DUI Coordinator Resigns After DUI Arrest

Tests indicated Harrell's blood-alcohol level was 0.13. The limit in Georgia is 0.08.

wow. 0.13...that's how much? less than one glass.
limit here is 0.5, which equals around 3 glasses...

it's quite ironic, but more because of the Georgia law, not because the guy was drunk or at least a bit drunk with that amount of alcohol in his blood.
 
Shadowfax said:
Tests indicated Harrell's blood-alcohol level was 0.13. The limit in Georgia is 0.08.

wow. 0.13...that's how much? less than one glass.
limit here is 0.5, which equals around 3 glasses...

it's quite ironic, but more because of the Georgia law, not because the guy was drunk or at least a bit drunk with that amount of alcohol in his blood.


.08 is attainable from having just one drink/beer depending on the size of the person. I imagine .13, which is a little less than twice .08, would amount to 3-4 drinks depending on how long you take to drink them.

SF, .5 would be considered shit faced plastered falling down drunk or maybe dead. I've registered .24 BAC before, but I don't remember it....and yes, I got a DUI that night :p
 
perhaps it's a different measurement...it's a promillage of 0.5...definately. not sure whether that's the right word in english...
 
Yeah, if only it were .5 here :D That would be fun. "Honest officer, i only had one liter of vodka tonigh, I'm still fine to drive."

I think .5 is near the level to cause death from alcohol poisoning :D Surely we are talking about something different. If not, the Netherlands must truly be a wonderful place :D
 
I don't think one beer is going to get you a DWI, it's more than that. I'll look for information on how much 0.13 really is. If you don't want a DUI or DWI, it's just this simple: don't drink and drive. Period.

In NY, if you are charged with DWI, they take your car away permanently. I know someone who just last weekend had his girlfriend driving his car and since she was convicted of DWI, not him, he got his car back after paying a fine. But if he was driving, he wouldn't have gotten his car back.
 
but isn't a shot glass 2 onces? So one shot is 4 of 'their' drinks. And since a shot=a beer=a glass of wine, they are saying a 170lbs man can drink about one REAL drink, and a woman is over the limit at just one assuming she isn't grossly overweight ;)
 
All the bars around here have a sign behind the bar that states: "All drinks contain 1 1/4 oz. alcohol". I think that's about normal, for the South anyway.
 
greenfreak said:
if you are charged with DWI, they take your car away permanently

Charged or convicted? If they take your car away without a conviction, it seems like that's circumventing the courts for a conviction.
 
Charged. They don't even have to convict you. I'll look for more information but here's something I found:

Libertarians: Boycott New York City until DWI car-seizure law is repealed? WASHINGTON, DC -- The Libertarian Party is suggesting a nationwide boycott of New York City until the city repeals a controversial new law which allows police to seize the cars of people arrested for -- but not convicted of -- drunk driving.

"Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the New York City government need to be taught a lesson: If you steal people's cars, you will be punished," said the party's national director, Steve Dasbach. "And the best way to punish them is to dry up the flow of tourist and business dollars into the city. "That's why we're encouraging every American who values civil liberties to boycott New York City until this government-sponsored car-stealing crime wave ends."

This week, Giuliani announced that under asset forfeiture laws, city police would start immediately seizing the cars of people arrested for suspicion of drunk driving. Even if that person is found not guilty of DWI in a court of law, the city may still keep the car by taking them to civil court, said Giuliani, where the standard of proof is lower. Such a civil proceeding could take "anywhere from days to years," said a police department spokesman.

The New York City Police Department has already begun setting up random checkpoints around the city, and seized four cars during the first day of the new program. It's those seizures -- and the "frightening power of the police to keep the property of people who have been found innocent of any crime" -- that makes New York City too risky to visit, said Dasbach.

"The Big Apple is in the grip of a crime wave, and the criminals are sitting in offices at City Hall," he said. "The fact is, the city is now too dangerous to visit. After all, what can you do when the police steal your car: Call 911 and report it to the police?"

Americans for Legal Reform.com
 
Some more sources:

http://www.dwiny.com/forfeiture.htm

http://www.cnn.com/US/9902/22/dwi.auto.seizures/

I'd love to find some statistics relating to how many repeat offenders there are now, four years later, as compared to before the law went into effect. I'd say that's a likely deterrent to some would-be drunk drivers. There are so many repeat offenders out there or people who think it's ok to do it as long as they don't get caught, that they had to get tougher somehow. And they did.

And if I'm stupid enough to get behind a wheel after a night of drinking where I do fail a breathalizer, then it's my own fault.
 
If they confiscated the cars AFTER a conviction I would say fine...but not with just a charge pending.
They had a similar thing here with a drug task force. It's a Florida law that the state can confiscate anything purched with drug proceeds or used in the sale or trafficking of drugs...cars, houses, whatever....but these cops got carried away and they were planting drugs in nice cars they pulled over and keeping the cars for their own use. Then even if the people didn't get convicted, they would spend years trying to get their cars back.
 
Indeed. Under those laws they don't even have to charge you with a crime. If you just don't look right, they can charge the money with a crime, take it... and send you on your way. I've read horror stories on it. Under most of the rules governing it, the local police dept. that grabbed the asset can keep half of it for their own use; the rest going to the government. That made for a nasty spree of targetting in the mid 90s.

I remember one case where a small sheriffs office in northern California determined that there was an ancient ranch of many many acres that was in a sweet spot for future development and would have fetch millions upon millions of dollars on the market. They supposedly offered a drug dealer sitting in jail for a short term a deal for early release if he would just say that he saw the owners dealing drugs. They swarmed in at 3am in full raid gear. The owner was a mid 60s retiree and his wife. He heard noise, poked his head out with a rifle/pistol(?) thinking it was a robbery, was shot to swiss cheese by the cops... and ... od course... they found nothing. I don't even think they got an apology over that one.... but it did make national news. It did cause the rules to be modified a tad so that the local cops wouldn't see everything like a candy store.
 
Back
Top