Tag Archives: BAC
According to the Florida DMV website, “Driving under the influence (DUI) is defined as operating a motor vehicle while impaired with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08% or higher, a chemical substance, or a controlled substance. Those under 21 years old will be charged with a DUI if their BAC is 0.02% or over and commercial drivers will be charged if their BAC is 0.04% or over.”
The term “motor vehicle” is used by most states and has a wide range of interpretations. In previous posts, we have covered DUI for unusual vehicles such as drones and electric scooters. Well, another “vehicle” has popped up in the news that made me question the thought processes of man; a lawnmower. Yes, that’s right, a lawnmower. Granted, it wasn’t one that you pull the string to get the motor going and push across your lawn. It was a larger type that you sit on and “drive” across your lawn and one that actually had a trailer attached to it, but still, what need would one have to drive it in a parking lot?
I get it. If my neighbor Farmer John needed to borrow my John Deere tractor, someone may drive it across the street to his farm, but I’ll say it again, a lawnmower?
What’s more, the man was caught because he ran into and damaged a police car!
On May 4, a police officer had parked his police cruiser in a parking lot in Haines City, Florida, and stepped inside a nearby business to deal with a dispatch call when he heard a loud noise outside of the business. The officer stepped outside to check the situation to find Gary Anderson, 68, sitting atop of a lawnmower with a trailer containing a cooler. Although he admitted to hitting the patrol car, he denied causing any damage to it. However, upon inspection, the officer saw that there was some damage to the bumper of the cruiser.
Anderson admitted to having “consumed a pint of wine prior to the crash.” The officer conducted field sobriety tests, which Anderson failed. According to the affidavit, Anderson “almost fell to the ground multiple times while walking and standing.” While in custody, Anderson’s demeanor changed from jovial to belligerent with foul language and racial slurs. After a while, he started to accuse the police of poisoning him and asked to be taken to a hospital. Tests were done at the Heart of Florida Regional Medical Center, where results showed Anderson of having a 0.241 percent blood alcohol content, approximately three times the legal limit. The blood tests also revealed cocaine in his system. Anderson, however, accused the officers of poisoning him with the cocaine.
According to one source, Anderson had been convicted of DUI twice within the last 10 years and was charged with a third DUI in 10 years and refusing to submit to a chemical test. However, other sources say his most recent charge was back in 1987. This discrepancy can make a huge difference. According to the Florida Vehicle Code, if Anderson’s third conviction is within 10 years of a prior conviction, then there is a mandatory jail sentence of at least 30 days. If his conviction is more than 10 years of a prior conviction, then imprisonment is for not more than 12 months. Not only is there a difference in possible jail time, if the third DUI is within 10 years of a prior conviction, then Anderson is possibly guilty of committing a third-degree felony.
Anderson was held in jail in lieu of $3,000 bail.
“I’m proud of the professional demeanor our officers showed when dealing with this heavily-intoxicated, belligerent offender,” Haines City police Chief Jim Elensky said in a statement. “It’s never a good idea to get behind the wheel drunk, even if that wheel is to a Craftsman, Massey Ferguson or John Deere.”
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.”
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.
Maine Supreme Court Affirms DUI Conviction Even Though Science Suggests Defendant was Involuntarily Intoxicated
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?
[October 28, 2019]
Another case of auto-brewery syndrome has appeared in the news, and this time, the courts took it seriously. Read about it more here: https://ktla.com/2019/10/25/north-carolina-man-pulled-over-for-dui-said-he-hadnt-been-drinking-researchers-found-his-body-produced-alcohol/
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.”
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.