If you are driving unsafely under the influence of alcohol you think there are better charges that fit the offense more appropriately than "driving under the influence"?


Great argument there, chief.

You're not drunk if you're under the limit. In fact it's unlikely that you're drunk if you're at the limit. A lot of people can go way over the limit and not be drunk.

.08 is pretty much the minimum limit at which anyone can possibly be drunk.

 

-----signature-----

I imagine there are other charges available for people who are driving drunk, but are not over the legal limit. Inattentive driving, reckless driving, stuff like that?

 

-----signature-----

Yes but that's not really the point. The offense is called "DUI" for a reason. I think it's silly that people think "reckless driving" would fit drunk driving better than "driving under the influence."


Now the real point may be that only having one grade of DUI is sort-of dumb, which I agree with. Driving while you are buzzed is bad and should be a crime but not as much of a crime as driving when you are falling on your ass drunk.


P.S. Paul is also wrong, as usual. In many (probably most) states you dono't have to have a BAC higher than the legal limit. If you do, that's just automatically drunk driving. It isn't a requirement. If you show signs of being drunk and have at least some BAC you can be charged with a DUI.

But many prosecutors will not pursue a case that isn't the DUI-over-the-limit slam dunk because in most cases it is too easy for the Defense to make the case that this is over zealous harassment of the defendant which could easily be anyone on the jury next, which scares the jury enough to find for the defendant.


I don't believe it is unusual for prosecutors to work a plea down to something like inattentive driving if the BAC is anywhere even near the +/- tolerance of the machine because it is too much of a PITA to prosecute.

 

-----signature-----

That's all very true. As this thread had demonstrated, a very high % of the population refuses to accept you can be driving drunk if you arn't over the limit. So it's obviously going to be hard to get a conviction for someone who wasn't over the limit unless you have really good evidence they really were impaired, i.e. a video of them not being able to walk in a straight line and slurring their speech and all that.


I'm just pointing out that conceptually the views of those people make no sense.

agreed.

 

-----signature-----