, my typical DWI arrestee is a wealthy or upper middle class person who can afford a good lawyer. So in my case, I have to make sure that everything has been done properly, or I will be sure to lose my case. A DWI can be challenged on several different basis...

1. Reason for the stop. Officers must have a valid reason to stop the vehicle, not having a valid reason to stop the vehicle constitutes as a violation of the 4th Amendment. This is because you are considered "seized" when you are stopped by the police on a traffic stop.

2. Probable cause to arrest. Officers must have probable cause to arrest a suspect for a particular crime. In this case, an officer must be able to show that they had observed sufficient signs that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the person is impaired. In North Carolina, the actual result of a portable breath test is not admissible in court. An officer can only say that the result of positive or negative for alcohol. Depending on the circumstances, a PBT test combined with other observations not related to field sobriety tests is enough probable cause, depending on the severity of said "other observations". NHTSA standardized field sobriety tests are used to assist an officer with this determination. These SFSTs are additional training to an officers basic law enforcement training.

These two portions can be enough alone to convict a person, and sometimes they cannot. If an individual is so impaired that it is obvious without a breath test result (in case of breath test refusal or improperly administered breath test). Sometimes they are not enough for a conviction without a BAC result. Sometimes officers make an arrest and a judge does not agree that they had enough reason to stop the vehicle, or enough probable cause to make the arrest. At that point the case continue and the breath results would not be admitted into evidence.

3. Once probable cause is determined an officer must take the offender for a "chemical analysis" of their breath or blood. This means taking them before an intox instrument or taking them to a hospital to obtain a blood sample. The choice is up to the officer. In NC if a person refuses, they lose their license for a year regardless of conviction, as becoming a licensed driver in NC, you agree to submit to a chemical analysis if requested by an officer who has probable cause. An intox result can be deemed inadmissible if there is no probable cause for the arrest, or the test is not administered correctly, and sometimes, even as petty as not having a box checked on a form (even when the rest of the information next to the box was filled out, true story). If a subject refuses, an officer can compel an individual to submit to a blood test, with consent or without it, as long as the officer can show that they had probable cause to believe that the individual was impaired.

Now to the part I don't agree with.....

In NC, anyone who has a BAC of .15 or more is subject to the requirement of having an Interlock device installed in their vehicle in order to obtain a limited provisional license (to/from work and shopping, during a time frame), or to obtain their license back after a revocation period.

I disagree that this is the way to go, this law does not discriminate based upon whether or not this was a first offense or not. I don't believe someone who is a first time offender needs to be forced to have an interlock device installed in their vehicle.

I think instead, they should bump a few of their regulations.
If a person blows a .15 or higher (or blood analyzed .15>) on first offense, only THEN should they be required to obtain an alcohol abuse assessment and follow recommended treatment as a condition of their probation. I believe that anyone below this level should just pay fines, community service, and have their license suspended with the ability to obtain a limited provisional license. A 2nd time offense should require an interlock device at ANY BAC, as well as an assessment at ANY BAC.

A 3rd time offense within 10 years should require a minimum 10 day jail sentence (servable on weekends), as well as an assessment, interlock, fines, and community service, and supervised probation.

A 4th time offense in 10 years is felony habitual DWI, I have no problem with the current system of punishment.

 

[Ikari]

In NC, anyone who has a BAC of .15 or more is subject to the requirement of having an Interlock device installed in their vehicle in order to obtain a limited provisional license (to/from work and shopping, during a time frame), or to obtain their license back after a revocation period.

In Colorado, there is no BAC limit on that. Any DUI or DWAI you have to get the interlock device installed if you want a limited license. You have to pay for the installation and monthly fee with it too.

I disagree that this is the way to go, this law does not discriminate based upon whether or not this was a first offense or not. I don't believe someone who is a first time offender needs to be forced to have an interlock device installed in their vehicle.

I would agree, I think especially for first time offenses, penalties should be less. Especially if there was no property or personal damage done.

I think instead, they should bump a few of their regulations.
If a person blows a .15 or higher (or blood analyzed .15>) on first offense, only THEN should they be required to obtain an alcohol abuse assessment and follow recommended treatment as a condition of their probation. I believe that anyone below this level should just pay fines, community service, and have their license suspended with the ability to obtain a limited provisional license. A 2nd time offense should require an interlock device at ANY BAC, as well as an assessment at ANY BAC.

A 3rd time offense within 10 years should require a minimum 10 day jail sentence (servable on weekends), as well as an assessment, interlock, fines, and community service, and supervised probation.

A 4th time offense in 10 years is felony habitual DWI, I have no problem with the current system of punishment.

That's fair enough, more focused on the crime itself than extracting money. I would also put time limits on DUIs. If you haven't had one in say 12 years, then the others can't count. In CO and other places now, it is infinite. If I get a DUI today and then 18 years from now get another one; that's my second DUI and I am subject to all the punishments of the second level.