From
Zee Article:
In one year, Brock arrested 58 people whose blood-alcohol content was below 0.08, the level at which state law presumes a driver is impaired, an internal affairs audit showed.
A driver may be charged with DUI if the blood-alcohol level is between 0.05 and 0.08 percent, but there must be other evidence of impairment, such as a swerving vehicle.
In 43 of those 58 cases, motorists demonstrated no visible impairment behind the wheel, according to an internal affairs report made public Thursday. In 41 arrests, Brock also failed to make a case with urine samples, the report states.
My favorite part:
Repeatedly, investigators found Brock reported failures in field sobriety tests when his patrol car video camera documented the opposite. He wrote, for instance, that a driver on Oct. 25, 2005, lost balance while turning. The video of the encounter showed that wasn't the case. The driver blew a 0.01 in the breath test but was arrested anyway.
That's a 0.01% percent blood alcohol level. Now, few people know this, but alcohol actually actually acts as a stimulant in small quantities. That means, while at high levels alcohol does impair, at low levels, it actually does the opposite. So, when this cop arrested the guy for blowing 0.01, what he's actually doing is arresting someone who, quite possibly, is more alert than the cop-- assuming the cop isn't on crack, which is totally possible.
(continued)I always laughed at Texas's law that anyone under 21 who has any detectable level of alcohol in their system gets their license suspended and/or gets a minor-in-consumption. It's silly, quite frankly, when you look at the science behind it all, because as long as they're below the limit, there's a decent chance that they're actually more alert than usual. If they
really wanted to keep the kids safe, they'd completely legalize amphetamines for general consumption. Right now, only people with ADHD get it, but if we wanted to completely prevent drunk driving collisions, it would thus make sense to distribute speed at clubs.
... or, we could simply stop being a paternalistic state and undo all this modern prohibition garbage. Of course, try to reverse the laws and MADD will come along with their shock-and-awe pictures of dead babies and impaled teenagers claiming that the world will come to an end if we allow any alcohol consumption ever.
So let's come to a good median: when popos bust high school parties, they should simply took away the liquor and sit outside the house for an hour or so to make sure nobody drives home. That would probably save the most lives, wouldn't you think? Instead, when "the cops show up," everyone grabs the booze, bolts to their cars, and
drives while
drunk to avoid getting an MIP. Maybe instead of forcing bars to close at 2, causing drunkies to rush to the door to go home (because noplace else is open), we could simply let the bars stay open as late/early as they want. Let people sober up at their own pace. Maybe instead of being nazi-like with bars in underage drinking, we could simply ease up a bit so that bars can easily let 18 year olds in to drink with their friends. That way, they're not forced to visit their drug dealers (who don't check ID) for drugs like GHB that cost less and are more powerful (with no hangover), binge drink before they get to the club (since they can't drink there), and drive home before their curfew.
Plus, I, myself, would sign the petition in increase drunk driving sentences; or, even better, let's make drunk driving a capital crime if, and only if, you kill/seriously injure someone. That way, if you want to risk drunk driving, if you mow down someone, you get the chair. I mean, I disagree with capital punishment, but hey, I think when it's used in the right way, it actually
is preventative. Lemme digress for the rest of this paragraph: capital punishment doens't work when you're using it for something that happens as a crime of passion. That is, someone will kill their wife if they're pissed off enough, and no threat of death will ever prevent that. However, when it comes to drunk driving, no matter how drunk you are, you
will think twice before hopping into your Range Rover to drive 20 miles home.
Here's another idea: force every city and state to allow people to pull over on the side of the road and go to sleep without any fear of prosecution. I mean, we all lament drunk driving, but we make certain to prevent people from doing otherwise without great expense. If you pull over to a residential area, park, or something to pass out because you're tanked, it will be your luck that a cop will show up, knock on the window, then arrest you for being drunk. You
could get a hotel, but depending on where you live and where you're coming from, that's either another $40-200 bucks. Instead, you decide to chance it and drive home. Thus, why don't we just make it a law that cops cannot arrest you or ticket you for anything other than a felony if you pull over and fall asleep, with the exception being that a municipality can decide to set a 12 hour limit to prevent people from simply camping on the side of the road.
That way, problem solved. If someone wants to fall asleep in his car after a night of drinking, everyone will be safe, guaranteed. We might even have to worry a litle less about husbands coming home to their wives drunk and ready to kick their ass. Of course, that would mean "Cops" would get cancelled. Oh well.
Geez, look at what you'd be doing if you simply let people drink like they could in the early 80's: there'd be less drugs and less drunk driving. Pretty cool.
Guess that's too easy and inexpensive. Oh well. Let's just allow the drunk driving continue to increase as it's already been doing, despite what-should-be unconstitutional things like "DUI checkpoints" and bar raids.
Maybe one day we'll sober up to reason.
