Anybody can be arrested in today's world

[ponto]

Trooper Eugene Robinson of the KSP Morehead Post and AA Highway driver gave Joe Billman the standard roadside sobriety tests twice, along with a second portable breath test which barely registered anything.

Trooper Eugene Robinson stated he was going to arrest Joe Billman and take him for a blood and urine test.

When they arrived at Meadowview Hospital, that's when Joe Billman asked for his own blood and urine test which Trooper Eugene Robinson initially said no.

Trooper Eugene Robinson, who has been a trooper since 2005, had to call the his boss at the Morehead post to find out that it was Joe Billman's legal right to have his own independent test taken.

Joe Billman was then booked in to the Lewis County Detention Center.

"State law says a DUI is .08.

According to Kentucky law and KRS 189A.005 which reads 'if there was a concentration of less than .05 based upon the definition of alcohol concentration, it shall be presumed that the defendant was not under the influence of alcohol.

Joe Billman's reading was .038 and screening for the detection of drugs in Joe Billman's system, returned negative results.

What makes this interesting is that Joe Billman is not your ordinary citizen, he is a Chief of Police.

Where does this leave the rest of us?


Source (http://www.maysville-online.com/articles/2008/03/18/local_news/1496billman.txt)

[TheMan]

No one, even a police officer is above the laws they enforce.

I'll reserve further comment until the rest of the facts come out.

[Rebelyell]

I am alarmed that a highway patrolman out making DUI arrests would not know of a citizen's right to perform his own blood tests.

Law enforcement officers need to be able to enforce the law, but citizens should be able to defend themselves as well. For this patrolman to not be aware of basic proceedures is a disgrace. It's good that he was unavailable for comment because he was receiving "training."

[Unregistered]

Chief Joe Billman's blood was the subject of a question once before. Five years ago a young lady in Vanceburg discovered she was pregnant. When a paternity test came back and seemed to implicate a certain individual was not the father, that seemed to be the end of it.
Well through further investigation, turns out the blood that was tested was not the blood of the father in question. It turns out the blood that was tested belonged to Joe Billman, Chief of Police.
When questioned on the matter, Billman replied he had no idea how his blood got to the testing center and into the vile.
Both the phlabotomist and another State Trooper were arrested and served time for tampering with physical evidence.
That's what I would call, "The Rest of the Story"...

[JIMMY]

Well, I finaly broke down and registered for the BBS. It feels good to be a part of the family. I can't necessarily state who I am but I suspect sooner rather than later most of you will figure it out.
Anyway, this posting is in reply to Chief Billman's alleged situation in Vanceburg. This story appeared in a local newspaper back on 5/4/2002. It struck me as relevant, that's for sure.


Judge Lewis D. Nicholls granted a request last month to release former Fish and Wildlife Officer Dale Gee from prison.
Gee was involved in a blood tampering paternity case that spanned several years and sent three people to prison.
In his order, Nicholls said Gee had spent as much time in prison as the other defendants and "to keep him longer is counterproductive to rehabilitation."
James Arnold Sinnott and Vanessa D. Esham, formerly Harrison, were both convicted of tampering with a blood sample in the same case in 1997.
Cara Plummer Paxton, formerly of Vanceburg, filed suit against Sinnott, then a Kentucky State Police trooper, in 1994 when he denied fathering her daughter.
The first set of blood samples, taken by Esham, a phlebotomist, concluded Sinnott was not the father.
Further investigation and another blood test determined a 99.32 percent probability Sinnott was the father and that the first sample was not his.
Investigators were unable to determine who the blood in the initial test belonged to -- a test of Gee's blood determined it was not his -- until Gee's ex-wife came forward with information concerning the crime.
It was determined the initial blood sample belonged to Vanceburg Police Chief Joe Billman.
Billman was never charged in connection with the crime and has insisted he did not know how his blood was to be used.
The indictment against Gee charged him with complicity, first-degree perjury and tampering with physical evidence for helping arrange the blood switch and lying during Sinnott and Esham's trials.
He was convicted of complicity and perjury and ordered to serve seven years in prison in November 1999.
Esham spent 243 days in the Greenup Detention Center for her part in the crime before being granted pre-release probation on the condition she cooperate with prosecutors in the Gee case.
She was ordered back to jail in January 2000 for 60 days by Nicholls for failing to cooperate with the state in Gee's prosecution.
Sinnott remained free until the state Court of Appeals upheld his guilty verdict. Nicholls revoked his appeal bond in December 1999 and ordered him jailed.
All three have now completed serving their sentences.

[kybikertrash]

I wondered, as soon as I saw todays paper, when this "skeleton" would come up.

Billman was never charged in connection with the crime and has insisted he did not know how his blood was to be used.


What I never understood was how did they get his blood and if he gave the blood sample, didn't he ask what it was being used for. I wouldn't go give a blood sample because someone asked me to without knowing why.

[kdown]

Must be something in the water in Lewis County

[Unregistered]

I am a registered member of the BBS but for reason I do not want to reveal I have chosen to post annonymous this time which I never do.

First, does anyone think this is the first time Officer Billman has driven under the influence? I don't believe it is. I also don't believe he was "targeted" I believe they have found some KSP troopers that don't care who you are you will go by the law. If this was any of us and Officer Billman was the police officer would we have let us go like he wanted done to him? I doubt it. Being an officer of the law and the DARE officer he should not drink and drive. You notice I said drink not be drunk. That is not a chance he needed to take.

Second, If someone takes my blood I know it and I know why. It was my understanding while the trial was going on in the Sinnott/Plummer case he even went as far to say he was unaware of his blood being drawn.

I also have another question. According to the article his blood was taken for the KSP purposes and then his blood was taken for his own reasons. Well he was transported from Vanceburg after sobriety tests to Maysville and then the blood and stuff done for KSP. How long after his initial contact with the state trooper was his blood drawn of which he has told the results? Has anyone actually seen those results????? Or is that what he says?

My only hope in this case is the TRUTH come out and justice served whatever that may be.

[Saber]

No one, even a police officer is above the laws they enforce.

I'll reserve further comment until the rest of the facts come out.




I agree with The Man, all of the facts are not know in this case. I will reserve my comments as well for now but I would like to add this. As a IACP Drug Recognition Expert I would like to state that .08 is per se DUI law. The per se limit for commercial vehicle drivers is .04 and under 21 is .02. People can, and have been, convicted of impaired driving with lower levels. Per se is Latin for 'by itself' and any consumption of alcohol (or drugs) supported with properly administered SFST's (Standardized Field Sobriety Tests) may and can convict a person of DUI regardless of their BRaC or BAC levels. Per se simply states that if you have a BRaC of .08 or higher then you are "by itself', and I dislike this terminology, 'legally' impaired.

I would also like to point out that the article did not state if the Hospitals alcohol level was converted or not. The level obtained by a lab is not the same reference as the level used by the state. (.038 in a lab test at a hospital is not the same as a .038 in say a breath test on the Intoxilizer 5000 or a PBT, it has to be converted)

[Flame]

I'm not 100% sure but I do believe the tests at MRMC are converted.

[Saber]

I'm not 100% sure but I do believe the tests at MRMC are converted.

Thanks Flame,


Either way I believe they are very close even after the conversion but there is a difference in the measurements.

[JIMMY]

The Kentucky State Police Uniform Citation states Billman was arrested at 2:02 a.m.. The Meadowview Regional Med Center Tox Screen has a run time of 0411 or 4:11 a.m..
So, we have over two hours time that elapsed between the initial stop and the time the tests were run.
Finally, the alchohol/blood test for routine chemistry came back at 38.1 mg/dL. From what I understand, to convert this number to a BAL, you move the decimal to the left three spots, i.e. .038BAL. Anyone know if this is correct.
These are the official reports.

[Flame]

I have one small question?

The title of this thread is "Anybody can be arrested in today's world"

Anyone breaking the law should be arrested no matter their postion, shouldn't they?

Should we make excpetions for certain people?
I"m sure if I was drinking and driving I'd find myself behind bars.

[Saber]

Arrest Time vs Test Time applies in 'per se' cases only. If the violator's levels are under the per se limit then it will not be a per se case anyhow. The Troopers case would be largely dependent on his SFST's and they will be the main evidence in the support of impairment not the test results.

If the Trooper elected for a blood test, rather than the breath test, then that leads me to believe he suspected something in conjunction with the alcohol.


Jimmy,

I am not sure how the conversation takes place, Flame would have a better idea of how its done. I believe it is 2 different units of measure and every conversion I have seen in my cases result in different numbers so not sure if moving a decimal point in either direction would work if the numbers are different after the conversion?

[Flame]

Jimmy is correct on how the conversion takes place at MRMC. Where I believe the paper states the test took place.

[Saber]

I have one small question?

The title of this thread is "Anybody can be arrested in today's world"

Anyone breaking the law should be arrested no matter their postion, shouldn't they?

Should we make exceptions for certain people?
I"m sure if I was drinking and driving I'd find myself behind bars.



That is an excellent point Flame...


The title of this tread does seem biased and would seem to imply that the police can arrest you if they chose based on that choice alone. I stated earlier I would not give opinions in this till the rest of the case come out but I assure you my hypocrisy only goes so far. Prima facia evidence shows that this Trooper acted under his color of authority. This violators results came back as to having alcohol in his system, we have no information as to how he performed on the SFST or what his level of impairment was and the Trooper was placed in a position to make a decision of arrest or release. The article in the Ledger gave a few lines about the field sobriety tests, eye jerk, lack of smooth pursuit, used arms for balance. The (3) SFST are very in depth and have a high accuracy rating in indicating impairment and is regulated by NHTSA.

Drinking and driving in the State Of Kentucky is illegal... period. People tend to get hung up on 'per se' law and don't even really understand it. Nor do they understand the implied consent law of the state. That is why the police have to read the implied consent warning prior to any chemical test requested.

When ever a officer stops a motorist and detects an odor of alcohol on a person or sees signs of possible impairment, he or she is faced with a very difficult task of deciding of arrest or not. The consequences are far to great if you release a person and they hit and kill someone after your stop regardless how much or how little intoxicating substance they may have consumed.

Have I arrested every driver I have ever came in contact with that had been drinking? No I have not, have I let them drive home after I made my arrest, not arrest determination? No I have not... if I stop you and you have been drinking? You may not 'go' to jail, based on the the evidence I obtain, but I assure you that you will be 'going' with someone... E.G.> a cab or a buddy.

Jimmy is correct on how the conversion takes place at MRMC. Where I believe the paper states the test took place.



I must be thinking of something else???


:confused:

[mark]

.............regardless of the "rest of the story"..........

Seems to me the debate I've read so far....is somewhat "out of whack" on this thread......

Excuse me, but, isn't this the type of behavior police is suppose to be looking for??

The real question should be:

Just why would a Chief of Police be out drinking alcoholic beverages & driving anyway?? ........see ya mark

[sports_fan82]

Seems to me there is some "BAD BLOOD" between the State Police and the Chief of Police.......literally!

[Flame]

That is an excellent point Flame...


The title of this tread does seem biased and would seem to imply that the police can arrest you if they chose based on that choice alone. I stated earlier I would not give opinions in this till the rest of the case come out but I assure you my hypocrisy only goes so far. Prima facia evidence shows that this Trooper acted under his color of authority. This violators results came back as to having alcohol in his system, we have no information as to how he performed on the SFST or what his level of impairment was and the Trooper was placed in a position to make a decision of arrest or release. The article in the Ledger gave a few lines about the field sobriety tests, eye jerk, lack of smooth pursuit, used arms for balance. The (3) SFST are very in depth and have a high accuracy rating in indicating impairment and is regulated by NHTSA.

Drinking and driving in the State Of Kentucky is illegal... period. People tend to get hung up on 'per se' law and don't even really understand it. Nor do they understand the implied consent law of the state. That is why the police have to read the implied consent warning prior to any chemical test requested.

When ever a officer stops a motorist and detects an odor of alcohol on a person or sees signs of possible impairment, he or she is faced with a very difficult task of deciding of arrest or not. The consequences are far to great if you release a person and they hit and kill someone after your stop regardless how much or how little intoxicating substance they may have consumed.

Have I arrested every driver I have ever came in contact with that had been drinking? No I have not, have I let them drive home after I made my arrest, not arrest determination? No I have not... if I stop you and you have been drinking? You may not 'go' to jail, based on the the evidence I obtain, but I assure you that you will be 'going' with someone... E.G.> a cab or a buddy.





I must be thinking of something else???


:confused:


You may not be confused and may be right in your thinking. I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, and I'd be safe in saying not my last. :o
I will ask though and get back to ya all.

[TheMan]

Firt and foremost we shouldn't assume everything stated in the paper is true. Until we hear all three sides, no one should assume one or the other is Gospel

[Rebelyell]

...Drinking and driving in the State Of Kentucky is illegal... period....
Just want to make I understand this correctly. If I stop at a roadside bar and have a four-ounce glass of beer and then get back in my car and drive again, it's illegal? I mean, that's drinking and driving. What if I wait 20 minutes? Two hours? 20 hours? This just seems to me to be a very, very dangerous assertion you are making.

Exactly how do you define "drinking and driving"? In Texas, Mississippi and some other states it used to be perfectly legal to drive down the road and drink a beer so long as you remained below the legal alcohol limit. I think the federal government passed a law that forced the states to prohibit this when they lowered the DUI standard to .08. So clearly driving down the road and drinking a beer is "drinking and driving," even though one can do this and not be "under the influence." That's how I define "drinking and driving," and I have no problem agreeing that it is illegal.

So I guess I want to know what qualifies as "illegal" drinking and driving, and please provide me with the code section and case references if you wish to maintain that "Drinking and driving in the State Of Kentucky is illegal... period," after having any alcohol at all.

[ponto]

The title of this tread does seem biased and would seem to imply that the police can arrest you if they chose based on that choice alone.

Some people do believe that if a policeman wants to arrest you, they will find a way.

And they also believe that a policeman can let a person walk away if they do not want to pursue the crime that someone has committed. For what ever reason.

It is that fear that keeps people scared of the police and others in law enforcement.

Most citizens look at the laws passed by government totally different than lawyers, judges and law enforcement officials.

[Flame]

You may not be confused and may be right in your thinking. I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, and I'd be safe in saying not my last. :o
I will ask though and get back to ya all.


I have checked this with my good lab friend. Yes, if an alcohol level on the lab test is say 222 then you move the decimal to the left three spots make this BAC .22. That means if his BAC is .038 his lab results were 38.

[bubbysgarage]

Some people do believe that if a policeman wants to arrest you, they will find a way.

Can't happen if you are obeying the law.

[Unregistered]

Hummm ......I guess the D.A.R.E program isnt working to well for Billman it sure hasnt taught him anything. I dont think Billman is the only law officer in Lewis Co. that has problems. I saw where the Judge Executive Steve Applegate was also charged with a DUI last week. Sounds like Lewis Co needs to do some checking into their officers of law.

[Unregistered]

I served on a jury some time ago and we had a case something like this. We were told that the only way that a blood test was to be is if 1.) breathalizer had two incomplete readings, then a blood test should/can be administered. 2)If the officers believes that the person in question has something in their system other than alcohol. Why was he arrested if he was under the "legal limit"? I know of two people that blew slightly higher and were released not arrested. I think their is more to the story than what we are being told.

[Saber]

So I guess I want to know what qualifies as "illegal" drinking and driving, and please provide me with the code section and case references if you wish to maintain that "Drinking and driving in the State Of Kentucky is illegal... period," after having any alcohol at all.[/QUOTE]



I should not have used the terminology of Drinking and Driving that loosely... it can be interpreted in different ways in that aspect.


A 4 ounce beer and driving 20 hours later? Let's be practical if we are to seriously debate this...

I have checked this with my good lab friend. Yes, if an alcohol level on the lab test is say 222 then you move the decimal to the left three spots make this BAC .22. That means if his BAC is .038 his lab results were 38.


That is interesting Flame, I did not realize that was the process????

[Flame]

I am going to make some comments here and you officers of the law please correct me if I"m wrong. As I have said I have been wrong before and I will be in the future.

DUI stands for Driving Under the Influence, correct so far? Does not mean driving drunk. Under the influence can be drugs, illegal or even prescription or over the counter. (otc). So no matter what the ETOH (alcohol) level was he was still [Under the influence. [/I] OK am I still correct so far.

I tell patients as they are being discharged from the hospital with a medication that may cause drowsiness or implairment that even though prescribed by a physician if it impairs their judgement then they can be sighted for DUI. Benadryl knocks me on my butt so if I take one and then drive to McDonald's to get a burger and get pulled over because I'm going across the line then it is DUI. Correct??????

I think everyone is so wrapped up in the legal limit of .08 that some have lost sight of the fact he was driving UNDER THE INFLUENCE.

I do not think everyone with a BAC of .08 is drunk. I am very short and weigh a whopping 112 and I'd be drunk at the .038. A bigger person or someone that is a pretty big drinker may not be drunk or even impaired at .08. The question is no matter what the BAC was his driving impaired? My personal opinion and it is just that my opinion is the field sobriety test show that more.

Now you law enforcement folks may tell me what in this I am wrong about, and we can all learn.

[TheMan]

At .08 courts presume that you were to intoxicated to operate a vehicle. You can be charged with DUI and convicted with as little as .04 BrAC or BAC. However that does not include being under the influence of other intoxicants. Be it illegal drugs or Rx.

I am sure that some people wants to think the worst about us. I don't care. I've dealt with it for 10 years now. If you are afraid of me, you are doing something or have done something wrong. Anyone that knows me or has worked with me knows that I go out of my way NOT to put people in jail. Unfortunately some leave me little choice. Fear police officers all you want, but don't blame me for your fear.:mad:

[mark]

.............regardless of the "rest of the story"..........
The real question should be:

Just why would a Chief of Police be out drinking alcoholic beverages & driving anyway?? ........see ya mark

Hmmmm, after reading all the posts on this thread, I'm still reading very little responses as to why the Police Chief is even drinking & driving anyway. I thought the Police are suppose to catch DUI drivers...regardless of who they are.

So now........are Police officers/Chiefs exempt??

I know......I know......some here are going to argue with me about the .08 stuff, but I think they are missing the point.

Just why would a POLICE CHIEF go against the very policy they have been sworn to enforce??

Does this Chief like the misery of having his name plastured all over the paper, internet & be the topic of Barber Shop talk??
Hey, if the Police Chief can drink -n- drive, why not the rest of the citizens too??

I suppose the Police Officer image of being a "ROLE MODEL" for citizens days in Lewis Co. days are over.

I see that as sad, very sad............see ya mark

[Saber]

I am going to make some comments here and you officers of the law please correct me if I"m wrong. As I have said I have been wrong before and I will be in the future.

DUI stands for Driving Under the Influence, correct so far? Does not mean driving drunk. Under the influence can be drugs, illegal or even prescription or over the counter. (otc). So no matter what the ETOH (alcohol) level was he was still [Under the influence. [/I] OK am I still correct so far.

I tell patients as they are being discharged from the hospital with a medication that may cause drowsiness or implairment that even though prescribed by a physician if it impairs their judgement then they can be sighted for DUI. Benadryl knocks me on my butt so if I take one and then drive to McDonald's to get a burger and get pulled over because I'm going across the line then it is DUI. Correct??????

I think everyone is so wrapped up in the legal limit of .08 that some have lost sight of the fact he was driving UNDER THE INFLUENCE.

I do not think everyone with a BAC of .08 is drunk. I am very short and weigh a whopping 112 and I'd be drunk at the .038. A bigger person or someone that is a pretty big drinker may not be drunk or even impaired at .08. The question is no matter what the BAC was his driving impaired? My personal opinion and it is just that my opinion is the field sobriety test show that more.

Now you law enforcement folks may tell me what in this I am wrong about, and we can all learn.



Yes Flame you are correct... people get to caught up in the .08 and what per se actually is. Like 'The Man' stated, and I said in a earlier post, .08 is a presumed level of impairment by the courts. You do not have to be a .08 or higher to be arrested for or found guilty of DUI. As far as illicit drugs and Rx, there is no per se limit for those, if you are found to be impaired while on medication, even your own, that is DUI. DUI is 'Driving Under the Influence'.

'Rebelyell' seems to think my statement of Drinking and Driving is illegal... period, as very very dangerous assertion??? I perhaps used the terminology too loosely but I wasn't looking at it as abstractly as they took it. A dangerous assertion people make everyday is that they drink then drive because they 'feel' fine. Fact is that DUI is DUI, 'Rebelyell' wants to know where it states that drinking and driving is illegal? It states it in the DUI title itself, 'Driving Under the Influence'. Fact is when a person consumes an intoxicating beverage, that person in effect, regardless of amount' becomes 'under the influence' of that substance, from a pharmacology and physiological standpoint. Can different people be effected differently than another, absolutely. Due to homeostasis of the body a person that drinks regularly may not show outward signs impairment as early as someone that never drinks. So the point being is this, if you drink then drive, and are found to be impaired by the use of SFST you are in violation of the law and in that essence drinking and driving is illegal... period. As far as drinking 'while' driving, that is illegal as well, even for a passenger, open alcoholic beverages are prohibited in a motor vehicle in the state of Kentucky. (with the exception of a cab, motor coach and limousine)

[tkcomer]

As far as drinking 'while' driving, that is illegal as well, even for a passenger, open alcoholic beverages are prohibited in a motor vehicle in the state of Kentucky. (with the exception of a cab, motor coach and limousine)

Notice the exemptions to the law. That's the mode of transportation that our lawmakers use. Funny how those vehicles got exempted, don't ya think? I can't ride in a private vehicle with a drink, but they can. It's not against the law to drink and drive. Just don't go over the limit.

[Saber]

Notice the exemptions to the law. That's the mode of transportation that our lawmakers use. Funny how those vehicles got exempted, don't ya think? I can't ride in a private vehicle with a drink, but they can. It's not against the law to drink and drive. Just don't go over the limit.



The "passenger" of a cab, motor coach or limousine, not the driver of any.

[Rebelyell]

'Rebelyell' seems to think my statement of Drinking and Driving is illegal... period, as very very dangerous assertion??? I perhaps used the terminology too loosely but I wasn't looking at it as abstractly as they took it. A dangerous assertion people make everyday is that they drink then drive because they 'feel' fine. Fact is that DUI is DUI, 'Rebelyell' wants to know where it states that drinking and driving is illegal? It states it in the DUI title itself, 'Driving Under the Influence'. Fact is when a person consumes an intoxicating beverage, that person in effect, regardless of amount' becomes 'under the influence' of that substance, from a pharmacology and physiological standpoint. Can different people be effected differently than another, absolutely. Due to homeostasis of the body a person that drinks regularly may not show outward signs impairment as early as someone that never drinks. So the point being is this, if you drink then drive, and are found to be impaired by the use of SFST you are in violation of the law and in that essence drinking and driving is illegal... period. As far as drinking 'while' driving, that is illegal as well, even for a passenger, open alcoholic beverages are prohibited in a motor vehicle in the state of Kentucky. (with the exception of a cab, motor coach and limousine)
The reason for my post was that you seemed to be suggesting that anyone who had anything at all to drink was in violation of the law, and that's not the case.

Also, I agree with you that a person should not base their ability to drive on the fact that they "feel fine."

BUT, the DUI laws were not designed to prohibit a person from driving after having a couple of glasses of wine with dinner. There is a rather assinine neo-prohibitionism going on to try to change the standards, and the standards don't need to be changed; they've been changed enough. They should remain exactly as they are with no more changes whatsoever, period. There's been enough change!

There are some public policy issues at play here. A person with an alcohol level of .04 has on average a 1.4 times greater chance of having an accident than if he had nothing at all. Given that most of us go decades without having any time of accident at all, that's pretty negligible, and that's why it's not against the law to drive with a .04. When you get up to a .08 level, the increase in accident level goes to seven-fold, and that's enough for our lawmakers to say that it is an unacceptable risk, and that's why they chose that as the cut-off point.

You are right, of course, that a person not used to alcohol can be legally under the influence with a single drink. I've seen it happen, although not in the context of driving. Fortunately it passes pretty quickly because of the small amount of alcohol involved.

Finally, I am aware that Kentucky has an open container law. I think Mississippi and Texas were required to pass one by the federal government. But technically, until that law was passed, in Mississippi and Texas you were perfectly free to greet a highway patrolman with an open beer sitting on the car window, taking a sip while you talked to him, so long as you were not legally "under the influence." I don't know anyone who tried this, though!

[TheMan]

You can be found guilty of DUI at.04 BrAC or BAC...

[Rebelyell]

You can be found guilty of DUI at.04 BrAC or BAC...
I'm aware that in rare cases that could happen, such as the case I mentioned where I saw a non-drinker get pretty tipsy from a single drink.

[tkcomer]

Sleepy drivers have more accidents than the people that drink. No laws against that. People that eat in their cars cause a lot of accidents. No law against that. Sober drivers cause more accidents than all combined. Let's put things in to perspective. You can't legislate against bad drivers, whether they are drinking or not. Inattentiveness is the major cause of accidents. Hard to legislate against that. Car and Driver went so far and did their own "drunk driving" tests years ago. They found that most people were not affected until the reached a .15 BAC. In their opinion, the lower standards were pushed by a few things. States and insurance companies wanting increased revenue and prohibition groups like Mothers Against Drunk driving that would like to ban alcohol altogether. You shouldn't be afraid of the cops. They are just enforcing what your elected politicians passed.

[TheMan]

And there are many more resources that will state that any person that has a BAC of .10 has at the least impaired judgment and slower reflexes. It's 12 of one and half dozen of the other. But I've seen more intoxicated drivers cause fatal accidents than inattentive ones.

But I agree in one aspect.. .08 is too low. .10 was fine.. Thanks MADD for the .08

And just for the record. If I were to ever get to .15 and tried to drive, I'd never get the key in the ignition. And I think I'm like most people.

[Flame]

And there are many more resources that will state that any person that has a BAC of .10 has at the least impaired judgment and slower reflexes. It's 12 of one and half dozen of the other. But I've seen more intoxicated drivers cause fatal accidents than inattentive ones.

But I agree in one aspect.. .08 is too low. .10 was fine.. Thanks MADD for the .08

And just for the record. If I were to ever get to .15 and tried to drive, I'd never get the key in the ignition. And I think I'm like most people.

So we have determined .15 would be on the lab tests 150. Boy have I seen much higher.

[Chuck]

You will see higher in alcoholics. An occasional drinker or weekend drinker is generally .1 or .15

[Flame]

You will see higher in alcoholics. An occasional drinker or weekend drinker is generally .1 or .15

Chuck you should have been in ER with me on New Years Eve.

[Chuck]

New Years Eve is not a focus on Generally. It is the exception to the rule because it is a special occasion or event.

Chronic Alcoholics can wake up and test a .1 and end the day close to to a .3.
A weekend partier can maintain a .15 every weekend and accelerate beyond a .2 on the special occasions.

Both groups of people are toasted at all the above stated levels. The occasional drink will generally test .1 to .15, and I will add "Not on Special Occasions".

I would not enjoy the ER on a special event weekend because I have a low tolerance to intoxicated individuals,,, LMBO. This is why I seldom drink because I have the unique ability to get on my own nerves. LOL

[Flame]

New Years Eve is not a focus on Generally. It is the exception to the rule because it is a special occasion or event.

Chronic Alcoholics can wake up and test a .1 and end the day close to to a .3.
A weekend partier can maintain a .15 every weekend and accelerate beyond a .2 on the special occasions.

Both groups of people are toasted at all the above stated levels. The occasional drink will generally test .1 to .15, and I will add "Not on Special Occasions".

I would not enjoy the ER on a special event weekend because I have a low tolerance to intoxicated individuals,,, LMBO. This is why I seldom drink because I have the unique ability to get on my own nerves. LOL

I know people drink more on "special occasions" but we actually added up the I think 5 intoxicated folks we tested ETOH level it was right at 1000. Like .20 each. Actually one was a little closer to .30.

The problem is I have a low tolerance to intoxicated folks. Most of them anyway. We sometimes see the intoxicated funny person. But not that often.