Shooting a Gun while Intoxicated Less Dangerous than Driving while Intoxicated?

Thursday, April 4th, 2019

The New York Legislature last month voted to lower the blood alcohol limit allowed while hunting to match the threshold for the blood alcohol content someone can have while driving.

On March 26th of this year, the New York Assembly voted 147 – 1 to amend the law that previously outlawed hunting in the state with a blood alcohol content of 0.10 percent or higher. The following day, the New York senate voted 56 – 5 to amend the law. Under the amended law, hunters cannot have a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher, matching blood alcohol content limit while driving in most states, including California (Utah just became the first state to lower its blood alcohol content limit to 0.05 percent).

Under the new law, hunting with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more is a misdemeanor and carries a fine of up to $500, up to a year in jail, and a revocation of a person’s hunting license for two years. Additionally, licensed hunters who refuse to submit to a breath or other test for intoxication can also have their licenses revoked.

“These changes were based in part on studies which determined that this level of alcohol in an individual’s bloodstream can result in substantially impaired motor skills, perception and judgment,” Assemblyman Kenneth Zebrowski wrote in his sponsor’s memo. “These are also critical skills used in hunting.”

In California and other states, DUI laws generally include prohibitions against both driving with a per se blood alcohol limit of 0.08 percent or higher (or 0.05 percent or higher in Utah) and driving while under the influence (or some other iteration like “driving while intoxicated” or “operating under the influence”).

The purpose for this is that nobody should be driving while actually under the influence, meaning that they cannot drive like a reasonable and sober person would. And, as Mr. Zebrowski stated, at a 0.08 percent, studies have shown that the motor skills of individuals, albeit very subjectively, are affected to a degree that might impair driving.

Like Zebrowski, lawmakers who approved of New York’s new limit expressly cited the risk of injury and death.

“An individual who is too intoxicated to drive a car or pilot a boat is also unfit to engage in hunting and the increased risk is not only to the hunter, but to everyone else in the field,” Zebrowski, a Rockland County Democrat, wrote. “This bill would ensure a consistent standard for intoxication in state law.”

Sure, it sounds like they’re considering driving with a blood alcohol content limit of 0.08 percent just as dangerous as shooting a gun with a blood alcohol content limit of 0.08 percent or higher.  But are they really?

Let me get this straight. It is illegal to shoot a gun and drive with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher. Fine. However, it is also illegal to drive a vehicle while “under the influence” regardless of what a person’s blood alcohol content is. Yet, a person can shoot, say a semi-automatic rifle, if they are “under the influence,” but not necessarily above a 0.08 percent.

Let me give an example. Take a person weighing less than a hundred pounds who has never had a sip of alcohol before in their life. If they have a couple of beers, they may not be above a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent, but they’re certainly going to be “drunk” or “under the influence.” New York is telling them, “Sure, go shoot that gun, but don’t you dare drive.”

Really?

It seems to me, and I would hope others would agree, that using any firearms with any alcohol seems patently dangerous, and certainly more dangerous than driving a vehicle. Not that I’m saying it’s safe to drive with alcohol in your system. Neither are safe. But if lawmakers are using a driving under the influence as a measuring standard for how they draft other laws, then it should actually be equal at a minimum, if not more restrictive for more dangerous activities. Or is this just another example of the overzealous vilification of DUI’s?

New York’s new law becomes effective September 1st.

Share

Maine Supreme Court Affirms DUI Conviction Even Though Science Suggests Defendant was Involuntarily Intoxicated

Monday, March 25th, 2019

Apparently, some high courts in this country don’t care whether science can show a person is innocent.

Earlier this month, the Maine Supreme Court denied the appeal of a man who sought to introduce the testimony of a medical expert at trial that he suffers from auto-brewery syndrome.

Believe it or not, there is a rare medical condition that causes a person to “brew” alcohol within their body causing them to become intoxicated even though they haven’t had a sip of actual alcohol; hence the name, “auto-brewery syndrome.”

If you know how beer is made, you’ll know that yeast is added to grain extract (which is essentially sugar). When the yeast eats the sugar, it releases carbon dioxide (which creates the carbonation in beer) and alcohol (which gives beer its intoxicating effects). This process is known as fermentation. A person with auto-brewery syndrome produces unusually high levels of yeast in their gastrointestinal tract which, in turns, eats the sugars that a person ingests creating both carbon dioxide and alcohol in the person’s system even though they haven’t actually ingested any alcohol. In some instances of auto-brewery syndrome, the production of alcohol is so much that it can actually cause a person to become legally intoxicated!

I think you can see where I’m going with this. John Burbank claimed to be such a person afflicted with this rare disorder when he was arrested on suspicion of a DUI in 2016 because his blood alcohol content was 0.31 percent, almost four times the legal limit. In preparation for trial, Burbank sought to introduce an expert who would have testified that he suffered from this condition and that the condition caused him to become intoxicated through no fault of his own.

The trial court judge, however, denied the introduction of Burbank’s expert. And without the expert’s testimony, Burbank opted to plead no contest and filed an appeal challenging the denial of the expert’s testimony.

The Maine Supreme Court concluded that the trial court was correct in not allowing the expert to testify, thus affirming Burbank’s DUI conviction.

The Maine Supreme Court justified its conclusion by saying that, although the expert was a P.h.D. in toxicology and physiology, she was merely basing her opinions several articles regarding the condition, but that she, herself, had not worked directly with cases of auto-brewery syndrome or with Burbank and his condition.  Additionally, the court pointed out, that Burbank’s symptoms were different than those who were the subjects of the articles that the expert was relying on.

Bear in mind that auto-brewery syndrome is extremely rare with far less available research and knowledge about it than many other conditions.

The court went on to say that the denial of the expert’s testimony did not amount to a denial of Burbank’s constitutional right to present a defense because, according to the justices, the denial was a “reasonable restriction.”

I don’t know about you, but this sounds like an unreasonable restriction to me. In law, for expert testimony to be admissible, it must be relevant and reliable. It is relevant because it could show that Burbank did not choose to become intoxicated when he drove. The law should not and, in most cases, does not punish people for things they cannot control. The law should only punish people who, through voluntariness and free will, engage in criminal conduct. And it is reliable because, while the expert may not have specific knowledge as to Burbank’s auto-brewery syndrome, it is nonetheless a legitimate and recognized medical condition, albeit with little research on it because of its rarity. People with rare conditions should not be disadvantaged and punished merely because their condition is rare, which is exactly what the Maine Supreme Court is doing.

What’s more, the concurring justice concluded that the defense of involuntary intoxication should not be allowed in DUI cases because “it may invite many ‘I didn’t know there was vodka in my orange juice’ or similar defenses to [DUI]…charges.”

So what?! So what if it invites future defenses? If it is a plausible defense to a crime for which the government can take away someone’s freedom, a defendant should be allowed to assert it. It’s their life on the line, not the judges. And pardon me, but I thought it was the jury’s job to determine if a defense is true or not. If the jury had heard the expert testimony, but still concluded that Burbank did drink and drive, then so be it. At least he was provided the opportunity to defend himself.  

What’s next? Courts not allowing an alibi defense because it could invite many “I was somewhere else” defenses?

Share

Supreme Court to Decide if Cops Can Draw Blood from Unconscious Driver

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2019

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear and decide a case that challenges a Wisconsin law that allows law enforcement to withdraw blood from an unconscious driver that they suspect was driving under the influence.

The case stems from the 2013 arrest of Gerald Mitchell in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin. After receiving reports that the driver of a gray van may have been intoxicated, officer Alex Jaeger pulled Mitchell over. A pre-arrest breathalyzer revealed that Mitchell had a blood alcohol content of 0.24 percent, three times the legal limit. Officer Jaeger then arrested Mitchell and drove him to a hospital to withdraw a blood sample.

By the time Mitchell and officer Jaeger had arrived at the hospital, Mitchell had lost consciousness and could not be woken. While at the hospital, Mitchell appeared to be too intoxicated to answer questions from a blood-withdrawal consent form. Notwithstanding his unconscious state, blood was taken from Mitchell without a warrant and without his expressed consent.

The blood test revealed that Mitchell’s blood alcohol content was 0.22 percent.

At trial, Mitchell challenged the results arguing that the warrantless blood withdrawal amounted to an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the 4th Amendment. Mitchell’s suppression motion, however, was denied and the jury convicted him of driving under the influence.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court took up the case to address whether implied consent under “implied consent laws” (laws that require a person to submit to a breath or a blood test if they are legally allowed to drive and if law enforcement has probable cause to believe a person is driving under the influence) is constitutionally sufficient to allow a blood withdraw without expressed consent while a driver is unconscious.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that, by virtue of Mitchell’s mere possession of a driver’s license, Mitchell had already impliedly provided consent to allow law enforcement to withdraw blood if law enforcement had the probable cause to arrest him on suspicion of driving under the influence. To boot, the court concluded that officer Jaeger had the probable cause to arrest Mitchell on suspicion of driving under the influence, and therefore law enforcement could withdraw blood from Mitchell while he was unconscious.

In its opinion, the court stated, “…we conclude that consent given by drivers whose conduct falls within the parameters of [Wisconsin’s Implied Consent law], is constitutionally sufficient consent to withstand Fourth Amendment scrutiny…” Furthermore, the court concluded that Mitchell, having consumed alcohol to the point of unconsciousness, “…forfeited all opportunity, including the statutory opportunity…to withdraw his consent previously given; and therefore, [Wisconsin’s Implied Consent law] applied, which under the totality of circumstances reasonably permitted drawing Mitchell’s blood. Accordingly, we affirm Mitchell’s convictions.”

The United States Supreme Court is set to hear Mitchell’s case and it could be decided by late June of this year.

In 2016, the United States Supreme Court ruled that it was lawful for states to impose penalties for drunk driving suspects who refused to take a breath test under the state’s Implied Consent law. However, the Court went on to conclude that while their “prior opinions have referred approvingly to the general concept of implied consent laws,” that “there must be a limit to the consequences to which motorists may be deemed to have consented to only those conditions that are ‘reasonable’ in that they have a ‘nexus’ to the privilege of driving.” Thus, Implied Consent laws that punish people who refuse a blood test are too intrusive and, therefore, unconstitutional.

“[If] criminal penalties for refusal are unlawful because they too heavily burden the exercise of the Fourth Amendment right to refuse a blood test, can it really be that the state can outright abolish the very same right?” Mitchell’s attorneys asked.

Mitchell’s attorney’s question is a valid and one that I hope the Court concludes the answer is “no.”

 

Share

Stricter DUI Law Trend Across the U.S.

Monday, January 7th, 2019

Each state has their own traffic laws and has their own driving under the influence laws. Some are stricter than others. That said, until this year, all states have set the blood-alcohol (BAC) level of 0.08 as the per se standard of driving under the influence. DUI law in every state is much more complicated than simply having a BAC limit (see recent article California DUI Law 101, for a recap on DUI law in California), although it is an important number to remember. One state, however, has made the leap to lower the allowed BAC level, making it the strictest in the country. If you are knowledgeable about the history of anti-drunk driving laws in the U.S., you may not be surprised to hear that that state is Utah, which has in the past been a trailblazer for stricter DUI laws in the country.

Utah was the first state to lower the BAC limit from 0.1 to 0.08 back in 1983, and now in 2019, it will be the first state to lower the BAC limit from 0.08 to 0.05. Utah has put this new limit to effect on December 30, right before the New Year festivities. Although the BAC level will change, the punishments for being convicted of a DUI will not. In Utah, that includes suspended licenses and fines over $1,000. Those in favor of the new limit feel that this new lower BAC level will help to deter drivers from drinking before getting behind the wheel. However, this lower limit also means that law enforcement will be casting a wider net and many more people could have their licenses suspended with thousands of dollars in fines, and possibly other penalties. Unlike California, Utah does not have a policy for restricted licenses, which means that in areas with few public transit options, even first-time offenders will have a difficult time adjusting to the penalties of a first-time DUI in Utah.

Although the idea that a lower BAC limit will help to deter those who have had a few alcoholic drinks from getting behind the wheel is well-intentioned, and though there are many state lawmakers who hope that other states will soon follow in Utah’s footsteps, there are still many details that should be addressed in order to ensure that a lower BAC limit law does not unfairly overreach to people who might be sober.

Utah is not the only state to be making changes. Pennsylvania passed legislation in October that took effect on December 23, that created the state’s first felony DUI. Until now, Pennsylvania was one of four states in the U.S. that did not consider elevating a DUI to a felony after multiple DUI convictions. Now with the new law in effect, a third time offender of driving under the influence with a BAC level of 0.16 (twice the legal limit in Pennsylvania) can be charged with a felony. The new law will also consider a fourth DUI offense or higher, with any BAC level or intoxicating substance presence, as a felony.

The new Pennsylvania law also increased the penalties for homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence, increased jail time for DUI’s where there was a prior DUI, and increased the fines and fees for a DUI. In addition, the penalty amount for driving under suspension has been increased. What was previously a minimum $500 fine and up to 60 days in jail for a second offense is now a mandatory minimum of 90 days in jail and a fine of $1,000, with a third offense to resulting with six months in jail and a mandatory $2,500 fine.     

Considering that a majority of the states have already put in place the felony categorization for a DUI following multiple offenses, Pennsylvania is late in the game. However, Pennsylvania had been seeing an annual number of approximately 10,000 alcohol-related crashes and around 300 fatalities. With one source citing about 250,000 repeat DUI offenders in the state, it is no wonder Pennsylvania turned to the trend of stricter DUI laws.

Hopefully enforcement of these new laws will help to promote a safer driving environment for all, but not at the cost of arresting sober people on suspicion of a DUI.

Share

Utah Now has the Lowest BAC Limit in the Country

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2019

In 2016 Utah passed a law which would lower its blood alcohol content limit from 0.08 percent to 0.05 percent, making it the toughest DUI law in the country in terms of a BAC limit. Well, as of January 1st, 2019, Utah’s new law took effect.

Prior to Utah’s change, all states had the same blood alcohol content limit of 0.08 percent. However, states differed with what punishments a DUI carries.

Although the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all states lower their blood alcohol content limits from 0.08 percent to 0.05 percent, only Utah has done so. The National Transportation Safety Board based its recommendation on studies suggesting that impairment begins when the blood alcohol content reaches 0.04 percent.

Utah will now have the task of transitioning into enforcing the new limit.

“We’ve put together a task force on how we are going to usher this in,” Utah Highway Patrol Captain Steve Winward told state lawmakers late last year.

According to Winward, Utah Highway Patrol officers will get four hours of training that will include a review of Utah policy on breathalyzers and other indicators of intoxication. Other police agencies as well as prosecutors from the state will also receive training.

“We really don’t want to change the way we do business,” Winward told members of the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee last year. “We want to ensure that we are arresting those that are DUI. We want to educate troopers to focus on impairment and not the number 0.05.”

Leading up to the new year, Utah underwent a public relations campaign to inform the public of the new limit.

“People think that you can only have one drink and you are over the 0.05,” Winward said. “We want to dispel those myths.”

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a male weighing 140 pounds would be at, or close to, a 0.08 percent blood alcohol content having had three drinks within an hour. A female weighing 120 pounds would be at, or close to, 0.08 percent blood alcohol content having had just two drinks within an hour. Regardless of gender, your blood alcohol content will not be as high if you weigh more. Conversely, your blood alcohol content will be higher if you weigh less.

However, male weighing 140 pounds would be at, or close to, 0.05 percent blood alcohol content having had two drinks within an hour. A female weighing 120 pounds would be at, or close to, 0.04 percent blood alcohol content having had just one drink within an hour.

Of course, these figures are approximate and depend on several factors which include, but are not limited to, whether the person ate, what they ate, what they drank, and how fast they drank it. But based on these approximate numbers, we can see that for both males and females, the difference between a 0.08 and a 0.05 percent blood alcohol content is about one less drink in an hour.

“I have no doubt that proponents of .05 laws are well-intentioned, but good intentions don’t necessarily yield good public policy,” Jackson Shedelbower, The American Beverage Institute spokesman, said in a statement.

Shedelbower added, and I agree, that the new law focuses on moderate and responsible drinkers, as opposed to drivers with far higher BAC levels who are responsible for the majority of alcohol-related traffic fatalities, according to The Washington Post.

 

Share