Sides Weighed on Methadone Use by Drivers

The Arizona Republic

Bill amends drug's DUI-law exemption

An effort to bar people who take methadone from driving kicked up a dispute at the state Capitol last week as legislators weighed the arguments of young women hurt in a car crash by an impaired driver against medical professionals who said methadone is safe.

The driver in the crash was taking methadone and other drugs. Methadone is prescribed for treating dependence and withdrawal of narcotics and to treat severe pain. Senate Bill 1003 proposed removing methadone's exemption in the state's DUI laws.

It was prompted by a crash in Cottonwood in 2007. The driver of the pickup was convicted last year of swerving into oncoming traffic and hitting the car carrying five high-school cheerleaders. He said in court he broke the rules of his methadone treatment by taking other drugs.

The bill got out of the Senate Public Safety & Human Services Committee after an emotional hearing. Shantel Haught, who was driving the car, said she has had three surgeries since the crash and still suffers pain and migraine headaches.

"Methadone should be illegal to people who abuse it," she said. "I don't know why they let them drive. It's just so unfair."

Medical professionals said methadone is safe and doesn't cause impairment unless used with other drugs. They said the driving ban would hurt people in drug treatment trying to pull their lives together.

Danny Farrell, 61, of Tempe, said methadone keeps him from a relapse into heroin addiction and crime that does with it.

"The only thing that keeps me out of prison is methadone," he said. "If I don't have methadone, I'll use heroin."

The bill cleared the committee when sponsor Sen. Jim Waring, R-Phoenix, agreed that it could be amended later on the Senate floor. It was, on Friday, and the amended bill was approved by the full Senate. The bill now allows driving by people as long as they are taking the medication as prescribed.

Caysha McCormack, who also was a passenger in the car, said after the committee hearing that she was pleased the bill moved ahead. "I'm happy it passed, but I think more needs to be done," she said.

Emily Jenkins, president and chief executive of the Arizona Council of Human Service Providers, opposed the bill in the committee hearing. She said the amendment made it more acceptable but asked whether it would set up a costly testing system where it would be expensive to a defendant to prove they were taking the drug as prescribed.

"I really feel this bill is not necessary," she said. "If someone is impaired by illegal drugs, it will show up in their blood levels."

Boating Under the Influence | BUI

source: Press Release


Florida is not only surrounded on three sides by two large bodies of water, the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean, but Florida also boasts over 11,000 square miles of waterways. So it is no surprise that boating is a popular summertime activity. Also no surprise is that Florida law treats the crime of Boating under the Influence (BUI) quite similarly to the crime of Driving Under the Influence (DUI). Each type of crime has enhanced penalties depending on the circumstances. Additionally, each crime counts as a prior conviction for the other in order to enhance penalties. Both DUI and BUI charges also require submission to a blood, breath or urine testing. Unlike the DUI law though, that suspends driving privileges for any refusal to submit to a blood, breath or urine testing, any refusal to submit to testing involving a BUI, results in a $500 fine. Both types of suspensions can be challenged through an administrative proceeding conducted separately from the criminal charge of DUI or BUI.

Unlike motor vehicles used on the roadway, boats may be legally stopped and boarded by an officer merely for the purposes of enforcing registration, safety and fishing laws. Probable cause of a civil infraction or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is not required. There have even been BUI arrests that resulted from an officer watching the person dock their boat. Even so, defenses to a BUI charges can be gleamed from the initial stop. For example, if stopped merely for a safety check, this means that the officer had observed the boat being properly operated and not in a manner indicating an impaired operator.

Once contact is established by an officer, a BUI investigation may be commenced on the boat in the form of questioning, observing the operator's ability to show proper safety compliance, and the performance of field sobriety exercises. The officer can even tow the boat to shore for further field sobriety exercises on land that are more consistently used in DUI investigations. Of course, being out on the water and in the sun can be one of many issues to effect a person's performance on these exercises, leading to defenses in this area. A refusal to take these forms of exercises cannot result in an administrative fine, but may used as evidence of consciousness of guilt in the prosecution of the criminal charge.

Persons arrested for BUI are subject to the testing of their blood, breath or urine. Blood testing is allowed when the subject is at a facility for medical treatment and breath or urine testing is impractical or impossible. Blood testing is also allowed when there is a boating accident involving death or serious bodily injury. Otherwise, testing of urine and breath are most often done at the jail or a law enforcement agency's office and must be subsequent to arrest. If the refuses a blood, breath or urine test, that person must be informed that his or her failure to submit will result in a civil penalty of $500, and that if that person has been previously been fined for refusal to submit he or she is committing a misdemeanor. A refusal to submit is also admissible in any criminal proceeding. These types of testing can be successfully challenged if not taken according to applicable laws and rules.

As with any criminal charge, you have the right to a jury trial on a BUI charge. If acquitted the matter is over, but if convicted several levels of penalties are involved. The penalties for BUI increase, similarly to DUI penalties, depending on the existence of certain circumstances such as prior convictions, blood or breath alcohol level, serious bodily injury or death. For example:

BUI TYPE JAIL FINES
1st offense
maximum 6 months
$500-$1000 plus court costs

2nd offense
maximum 9 months
$1000-$2000 plus court costs

3rd offense within 10 years of a prior conviction
3rd degree felony maximum 5 years
maximum $5000 plus court costs

3rd offense outside 10 years of a prior conviction
3rd degree felony maximum 12 months
$2000-$5000 plus court costs

4th offense
3rd degree felony maximum 5 years
minimum $2000 plus court costs

1st offense involving
tests .20 or above or when
accompanied by a minor maximum
maximum 9 months
$1000-$2000 plus court costs

2nd offense involving
tests .20 or above or when
accompanied by a minor
maximum 12 months
$2000-$4000 plus court costs

involving serious bodily injuries
3rd degree felony maximum 5 years
$5000 plus court costs

involving death
2nd degree felony maximum 15 years
maximum $10,000 plus court costs

Further penalties for any type BUI may also involve probation, substance abuse classes, community service, and the impounding of the vessel.

So whether on a sail boat, motor boat or jet ski, Florida law prohibits boating under the influence of alcoholic beverages, controlled substances to the extent that person's normal faculties are impaired or while having a blood or breath alcohol level of .08 or above. Nevertheless, there are defenses to the charge of BUI.

Challenges to the stop of a boat can in fact result in suppression of evidence in spite of the fact that law enforcement has seemingly unbridled discretion when it comes to stopping boats for safety checks. To that end, the facts of any particular case may reveal a valid legal challenge to the stop of a boat. Also who is actually driving the boat can be the basis for a defense. After the boat is stopped law enforcement officers have to articulate facts to support a detention. If not the field exercises may not be admissible and without the field exercises there may be insufficient evidence.

Finally, challenges to a BUI arrest based upon performance of the field exercises can result in dismissal. To that end, an officer's training and experience in field testing boaters is extremely important to the analysis of whether probable cause existed for an arrest. If all of the above challenges fail than like a DUI case challenges to breath, urine and blood testing may provide issues that lead to favorable results for those charged with BUI in Florida.

The bottom line is BUI arrests are on the rise in the name of boating safety. Therefore boaters who drink may be arrested if they are impaired by alcohol or drugs. Nevertheless, it is not illegal to drink alcohol and operate a boat. Thus there are defenses to the charge of BUI that must be explored in order to properly assess the validity of such charges.

Dram Shop Laws Legal Liability for Intoxicated Guests/Patrons

resat.com

An obviously inebriated man leaves a bar, hops into his car and gets into a horrific auto accident that results in a fatality. Not only is the man who caused the accident liable, but the bar that served him drinks may be held accountable for the tragic death.

This is due to dram shop legislation, which was established to make bars, taverns and other proprietors of alcoholic beverages take greater responsibility for the actions of drunken clientele. The term dram shop is derived from a Scottish-Gaelic term which refers to a measurement of drink (roughly 1/8 of an ounce or 60 grains). Although a dram can also be attributed to non alcoholic of drinks, the “dram” measurement is largely associated with ales and spirits.

To date, the dram is still related to alcohol and was the decided moniker when the law was set into place.

Controversy and Debate

Although some argue that it isn’t fair to hold a business criminally liable for the actions of adult individuals, the fact remains that drunks cannot make rational decisions. Like any other type of impaired citizen, drunks need to be protected from themselves. Besides, businesses that ply even willing patrons with alcoholic drinks have a legal and moral obligation to make sure their customers do not get behind the wheel of a car when drunk.

If they do, they should accept partial responsibility when the individual hurts or kills another in a DUI related accident.

Who is Liable?

Dram shop laws can become very specific when it comes to legal liability and may include even social situations, like parties and get togethers. For instance, if you host a party where drinks are served and allow an obviously drunk guest to leave, then you can be held criminally responsible should they get into a a car accident.

Likewise, when an individual that indulged in a bar crawl or similar event ends up in a DUI related wreck, all participating bars and taverns that served the person drinks can also acquire criminal liability. In such cases, fault is determined using comparative negligence.

For example, if one bar only served the man a single drink while another served ten, the latter establishment would have greater culpability than the former.

All of this is to ensure that businesses become more vigilant in preventing impaired individuals from going out into the streets and hurting others.

Advantages for Accident Victims

When people who have lost a loved one look for answers they wish to ensure that all those who are responsible for their valued family member’s wrongful death pay the price. It is not about vengeance but rather, justice. Society functions best when people understand that we have a responsibility to look out for fellow human beings. Drunk individuals cannot make sound decision and those who serve drinks know that and should do what they can to help, even if it means calling the police.

Dram shop laws also enables surviving family members to not only pursue all responsible parties so they can receive compensation commiserate with their loss. This is especially important if the deceased individual was a head of household wage earner.

If you have lost a loved one because of the gross negligence of a bar or similar type of business, you have rights! Contact a reputable wrongful death attorney to inquire about a dram shop lawsuit and learn your options.

Criminal Law - 6 Types of Drink Driving Offences

Energy Drink

Six types of drink-driving offences as follows:

1 Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol (DUI);

2 Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle while the blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeds or is equal to the prescribed limit of 0.05;

3 “Fail the test” offences;

4 Refusing a breath test or failing to undergo a blood sample in hospital after a motor vehicle accident;

5 Failure to have a zero blood alcohol (for Probationary license holders); and

6 An accompanying driver offence.

Penalties for blood alcohol offences usually involve fines or imprisonment or license or permit disqualification. License or permit penalties for drink-driving offences involving BAC readings vary according to the nature of the driver’s BAC, prior drink-driving offences, and when the offence took place.

Conviction for more serious offences like DUI or refusing a breath or blood test, involves two years’ license disqualification for a first offence and four years license disqualification for subsequent offences.

Conviction for BAC reading offences involves license disqualification on a sliding scale according to the BAC reading. The period of disqualification is doubled for a subsequent offence.

As a result of the Road Safety (Amendment) Act 2000 (Vic.), drink-drivers with readings of 0.07 or above must have their license cancelled, irrespective of whether they were issued with a traffic infringement or a summons to appear in court. Magistrates have no discretion to alter the period of cancellation. Drink-drivers with alcohol readings of 0.05 or 0.06 may retain their licenses subject to incurring 10 demerit points whereupon VicRoads has the power to suspend or cancel licenses and permits.

Whilst difficult, it is possible to challenge BAC readings successfully. These defences are generally based upon expert evidence, using the breathalyser over-estimation and rise and fall arguments. These defences are confined to offences of being in charge of a motor vehicle while the blood alcohol content exceeds the prescribed limit.

It is more difficult to challenge “fail the test” offences where a driver has, within three hours of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle, provided a breath sample or a blood sample which, when analysed, exceeds the prescribed BAC. In relation to those offences, challenges appear to be limited to situations where the elements of the offence are not made out. In other words, defences are that the defendant was not driving; the test was not done within three hours of driving; or where the defendant can establish that the BAC was solely due to the post-driving consumption of alcohol; or the breathalyser was on the occasion not in proper working order or not properly operated.

It is also becoming increasingly common for drink-driving charges to be challenged on grounds that the Police have failed to comply with the drink-driving legislation.

It is important for clients to seek legal advice, particularly where BAC readings are alleged to be 0.07 or above.

6 Secrets Prosecutors Wish to Keep from DUI Offenders

Info about How To

If you are up against a DUI charge, you should be able to gather the toughness and the proper frame of mind as things is not as bleak as you may perceive them to be. The important thing that you should remember is that you have as much equal rights and protection under existing laws as any other person up against a court charge. A competent lawyer shall be able to present to you the overall situation and give you all the possible defense options in order to protect your rights. Thus, your lawyer will be able to give you some of the interesting facts about DUI cases. You will learn some very important inside information about DUI cases once you link up with a good DUI lawyer.

Here are 6 interesting secrets that most prosecutors wished to keep from those facing DUI charges.

SECRET #1 – The DUI prosecutor would be swamped with voluminous driving offense dockets if everyone would decide to contest the DUI charge and opt for a to stand in front of a judge. The prosecutor would have to spend all his time in court just to attend to all these DUI cases.

SECRET #2 – In a lot of situations, the mandatory judgement for a DUI offense is so very harsh that going for a full blown trial would entail minor risk. In some instances, a person who pleads guilty for the charge receives nearly identical to the penalty as those who choose to have a court trial for their DUI case.

SECRET #3 – A skilled attorney would not have accepted a post with the State Prosecutor’s Office if it was only DUI charges they worked on. This is not what they hoped to be working on when they accepted the job as a State Attorney.

SECRET #4 – The State Attorney comes to work not as ready as he has to handle a lot of other cases on top of the DUI cases that he is prosecuting. This traffic court dockets would get the correct amount of work from him as that of a very serious offenses that he is also handling for the day. In fact, there are many times where the State Attorney even fails to review case files prior to the court hearing.

SECRET #5 – The police officer is also in the identical problems as that of the State Attorney as your DUI case is just one of the many traffic court dockets that he has to handle every single day. It is a common occurrence for a police officer to attend to an average of 15 to 20 DUI cases on top of other cases for minor traffic violations that are filed in the courts. The police officer usually has a weak recollection of the case at hand and worse, some of them even end up mixing up the circumstances about a DUI cases.

SECRET #6 – The State Attorney does not have the technical expertise as far as the science of sobriety test is concerned. The science of sobriety testing is not taught in Law School. This is an apparent chink in the State Prosecutors armor and most would not be able to properly prosecute a case where the DUI lawyer concentrates his arguments on the validity of the sobriety testing.

Alcohol On Golf Courses - Woman Charged with DUI

KETV Omaha

OMAHA, Neb. -- A golf cart crash that killed an Omaha woman one month ago has illuminated the nuances of enforcing DUI and motor vehicle laws. Debi Deines was killed in the crash. Her friend Kim Mcillece was driving the cart at night on Tiburon golf course when it hit a culvert and tipped, investigators said.

Kim Mcillece

Mcillece's blood-alcohol level was measured at more than twice the legal limit. She has been charged with DUI and motor vehicle homicide.

Mcillece has a bond hearing scheduled for Thursday.City Prosecutor Marty Conboy said a golf cart, as a motorized vehicle, stands within the definition of the law."Any vehicle that is capable of moving you around can hurt you if you drive recklessly, and there's no question that adding alcohol to that makes the danger great," Conboy said.Conboy said drivers who are drunk behind the wheel -- of anything -- run the risk of being caught.

The so-called gray area is enforcement."So far there's really not been any perceivable threat to the public that would make law enforcement on the golf course necessary," Conboy said.

The crash that killed Deines happened on a private course and on private property. But the area was still accessible to the public. Anyone who drinks and drives on a golf course can get slapped with a DUI.But does that make golf courses, which regularly sell to their golf-cart commuting customers, law violators?

Golfers were careful to tread around the question."I mean, do I have beers on a golf course? Sure I do, but again, moderation," said golfer Jim Podwinski. Golfer Ethan Jenkins said the law is legit."If somebody's drinking while driving a golf cart, it's almost like drinking and driving for a car," Jenkins said.

UPDATE:

The operator of a golf cart whose friend died of injuries suffered in a crash at Tiburon Golf Course last month turned herself in to authorities Wednesday morning. Fifty-three-year-old Kimberly McIllece entered the Sarpy County Courthouse accompanied by her lawyer.

A judge set her bond at $100,000. McIllece paid the 10 percent and was released. Her preliminary hearing is scheduled for July 13th.

McIllece was charged Tuesday afternoon with motor vehicle homicide and driving under the influence. She was allegedly driving a golf cart she owned early on the morning of May 10th near 168th and Cornhusker when it slipped down a culvert and slammed into a pipe.

Her passenger, 60-year-old Debbie Deines, went through the cart's windshield before it landed on top of her. She was taken by helicopter to the hospital where she died.

"An accident is an unplanned occurrence, certainly we don't believe it was planned or intentional, but it was negligent and there should be accountability," said Sarpy County Attorney Lee Polikov.

While tragic, Polikov says the golf cart rollover was avoidable. His office issued a news release addressing some of the issues surrounding the case. He says even though the death occurred on private property, state statue allows this prosecution.

According to medical records, McIllece's blood-alcohol level was .198, nearly twice the legal limit. If convicted, she faces 1-20 years in prison, 1-50 if Polikov gets a previous DUI conviction admitted into court.

Polikov said McIllece will be required to wear an alcohol monitoring device and she'll be under the supervision of pretrial release.

Go-cart joyride ends in DUI and assault charges

newsminer.com

FAIRBANKS — A go-cart spin around the yard turned ugly Saturday night in North Pole when the driver of an adult-sized go-cart crashed into a man standing under a carport tent, badly breaking his leg.

The driver of the go-cart, 34-year-old Robert T. Wilkins of North Pole, ended up in prison on drunken driving and felony assault charges while the man who was hit, Richard H. Smith, 51, wound up in the hospital.

“His left leg was pretty much shattered,” Alaska State Trooper J.A. Woodruff said of Smith, who spent the night at Fairbanks Memorial Hospital before being released.

Wilkins, whose breath-alcohol content was measured at 0.219 percent, nearly three times the legal limit, was being held in Fairbanks Correctional Center on charges of driving under the influence of alcohol, first-degree assault and endangering the welfare of a child.

Wilkins’ 8-year-old son was riding in the go-cart with him at the time of the accident, Woodruff said.

According to witness reports, Wilkins was going about 35 mph when he struck Smith in a Go Cart Crossfire 150R in the yard of a home on Scougal Road off Bradway Road.

“It’s not anything like you think of as a children’s go-cart,” Woodruff said of the rig Wilkins was driving. “This is an adult model. They’re basically a mini-dune buggy.”

Smith was pinned between the go-cart and a kitchen stove when the tent was pushed up against the garage as a result of the impact, Woodruff said.

“He tried to jump basically over the go-cart because there was nowhere to go,” the trooper said. “He got one leg out of the way and the go-cart caught him in the air.

“He ran him right into the stove, and the stove hit the wall,” Woodruff said.

Troopers found Wilkins hiding in the kitchen when they arrived. He offered differing stories as to who was driving the go-cart, him or his son, but witnesses, including Smith, put Wilkins behind the wheel. Witnesses said Smith had been drinking at the home all day long.

Neither Wilkins or his son, neither of whom were wearing helmets, were injured. The boy was seat-belted into the go-cart, but Wilkins was not, the trooper said.

Wilkins is being held on $5,000 bail.

Differences Between DUI, DWI, OUI, OWI, OVI, DWAI, DUII

DWI Lawyer
A single term which is used to describe a wide range of offenses throughout the United States that differ by individual state law is Drunk Driving. It is considered to be a crime in every state in the nation to drive with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08% or greater.

In addition to that law if you have consumed any amount of alcohol and/or drugs that has significantly reduced your ability to operate a motor vehicle and then to drive a vehicle in this condition is also a crime.

There are a number of terms/abbreviations that are used to describe these drunk driving crimes and their usage varies with the state. The several terms that are being used are:

DUI, DWI, OWI, OUI, OVI, DWAI, and DUII. Most of the people who have offended a drunk driving law get confused by what they were charged with and what are the differences between the various abbreviations that are used to define the drunk driving offense.

The Main Differences between DUI, DWI, OUI, OWI, OVI, DWAI, DUII

The most common abbreviation for the crime of drunk driving is DUI. It stands for Driving under the Influence and in the nation it is the most common offense for the crime of drunk driving. In order to define their drunk driving laws most states throughout the US use the term DUI.

States that use the term DUI: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming.

Still other offenses related to drunk driving basically refer to the same crime. There are some slight differences, these differences are based on specific state law.

DWI: DWI is the abbreviation for Driving while intoxicated and this term is used to define drunk driving laws of some states. Below is the list of states that use the term DWI:

States that use the term DWI: Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and North Carolina.

OUI: OUI is the abbreviation for Operating under the Influence and it is another term used to describe the crime of drunk driving. This term is used by only (2) states to define their drunk driving laws. The names of these two states are listed below:

States that use the term OUI: Maine, Rhode Island.

OWI: OWI is the abbreviation for Operating While Intoxicated. The laws defined by this term closely resemble the others but only three (3) states use this abbreviation whose names are given below.

States that use the term OWI: Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin.

OVI: OVI is the abbreviation for Operating a Vehicle while Impaired. Initially this abbreviation is only used in the state of Ohio.

States that use the term OVI: Ohio.

DWAI: DWAI is the abbreviation for Driving While Ability Impaired and it is considered to be the lesser form of a drunk driving charge. In this charge fewer penalties are given than a typical drunk driving offense and typically it has less restriction for a driving license.

States that use the term DWAI: Colorado, New York.

DUII: DUII is the abbreviation for Driving under the Influence of Intoxicants. This term is used by only 1 state in order to describe their drunken driving laws.

States that use the term DUII: Oregon.

Overall drunk driving is one of the most serious crimes and it should never be taken lightly. The laws for this crime vary by state and it is advised that you should certainly speak with several experienced DUI Lawyers in your area about your case.

You will be required SR22 insurance for a period of three years before that your states DMV office will reinstate your driver’s license.

Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution

DUI BLOG

I’ve commented in past posts that it is becoming an increasingly common practice for police officers to simply use form or template arrest reports in drunk driving cases — what I have referred to in my books as "xeroxed" reports. In other words, rather than going to all the "trouble" of writing a report of the actual investigation and arrest, cops are using pre-written reports — and then changing a few details to fit the defendant.

This is bad enough, as the reports are supposedly signed under oath and subject to perjury charges. But it becomes particularly serious when you realize that very few officers can remember the details of a given case when testifying months later. In almost all cases, the officers read their own reports before taking the stand — and then testify essentially to what they read in the report. And in DUI cases, they are increasingly testifying based upon a fictional "xeroxed" case.

For example, California attorney Jon W. Woolsey got a court order requiring the California Highway Patrol to turn over any templates or forms used by the officer who arrested his client for DUI. The following is the template that was used:

FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS

All FST’s were explained and demonstrated. I asked Name if he/she understood each test completely and he/she stated that he did. All tests were performed on a Location dirt/asphalt Parking lot/Shoulder that was free of debris. The weather was cool, clear/cloudy, and daylight/dark.

1)Horizontal Gaze Nystagamus:

Name eyes showed lack of smooth pursuit, distinct nystagmus at the extremes and an onset prior to 45 degrees. Name’s eyes showed vertical gaze nystagmus.

2)One leg stand:Name lifted his/her right/left foot and dropped it immediately on the count of 1000.

3)Romberg:Name estimated 30 seconds in 0000 seconds. Name body swayed in a circular motion 1 to 2 inches from center of mass.

4)Finger Count:I explained the test to Name

5)Preliminary Alcohol Screening Device:

I admonished Name regarding the Preliminary Alcohol Screening Device (PAS) and he/she agreed/refused to take the test. I administered the PAS to Name at 0000 and 0000 hours with BAC results of .000% and .000%.

Other Factual Information:

All times are approximate and may vary from the times on the Preliminary Alcohol Screening Device, the breath test and times provided to me by dispatch.

First Observations:

On 0-00-07 I was on routine patrol in a fully marked CHP patrol vehicle, with my partner officer nnn. I was traveling

Observations After Stop:I contacted the driver and advised him/her the reason for the stop. As I spoke with the driver I smelled the strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from his/her breath. I noticed that the driver had red watery eyes, as well as slow and slurred speech. I asked the driver for his/her driver’s license, which he/she provided me. I identified the driver using his/her California Driver’s License as John Doe 00-00-00. I asked the driver if he/she had anything to drink and he stated, “–.” I asked the driver to exit his/her vehicle and meet me at the right front of my patrol vehicle. I noticed that as the driver walked he had an unsteady gate. As I spoke with the driver I noticed that he/she had an odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from his/her breath and person. I also noticed that the driver was unsteady on his/her feet swaying in a circular motion 1 to 2 inches from center of mass, he/she had slow slurred speech, and red and watery eyes. I advised the driver that I smelled a strong odor of alcohol emitting from his/her breath and asked him/her how much he/she had to drink and he/she stated, “—-.” I explained and demonstrated several FST’s to Name, which he/she could not complete as explained and demonstrated.

Arrest: Based on my observations of Name’s driving, Name’s objective signs of alcohol intoxication, and his/her performance on the FST’s, I formed the opinion that Name was driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage and unable to safely operate a motor vehicle. I placed Name under arrest for 23152 (a) CVC at 0000 hours. I advised Name of implied consent and he/she chose the blood/breath test. I booked Name into the Sonoma County Jail.

Recommendations:

I recommend a copy of this report be forwarded to the Sonoma County District Attorney’s for review, and that Name be prosecuted for violation of 23152 (a) CVC driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, and _____

Basically, the report tells the officer what he should have seen — not what he actually saw. And as any honest cop will tell you, drunk driving cases rarely follow such a neat, pre-described script. But it is convenient. And avoids messy complications – like the actual facts.

One size fits all.