Utah Lawmakers Vote to Lower State’s BAC Limit to 0.05

Wednesday, March 15th, 2017

Utah could soon have the lowest blood alcohol content limit in the country after the state’s lawmakers voted to lower the threshold for driving to 0.05 percent.

Currently in California, as well as the rest of the country, the legal blood alcohol limit that a person can have in their system is less than 0.08 percent.

In 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) voted to recommend that states lower their blood alcohol limits to 0.05 percent and cited studies that have shown that impairment can occur with a blood alcohol content of 0.05 percent. And now it seems as though Utah has taken up their recommendation.

The new law, which was sponsored by Rep. Norm Thurston, was advanced on the proposition that a lower blood alcohol content could lower incidences of drunk driving.

“The .08 sends a false message … it’s kind of a game — how much can I drink and still stay under the .08?" said Rep. Kelly Miles. “So this will benefit those because now the message is, ‘I shouldn’t drink anything and drive.’ This will send a message to the nation, but I think the message is ‘you are welcome to come here to Utah, you are welcome to drink, but then please make arrangements for a ride.”

Not all of Utah’s lawmakers were on board.

“I don’t think there’s enough data out there that would suggest that lowering the limit would reduce alcohol-related traffic fatalities,” said Rep. Gage Froerer, noting that texting while driving and distracted driving resulted in more deaths than drunk driving. “No one can dispute the validity of not drinking and driving — that’s a given. But the question comes down to personal freedoms, rights and enforcement. Our efforts are better spent on education and informing the public.”

The change in law begs the question, “How many drinks does it take to get to a blood alcohol content of 0.05 percent?”

The California DMV provides very general chart of for guidance on how many drinks it takes to get to certain blood alcohol contents. I emphasize that the chart is only for guidance. A number of factors will affect how many drinks will get a person to 0.8 and 0.05.

A 160-pound male who has two drinks in an hour will have a blood alcohol content around 0.07 to 0.08 percent. One drink will put the same 160-pound male between 0.04 and 0.05 percent.

A 140-pound female who has two drinks in an hour will have a blood alcohol content around 0.09 percent. One drink will put the same 140-pound female around 0.05 percent.

Across the chart, the difference between getting a DUI in Utah, if the law is passed, and the rest of the country including California is about one drink in an hour. And no, it does not matter what type of drink it is. 1.5 ounces of 80 proof liquor, 12 ounces of 5% beer, and 5 ounces of 12% wine all have about the same amount of alcohol and all count as one drink. 

If Utah’s governor, Gary Herbert, signs the bill, the new law would take effect on December 20, 2018. Just in time for the New Year’s celebrations.

 

 

 

Share

Could Extending Last Call in California Increase DUI Incidences?

Thursday, February 23rd, 2017

Many people know Nevada, particularly Las Vegas, as the obvious exception to widely accepted last call time of 2 a.m. and some know that a few states such as New York, Hawaii, and Alaska have later last calls than 2 a.m. California’s last call is 2 a.m. One senator hopes to extend the last call in certain California cities such as Los Angeles to 4 a.m.

Just to be clear before I move on, “last call” refers to the last time for which a bar or restaurant can sell alcohol to patrons.

The bill, which was introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener and entitled Let Our Communities Adjust Late Night Act, would allow municipalities to extend last call to 4 a.m. with the approval of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The bill provides the flexibility to allow an extension of last call to certain cities or “specific areas” of a town. It also would allow an extension only on certain days of the week or only on specific holidays.

A similar bill by Sen Mark Leno was rejected in 2013 by the Senate Committee on Governmental Organization.

Not so surprisingly, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) are opposed to extending the last call time just as they were back in 2013.

"MADD supports uniform closing times for establishments that serve alcohol to avoid creating the dangerous possibility that patrons will bar-hop for that one last drink — a dangerous scenario that all too often increases the risk of drunk driving," national spokeswoman for the group, Becky Iannotta, said in an email to LA Weekly.

According to Weiner, the extra two hours would provide an enormous amount of extra revenue to the hospitality industry in California. In a statement Weiner said that the law would allow cities to “benefit economically and culturally from a strong nightlife presence.”

Amongst the supporters of the bill is the California Restaurant Association and the California Music & Culture Association.

“Nightlife is a major economic and cultural driver in California,” said the California Music & Culture Association’s co-chair, Ben Bleiman, in a statement. “This bill represents a crucial opportunity for California’s cities and towns to choose to join the ranks of those across the country and the world offering truly world-class nightlife for their residents and visitors.”

The group Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety argued in 2013, when Sen. Leno attempted to introduce his bill, that staggering the last call times in California would lessen the burden on law enforcement and public transportation because not all bargoers and drunks would be hitting the streets at the same time.

 

Share

Former NFL Star Sues Bar for Son’s DUI Death

Thursday, January 19th, 2017

Former New England Patriot and Los Angeles Raider star, Brian Holloway, is suing a Florida bar after Holloway’s son was killed in a DUI related collision after leaving the bar.

Max Holloway, son of Brian Holloway, frequented Panini’s Bar and Grill in Lutz, Florida. On October 26, 2016, Max Holloway, was at Panini’s drinking until 2:30 in the morning at which time he left in his vehicle.

Not far from his condo, Max lost control of his vehicle and crashed into a nearby home. He was killed in the collision.

Under Florida law, a person or a business can be held liable for injuries or damages caused by a habitual alcohol drinker whom was served by that person or business.

Laws like Florida’s are called “dram shop laws.”

Not to say that the bar was right to continue to serve Max Holloway, but to hold them liable for the decision he made to drive while under the influence seems to be rather unfair.

Fortunately, California sees it the same.

While other states such as Florida may hold a bar liable for injuries caused by a drunk driving customer, in California it is the customer’s willful decision to drink and then drive which is the cause of any subsequent DUI collision. Thus, in California, bars and restaurants are shielded from liability when a customer over drinks, drives away, and causes injury or damage.

California’s “Dram Shop Laws” (California Civil Code section 1714) read as follows:

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to . . . reinstate the prior judicial interpretation of this section as it relates to proximate cause for injuries incurred as a result of furnishing alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person, namely that the furnishing of alcoholic beverages is not the proximate cause of injuries resulting from intoxication, but rather the consumption of alcoholic beverages is the proximate cause of injuries inflicted upon another by an intoxicated person.

(c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), no social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to any person may be held legally accountable for damages suffered by that person, or for injury to the person or property of, or death of, any third person, resulting from the consumption of those beverages.

(d) Nothing in subdivision (c) shall preclude a claim against a parent, guardian, or another adult who knowingly furnishes alcoholic beverages at his or her residence to a person under 21 years of age, in which case, notwithstanding subdivision (b), the furnishing of the alcoholic beverage may be found to be the proximate cause of resulting injuries or death.

As you can see, the laws are different if the customer is under the age of 21. It is the responsibility of bar to ensure that their customers are of legal drinking age before serving them alcohol. People under the age of 21 are legally deemed incapable of making good decisions regarding alcohol use…like the decision not to drive after drinking at a bar.

While California’s law differ from other states with respect to civil liability, like Florida, a bar may be held criminally liable if they serve alcohol to an “obviously intoxicated person.”

According to California Business and Professions Code section 25602(a), “Every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any habitual or common drunkard or to any obviously intoxicated person is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Share

Pilot Arrested for DUI

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2016

An Indiana man was recently arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. It was later discovered that he was on his way to the Indianapolis airport. The man, identified as Robert Harris III, is a commercial pilot.

According to police, Harris’ eyes were bloodshot, his speech was slurred, and he had trouble with coordination. In fact, according to court documents, field sobriety tests could not be completed because Harris almost fell over while trying to walk. It was later determined that his blood alcohol content was 0.29 percent.

It is unclear if Harris was scheduled to fly that evening and the airline for which Harris was employed refused to comment on the matter.

While federal regulations require that pilots follow an 8-hour “bottle to throttle” rule, some airlines require a 12-hour period between a pilot’s last drink and flight. Also, according to the Federal Aviation Administration, a pilot must report an alcohol-related conviction, suspension, revocation, and/or failed breath test within 60 days.

Since federal aviation regulations do not require a person to hold a driver’s license to fly a plane, the arrest and a subsequent conviction for driving under the influence does not necessarily preclude piloting aircraft following the arrest and/or conviction.

“The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) does not hesitate to act aggressively when pilots violate the alcohol and drug provisions of the Federal Aviation Regulations,” said FAA spokesperson Elizabeth Cory. “Airlines are required to have random testing programs in place.”

“The FAA evaluates these cases on an individual basis, which could affect the pilot’s certificate eligibility,” said Cory.

Not surprisingly, this did not settle well with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

“I would have assumed the FAA would have similar sanctions to the state of Indiana and withholding their license to operate a motor vehicle whether that’s a plane or car,” said MADD spokesperson Lael Hill. “It’s a little bit concerning knowing someone accused of a crime and is allegedly drinking and driving and could have their driver’s license taken away and not their pilot’s license or certificate.”

Hypothetically, had Harris had been on his way to the airport to fly, what would have happened had he flown an airplane under the influence?

First off, the California Vehicle Code does not apply to aircraft. Rather, crewmembers of civil aircrafts, including pilots, are governed by the FAA. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 91.17 states that, “no person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft within 8 hours after drinking alcohol, while under the influence of alcohol, while using any drug that affects the person’s faculties in any way contrary to safety, or while having an alcohol concentration [BAC] of 0.04 or greater in a blood or breath specimen.”

Furthermore, the FAA requires random alcohol screenings of pilots and are subject to an implied consent law similar to California’s DUI implied consent law.

Similarly, California Public Utility Code section 21407 reads, “It is unlawful for any person to operate an aircraft in the air, or on the ground or water in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. In any proceeding charging operation of aircraft in violation of this section, the court in determining whether the operation was careless or reckless shall consider the standards for safe operation of aircraft prescribed by federal statutes or regulations governing aeronautics.”

California penalties for a first time FUI include a county jail sentence of 30 days to six months, and/or a fine of $250 to $1,000.  Federal penalties, on the other hand, are far more severe and can include up to 15 years in federal prison and up to $250,000.

Share

Challenging the Breathalyzer in a California DUI Case

Tuesday, September 20th, 2016

The breathalyzer is the most commonly used method for testing the blood alcohol content of suspected drunk drivers in California. Yet, both myself and Lawrence Taylor have written on more than a few occasions about the inaccuracies of the breathalyzer. Such inaccuracies include, but are not limited to an inability to differentiate between blood alcohol and “mouth alcohol,” elevated temperatures causing elevated BAC readings, and certain diets causing elevated readings.  

So can a person suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol in California challenge the accuracy of breathalyzers in court?

Notwithstanding the widely proven fact that breathalyzers are generally inaccurate, the California Supreme Court in 2013 ruled that scientific evidence refuting the accuracy of breathalyzers in general in California DUI cases are inadmissible.

The issue arose when a California trial court agreed with the prosecutor and excluded the testimony of a defense expert of Terry Vangelder who would have testified that breathalyzers, in general, can be inaccurate.

In 2007, California Highway Patrol pulled over Vangelder for allegedly going 125 miles per hour in San Diego. Although having admitted to consuming some alcohol, Vangelder passed field sobriety tests. Vangelder then agreed to a preliminary screening alcohol test (an optional roadside breathalyzer) which indicated that Vangelder’s blood alcohol content was 0.086 percent. Based on that, Vangelder was arrested and transported to the police station where he submitted to a chemical breath test (a required post-arrest breathalyzer). This breath test showed a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent. Vangelder then submitted to a blood test which indicated that his blood alcohol content of 0.087 percent.

At trial, Vangelder called Dr. Michael Hlastala, a leading authority on the inaccuracies of breathalyzers.

"They are (inaccurate)," Dr. Hlastala testified before the trial judge. "And primarily because the basic assumption that all of the manufacturers have used is that the breath that [is] measured is directly related to water in the lungs, which is directly related to what’s in the blood. And in recent years, we’ve learned that, in fact, that’s not the case."

The judge however, did not allow the testimony and Vangelder was found guilty. Vangelder appealed and the appellate court reversed the decision in 2011. San Diego City Attorney, Jan Goldsmith, then appealed the appellate court decision arguing that such testimony would undermine Californi’s a per se law making it illegal to drive 0.08 percent blood alcohol content or higher.

Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court sided with Goldsmith.

“[T]he 1990 amendment of the per se offense was specifically designed to obviate the need for conversion of breath results into blood results — and it rendered irrelevant and inadmissible defense expert testimony regarding partition ratio variability among different individuals or at different times for the same individual," Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye wrote for the court. "Whether or not that part of expired breath accurately reflects the alcohol that is present only in the alveolar region of the lungs, the statutorily proscribed amount of alcohol in expired breath corresponds to the statutorily proscribed amount of alcohol in blood, as established by the per se statute."

The Court went on to say that, “Although  Dr. Hlastala may hold scientifically based reservations concerning these legislative conclusions, we must defer to and honor the legislature’s reasonable determinations made in the course of its efforts to protect the safety and welfare of the public."

I’m sorry, but I read that to say, “We recognize that science is important in determining the accuracy of breathalyzers, but we’re not going to undermine the legislature because of its good intent.”

Legislators are not scientists.

The effect of the decision was that people suspected of a California DUI can no longer offer evidence that breathalyzers, in general, are inaccurate. People suspected of a California DUI can, however, still challenge the accuracy of a particular breathalyzer.

Seems to me that the California Supreme Court doesn’t want accuracy in California DUI cases.

Share