Crimlaw has a very sobering summary of a case in which an individual was convicted of DUI and certified to go to the grand jury on a DUI - Manslaughter charge even though the defendant passed all of the field sobriety tests except that one step in the heel-to-toe walk was out of line. Yet he was convicted because the breath test showed he had a blood alcohol content of 0.08. Crimlaw points out that "almost no one is inebriated at .08."
He should have asked for a jury trial.
Posted by: Redman | December 18, 2003 at 04:03 PM
It is true that most people are not falling over drunk at 0.080, and that it is a very low standard. There is also very little relationship between field sobriety testing results and a BAC of around 0.080. It is pretty obvious that the "standards" of the FSTs were lowered from 0.10 to 0.080 for a reason; the law was changed. In Arizona, if you accidently cause a fatality and you have any alcohol in your system whatsoever, you can bet that you will be prosecuted for something in almost every case, and usually an offense involving serious prison time.
DUI law often times does not make sense, and those who make it aren't thinking long term or big picture... they seem to be simply reacting to what is a very serious problem. DUI law in the US keeps getting tighter, but the number of arrests and number of fatalities seems to be even or even going up.
Posted by: dui law | January 18, 2004 at 07:27 PM