I sure hope you mean "punished just like any other person found quilty of DWI." I hope he would be given a fair trial before punishment
Clutch: heck, I was thinking of Rudy's arrest back in 1994. His story was exactly the same as the one that a lot of people are attributing to Steve: had some drinks, wasn't drunk, got pulled over, refused to take the breath test because he was sure he wasn't drunk and felt it "unfair". Treeman: First of all, I do not think the field tests are rigged so as to allow for breath testing. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it's my understanding that the police do not need anything other than their stated opinion that you've been drinking in order to ask for a breath test. Is this incorrect? In other words, they don't need to rig up some Drunk Olympics for you to screw up. They can smell it on you, ask some questions, and then pop out the breath test. The tests are difficult so as to increase the likelihood that someone under the influence would be almost certain to fail them-- I mean, that's the point of the tests, right? How are these two things consistent? If he'd only had a couple, why not blow and get it over with? Why leave any doubt to it?
I dont think its a bad thing to drive after a couple of beers, dylan, puedlfor, and major. Sorry, I just dont.
Kagy: That's correct. Practically speaking, they can ask you to blow at any point they want, but they're usually not going to do that until they either A) give you a field sobriety test which you fail, and/or B) smell it on you. In court they can (and often do) lie about these items, but a half-decent lawyer will expose some reasonable doubt about the cop's testimony if they had no probable cause. Either A or B is enough probable cause, but if neither A nor B occurred, the lawyer will expose that if he's earning his money... That's usually how it works. But some of those tests really are difficult for sober people to pass (hold your right foot in the air, knee locked, for 20 seconds while touching your nose with your right and left hands alternately... I can do it, but alot of people can't). But usually smelling it is enough. The tests are designed to catch a drunk, but they're difficult enough that many sober people fail, too. If you pass the field tests, you're probably not too intoxicated. How are they inconsistent? If he'd only had a couple, then it would have registered and he'd likely have been taken downtown anyway. It doesn't take much to get you over .08 BAC. Steve erred on the side of caution. Had he blown .081, he would have been arrested and convicted. Had he blown .079, he would have been let off (maybe). I'm guessing that he didn't know his BAC at the time, so he made a calculated guess that he could be over the limit, and refused the test. I'm still inclined to think that he wasn't really drunk if he passed the FSTs, though. Practically speaking, you can be over the legal limit and not be intoxicated; .08 is just a legal standard.
I thought the state of Texas passed a law a few years ago that if you refused to take a breathalyzer that your driver's license could be suspended for like 6 months. If he really hadn't been drinking, then refusing the test was actually a pretty dumb move.
Another silly question, so they cannot take a mandatory blood test if someone refuses to take a breathalyzer test? That's the way it is in Europe...
Treeman, go check the BAC link I posted. It takes a lot more than "a couple" for a 190-lb man to register a 0.08. That was my point. The things you said were inconsistent, because "a couple" drinks even in one hour (let alone "til 5 AM)) would not cause a .008 BAL. Therefore, unless Steve was drunk, he should have taken the test.
Timing: He probably had been drinking, so it was a smart move. Unless he knew beforehand that his BAC was under .08. Now, you can argue that drinking and driving in the first place was a dumb move, and you'll get no argument from me on that... But if he'd even had a single drink, not taking the test was the best move he could have made. You are correct - he will lose his license for 6 months. But had he taken the breathalyzer and blown over .08, then he'd be convicted and lose alot more than his license (although he'd lose that for a year anyway). Again, I'm guessing that he didn't know whether or not he was over the legal limit... Err on the side of caution. Det the Threat: No, they cannot do that. But I'm sure MADD will fix that little problem soon.
Kagy: You're missing my point - Steve didn't know what his BAC was (unless he had his own breathalyzer and blew when the cop wasn't looking), and we don't know how much he had to drink. And just because an individual is legally drunk does not mean that he is practically drunk. I've known people who could drink a fifth of whiskey and you'd never realize they'd had a drop if you didn't smell it. But if he passed the FSTs, then he could not have been that impaired. Truly drunk people cannot pass those tests. It doesn't matter what your BAC is, if you can pass those tests, then you are not impaired/intoxicated. Practically speaking, that is. Legally speaking, it is an entirely different issue. Steve may well have been legally drunk - over .08 BAC. I'm not disputing that, and we don't know how much he had to drink. All I'm saying is that if he passed the FSTs, then he was not drunk enough to be impaired. It's not the legal distinction I'm arguing, it's whether or not he was actually (not legally) intoxicated...
He must be drunk if he was stopped? False If the officer suspected something, he must have been drunk. False. He was possibly roaring drunk and just luckily avoided killing a family of eight. Why assume this.? Highly unlikely given the facts. I don't take this lightly. As an aside 30 years ago I and some friends tried to convince a drunk woman not to drive. We did everything but pull her out of her car; we even stuck our hands in the window to get her keys.and forcibly prevent it. She resisted. She did kill a whole family. This was before MADD and we literally should have physically asaulted that drunk and took the keys, but it is tough when you're actually in the situation. 1) If he passed two field sobriety test, he probably was not that impaired. True. 2) Who is to say that he was even drunk at all. True 3) Steve did the wise thing from a legal defense point of view. This means he had to have been guilty. False. I personally have been taken to the station and I blew a 0.0. I had had a hard fender bender and was shaken up. I briefly refused the field sobriety test for fear of failing it. Five minutes later after sitting in the squad car and catching my breath, they wouldn't let me change my mind and take the test. My knees were practically buckling and I felt dizzy. I had had two or three drinks before dinner an hour or so before. I trusted the cops, and my kidneys. Fortunately everything worked the way it is supposed to. 4) I'm sure Steve and all the NBA players have been coached probably in orientation on the best legal defense to a dwi charge. The fact that they have been coached means they are guilty. False. 5) Young black men driving on Westheimer at 5:00 am have no reason to fear any lack of fairness. False. 6) A polite middle aged white person in a business suit who passed two field sobriety tests is very unikely to have been taken in. True. 7) Passing two sobriety tests and refusing the breatholyzer, Steve will win. True 8) Steve will learn a lesson. True 9) mar1juana should be decriminalized. True 10) the penalty for dwi is too harsh. False. 11) .08 is too strict, if you have passed two field sobriety tests? Probably true. 12) This will have virtually no effect on the Rockets. True 13) The work of typing this longwinded post makes me feel like having some wine. True
Glynch, I don't believe it, I agree with your whole post. WOW !!! As for Kagy saying it takes more then 2 drinks in an hour to blow a .08, he could not be more wrong. The BA test can be wrong many, many ways, if you burp while you take the test it can register incorrectly, if you have just finished 2 drinks they may not be in your system yet...IE Shots etc. It only takes 2 drinks for a 190lb man to be over the limit....or rather 2 drinks in one hour. DaDakota
Does the Gingerman in the Rice Village still exist? They had some good beer there...I wouldn't mind having some drinks with the "Clutchcity.net" family...next time I come to Houston...
Sadly, that is so true, G. It has in fact happened to me. I was living (well, kind of visiting) in my childhood town (DC) with my mom at the time. I was pulled over by this fat white dude for speeding. He made me take a sobriety test. I mean, sure I was 16, wearing black clothes and was wearing a bandanna, but some types of racial profiling in certain situation are not right at all. I ended up getting a ticket. My friend was pulled over by the same cop ("officer pruess") the same night and got a ticket, but no test. We both hadn't been drinking, but I was the one who had to get out and walk in a straight line.
Kagy, you've got some great points and insight into the whole discussion, but treeman and Dakota are right on here. My father is veteran HPD (no longer patrols), and his advice if ever pulled over for DWI: B]NEVER EVER[/B] take the breathalyzer test! If you've had anything to drink you run a pretty good chance of screwing yourself. It is best to just accept the inconvenience of the fine and a few hours in jail. Sort things out later. The Breathalyzer will convict you instantly, and in TX that is some sore ****! It sounds like Steve had a few and knew it was in his best interest not to take the test. Hell, even if I hadn't had anything to drink, I don't think I would take that test.
As to not taking the test and everything... wasn't francis getting some kind of degree in criminology or something this summer? he probably new the consequences and knew what he should do houstone.. i reloaded and saw your post right after i posted mine If he was drunk then i'm very dissapointed.. before I blame him or anything though I'd like to hear his side of the story.
