The Problem with Drunk Driving Myths

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

The Problem With Drunk Driving Myths In a world where drinking has become part of the culture, there also happen to be so many drunk drinking myths going around. While myths are but normal, the ones that surround drinking and driving can be quite dangerous, especially when people believe them. That’s the problem with drunk driving myths. One person drinks and drives because he or she believes in one such myth, the next thing you know, that same person is in jail after getting arrested for a DUI. Or worse, in the hospital after getting involved in a drunk driving accident. One drunk driving myth that has gotten a lot of drivers in trouble is the one that says that it’s better not to submit to a breathalyzer in case a police officer stops your car on suspicion of drunk driving. While you will be within your rights if you refuse a breathalyzer test, you can expect more serious consequences afterward. In most states, there is such a thing as an “Implied Consent” law, which states that the moment you claimed your driver’s license, you agree to a breath, blood, and urine test in case of a DUI stop. Refuse a test, and more charges will likely be filed against you. There is also this myth that suggests that taking an ice-cold shower or taking in some coffee will sober them up. The truth is, there is not much you can do about the alcohol in your body except wait for it to metabolize. That means time, and the length of that time will depend on the amount of alcohol you have had to drink. One standard alcohol drink, for example, metabolizes in about two hours. About the Author Michelle White currently works as the Marketing and Communications Specialist at Law Offices of Brian D. Sloan. Her experiences with DUI cases in the past have inspired her to spread awareness about DUI laws in the United States. .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Possible Interference by Common Odoriferous Foodstuffs in the Determination of Breath-Alcohol Content Using the Intoxilyzer 4011AS
University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons University of the Pacific Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 1988 Possible interference by common odoriferous foodstuffs in the determination of breath-alcohol content using the Intoxilyzer 4011AS Gail Eileen Jones University of the Pacific Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds Part of the Medicine and Health Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Jones, Gail Eileen. (1988). Possible interference by common odoriferous foodstuffs in the determination of breath-alcohol content using the Intoxilyzer 4011AS. University of the Pacific, Thesis. https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/2152 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of the Pacific Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POSSIBLE INI'ERFERENCE BY CXM-m OOORIFERCUS FOODS'IUFFS IN 'lliE DEI'ERMINATICN OF' BREATH-ALCOHOL CCNl'ENl' USIN:; THE INIDXILyzER 40llAS Gail Eileen Jones, B. s. Cameron University, Lawton, Oklahana, 1982 A 'lhesis sutmi.tted in Partial F\llfillmant of the RequirE!!"!Vants for the Degree of M:tster of Science in Toxicology at the University of the Pacific December 2, 1988 This thesis, written and submitted by Gail Eileen Jones is approved for recommendation to the Committee on Graduate Studies, University of the Pacific Dean of the School or Department Chairman: Co-Chairman Co-Chairman Dated__ ()_~__;~~~-+----'/ 9-=(......:.( __ _ TABLE OF CCNI'ENI'S Page LIST OF TABLES •• ii LIST OF FIGURES. • . i ii INI'RODUcriCN • • • • 1 Historical and Theoretical Backgroun::i • 1 Drinking, Driving and the I.aw • • 1 Ethanol : Chemical and Pharrca.cological Properties 10 Physiological Principles and the Detennination of Bl ood ~1.
[Show full text]
Police Powers, Trespass and Expressive Rights Under the Canadian Constitution
The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications Allard Faculty Publications 2007 Police Powers, Trespass and Expressive Rights Under the Canadian Constitution W. Wesley Pue Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/fac_pubs Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons Citation Details W Wesley Pue, "Police Powers, Trespass and Expressive Rights Under the Canadian Constitution" (2007) [unpublished]. This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Allard Faculty Publications at Allard Research Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Allard Research Commons. Pue, Trespass & Rights, paper prepared for the Ipperwash Inquiry, 2005-02-04 1 of 96 Trespass and Expressive Rights By. W. Wesley Pue … the rights guaranteed in the Charter erect around each individual, metaphorically speaking, an invisible fence over which the state will not be allowed to trespass. The role of the courts is to map out, piece by piece, the parameters of the fence. • R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30, at p. 164, per Wilson J. Paper prepared for The Ipperwash Inquiry, The Honourable Sidney B. Linden, Commissioner, established by the Government of Ontario on November 12, 2003, under the Public Inquiries Act to inquire and report on events surrounding the death of Dudley George, shot during a protest by First Nations representatives at Ipperwash Provincial Park in 1995. Pue, Trespass & Rights, paper prepared for the Ipperwash Inquiry, 2005-02-04 2 of 96 Table of Contents Introduction The Summit of the Americas, 2001 Legal Issues “Authorized by Law” R.
[Show full text]
Current Trends and Indicators of Alcohol Problems in California
If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. CURRENT TRENDS AND INDICATORS OF ALCOHOL PROBLEMS IN CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG PROGRAMS DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION DATA MANAGEMENT SERVICES BRANCH STATISTICS AND ANALYTICAL STUDIES SECTION & dmscc82:1aura.dms:081189:1g/aa INDICATORS OF ALCOHOL PROBLEMS DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG PROGRAMS DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION DATA MANAGEMENT SERVICES BRANCH STATISTICS AND ANALYTICAL STUDIES SECTION 120265 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official pOSition or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by California Dept. of Alcohol and Drug Programs to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis sion of the copyright owner. FOREWORD As the use of alcohol and the problems related to alcohol abuse increase in our society, so does public concern. The socioeconomic costs (crime, treatment lost employment, reduced productivity, social programs) confronting California's citizens as a result of the problems related to alcohol abuse is conservatively estimated at more than $11 billion annually. This is a cost of over $400 for every man, woman, and child in California. As a result, citizen and parent groups, youth and student organizations, civic groups, law enforcement agencies, educators, health care providers, business leaders, and the community at large are joining together to battle this problem and its consequences to our citizens, especially our youth.
[Show full text]
Sanctions for Drunk Driving Accidents Resulting in Serious Injuries And/Or Death
Sanctions for Drunk Driving Accidents Resulting in Serious Injuries and/or Death State Statutory Citation Description of Penalty Alabama Ala. Code §§ 13A-6-20 & Serious Bodily Injury: Driving under the influence that result in the 13A-5-6(a)(2) serious bodily injury of another person is assault in the first degree, Ala. Code § 13A-6-4 which is a Class B felony. These felonies are punishable by no more than 20 years and no less than two years incarceration. Criminally Negligent Homicide: A person commits the crime of criminally negligent homicide by causing the death of another through criminally negligent conduct. If the death is caused while operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, the punishment is increased to a Class C felony, which is punishable by a prison term of no more than 10 years or less than 1 year and one day. Alaska Alaska Stat. §§ Homicide by Vehicle: Vehicular homicide can be second degree 11.41.110(a)(2), murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide, depending 11.41.120(a), & on the facts surrounding the death (see Puzewicz v. State, 856 P.2d 11.41.130(a) 1178, 1181 (Alaska App. 1993). Alaska Stat. Ann. § Second degree murder is an unclassified felony and shall be 12.55.125 (West) imprisoned for not less than 15 years nor more than 99 years Manslaughter is a class A felony and punishable by a sentence of not more than 20 years in prison. Criminally Negligent Homicide is a class B felony and punishable by a term of imprisonment of not more than 10 years.
[Show full text]
Successfully Defending an OUI Case
CHAPTER 10 Successfully Defending an OUI Case David P. Sorrenti, Esq. Sorrenti & Delano, Brockton § 10.1 Introduction ............................................................................... 10–1 § 10.2 The Offense ................................................................................ 10–2 § 10.3 Operation ................................................................................... 10–2 § 10.3.1 Definition .................................................................... 10–2 § 10.3.2 Defense ....................................................................... 10–3 § 10.4 Public Way .................................................................................. 10–4 § 10.4.1 Definition .................................................................... 10–4 § 10.4.2 Stipulation of Proof .................................................... 10–5 § 10.4.3 Defense ....................................................................... 10–5 § 10.5 Under the Influence ................................................................... 10–6 § 10.5.1 Diminished Capacity .................................................. 10–6 (a) General Principles ............................................. 10–6 (b) Opinion Evidence .............................................. 10–7 (c) Erratic Operation ............................................... 10–7 (d) Odor of Alcohol ................................................. 10–7 (e) Red or Glassy Eyes ............................................ 10–8 (f) Slurred Speech ..................................................
[Show full text]
Ending Drunk Driving with a Flash of Light Andrew Sullivan University of Richmond
University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Law Student Publications School of Law 2015 Ending Drunk Driving with a Flash of Light Andrew Sullivan University of Richmond Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-student-publications Part of the Food and Drug Law Commons, and the Transportation Law Commons Recommended Citation Andrew Sullivan, Ending Drunk Driving with a Flash of Light, 21 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 15 (2015). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Student Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Richmond Journal of Law & Technology Volume XXI, Issue 4 ENDING DRUNK DRIVING WITH A FLASH OF LIGHT Andrew Sullivan* Cite as: Andrew Sullivan, Ending Drunk Driving with a Flash of Light, 21 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 15 (2015), http://jolt.richmond.edu/v21i3/article15.pdf. I. INTRODUCTION [1] Drunk driving exacts an enormous toll on our society. Every year, alcohol-driven1 crashes kill over ten thousand people, injure hundreds of thousands more, and cost the national economy tens of billions of dollars.2 States largely have been left to combat this problem through their own criminal regimes. Among the methods used to combat drunk driving is mandating a person convicted of driving under the influence/driving while intoxicated3 install an ignition interlock device (“IID”) in her vehicle as a condition of restoring her driving privileges. Installing an IID prevents a person convicted of a DUI from starting her car if she has a certain amount * J.D.
[Show full text]
The Impact of Systematically Varying the Duration of Breath Samples During Infrared-Based Alcohol Breath Testing
Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Dissertations Graduate College 6-2002 The Impact of Systematically Varying the Duration of Breath Samples during Infrared-Based Alcohol Breath Testing Chris C. Clatterbuck Western Michigan University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations Part of the Equipment and Supplies Commons, Investigative Techniques Commons, and the Other Psychiatry and Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Clatterbuck, Chris C., "The Impact of Systematically Varying the Duration of Breath Samples during Infrared-Based Alcohol Breath Testing" (2002). Dissertations. 1188. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/1188 This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE IMPACT OF SYSTEMATICALLY VARYING THE DURATION OF BREATH SAMPLES DURING INFRARED-BASED ALCOHOL BREATH TESTING by Chris C. Clatterbuck A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College m partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology Western Michigan University Kalamazoo. Michigan June 2002 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE IMPACT OF SYSTEMATICALLY VARYING THE DURATION OF BREATH SAMPLES DURING
[Show full text]
3 Effects of Alcohol Consumption
Alcohol 2018 Alcohol CONTENTS 1 Overview _________________________________________________________________ 3 2 Prevalence and risks associated with alcohol consumption _________________________ 4 2.1 Alcohol consumption ___________________________________________________________ 4 2.2 Drinking and driving ____________________________________________________________ 6 2.3 The legal limit _______________________________________________________________ 10 2.4 Crashes and injuries ___________________________________________________________ 12 2.5 Characteristics of alcohol-impaired drivers ________________________________________ 18 3 Effects of alcohol consumption ______________________________________________ 19 3.1 Acute impairments due to alcohol consumption _____________________________________ 19 3.2 Chronic impairments due to prolonged alcohol consumption over time __________________ 20 3.3 Effects on driver capabilities ____________________________________________________ 20 4 Measures ________________________________________________________________ 23 4.1 Reducing the availability of alcohol ______________________________________________ 23 4.2 Separating drinking from driving _________________________________________________ 24 4.3 Designated driver programmes __________________________________________________ 27 4.4 Police enforcement ___________________________________________________________ 28 4.5 Education and information _____________________________________________________ 33 4.6 Summary of effective measures _________________________________________________
[Show full text]
Herbert H. Leckie, Jd
HERBERT H. LECKIE, JD 349 Mountain Road, Lebanon, NJ 08833 (908) 534-8300 [email protected] dwi-dreconsulting.com Skills Summary Over 33 years of experience in “Driving While Under the Influence” investigations. Expertise includes evaluation of both alcohol and drug-related DWI matters. Extensive experience in a number of breath test instruments including the Alcotest 7110 MK 111-C instrument. A former instructor in the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST’s) wherein there is the ability to evaluate the proper administration and scoring of the tests administered in DWI investigations. Evaluation of “Refusal” cases including procedural issues related to the Subjective Refusal charge. As a former Drug Recognition Expert Instructor and Course Manager, ability to evaluate cases in which an individual has been charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs (both illicit and prescription). Accepted as an expert witness in the United States Federal District Court, numerous Superior Courts as well as numerous municipal courts throughout the State of New Jersey. Also accepted as an expert witness in Supreme Court, New York County as well as New York County Criminal Court. Education Juris Doctorate, Seton Hall University School of Law (2000) • Student Bar Association President (1999-2000) Bachelor of Science, Rutgers University (1995) • Administration of Justice – with Honors Associate of Science, Middlesex County College (1982) • Criminal Justice Career Experience/Training DWI-DRE Consulting Services, Inc. (2018-Present) President Providing instruction, expert review, analysis and testimony in the following areas: Breathalyzer 900/900A, Alcotest 7110 MK III-C, Standardized Field Sobriety Test Procedures and Drug Recognition Expert Evaluation Case Review.
[Show full text]
6.14 Alcohol Use Disorders and Alcoholic Liver Disease
6. Priority diseases and reasons for inclusion 6.14 Alcohol use disorders and alcoholic liver disease See Background Paper 6.14 (BP6_14Alcohol.pdf) Background The WHO estimates that alcohol is now the third highest risk factor for premature mortality, disability and loss of health worldwide.1 Between 2004 to 2006, alcohol use accounted for about 3.8% of all deaths (2.5 million) and about 4.5% (69.4 million) of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYS).2 Europe is the largest consumer of alcohol in the world and alcohol consumption in this region emerges as the third leading risk factor for disease and mortality.3 In European countries in 2004, an estimated one in seven male deaths (95 000) and one in 13 female deaths (over 25 000) in the 15 to 64 age group were due to alcohol-related causes.3 Alcohol is a causal factor in 60 types of diseases and injuries and a contributing factor in 200 others, and accounts for 20% to 50% of the prevalence of cirrhosis of the liver. Alcohol Use Disorders (AUD) account for a major part of neuropsychiatric disorders and contribute substantially to the global burden of disease. Alcohol dependence accounts for 71% of all alcohol-related deaths and for about 60% of social costs attributable to alcohol.4 The acute effects of alcohol consumption on the risk of both unintentional and intentional injuries also have a sizeable impact on the global burden of disease.2 Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) is the commonest cause of cirrhosis in the western world, and is currently one of the ten most common causes of death.5 Liver fibrosis caused by alcohol abuse and its end stage, cirrhosis, present enormous problems for health care worldwide.
[Show full text]
Coercion in Field Sobriety and Breath Testing Cases in Light of Sponar and Shaw
COERCION IN FIELD SOBRIETY AND BREATH TESTING CASES IN LIGHT OF SPONAR AND SHAW By Ronnie M. Cole, Esquire and Joshua T. Hawkins, Esquire Picture this…your client is on the roadside being asked to take field sobriety tests, or is in a breath test room where he/she is being asked to submit to a DataMaster test. The client wants to refuse but is intimidated, coerced, tricked or misled into complying. What is the remedy? Can the evidence be suppressed? In Sponar v. South Carolina Department of Public Safety , 361 S.C. 35, 603 S.E.2d 412, Ct. App. (2004), the South Carolina Court of Appeals was confronted with that exact issue. Sponar was arrested and charged with DUI and refused a DataMaster test. During the observation period Sponar asked whether he would still go to jail if he took the test, and the officer replied that it did not matter whether he took the test, because he would be going to jail either way. In Town of Mount Pleasant v. Shaw , 315 S.C. 111, 432 S.E.2d 450 (1993), the Supreme Court adopted the following rule: [I]f the arrested person is reasonably informed of his rights, duties and obligations under our implied consent law and he is neither tricked nor misled into thinking he has no right to refuse the test to determine the alcohol content in his blood, urine or breath, the test will generally be held admissible. The court found the officer’s statement to Sponar that he would be going to jail regardless of his decision on whether to submit to the breath test did not inadequately advise Sponar pursuant to South Carolina’s implied consent statute.
[Show full text]
An Assessment of Falsely Convicted Type 1 Diabetics in Jamaica by Using
Original Article An Assessment of Falsely Convicted ection S Type 1 Diabetics in Jamaica by Using ndocrinology the Breathalyzer Test E TAZHMOYE V. CRAWFORD, DONOVAN A. MCGROWDER, JOAN M. RAWLINS ABSTRACT Results: Of the 53 respondents, 73.6% were of type 1 diabetes Objective: The close similarity between the symptoms of alcohol mellitus status and 53.8% were those who were suspected by the intoxication and low blood glucose levels makes it difficult for police to be DUI/DWI and hence, the breathalyzer test resulted in breathalyzers to make the distinction between a diabetic and 42.9% of the respondents showing a reading of ≥ 35 microgram an individual who is driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol per 100 millilitre of breath. The findings showed a correlation (β² or driving while intoxicated (DWI). In Jamaica, it is illegal if a = 0.75) between the respondents with type 1 diabetes mellitus person’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is ≥ 35 microgram and wobbly (41.7%) and faintish/dizzy (20.8%) equilibrium when per 100 milliliter of breath on the breathalyzer and the intoxilyzer examined by the police. There was a high association between devices. The aim of the present study was to examine the extent the diabetics who were unlikely to consume alcohol and those to which the breathalyzer test provided false blood alcohol who were unlikely to be DUI/DWI (C = 0.725, P < 0.01, β = 0.01). measurements in persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus. The respondents of type 2 diabetes were 14 (26.4%), of which 8 failed the breathalyzer examination and were subjected to a Design: The purposive and snowball sampling methods were blood test.
[Show full text]