12) then legally speaking, you are a dangerous, reckless, irresponsible, out-of-control “drunk.” You could win the Indy 500 – sure proof that no matter what proof your blood might be, you are a damned fine driver but if your BAC is over whatever the arbitrary number is (currently, it is. 08 in the Breathalyzer – it would not matter. It is not necessary for the arresting officer to even assert that he saw you driving erratically, much less prove that you were.Įven if you got him to concede in open court that he’d been following you for miles as you drove down a curvy mountain road and could not point to anything about your driving that indicated that you were other than in full control of you vehicle before finally pulling you over for a seatbelt violation or because the little light over your license plate was out – and subsequently, you “blew” a. Your actual driving is not the issue, as far as the law is concerned. In every state, you are automatically presumed to be a “drunk” driver if your blood alcohol content is. The presence of the empty can is sufficient.įor those over 21, the definition of “drunk” is nearly as hysterical. Those under 21 (who may not legally buy, possess or consume alcohol) can be convicted of “drunk” driving if they are found with even a single empty beer can in the car at a “sobriety checkpoint.” It does not matter whether the driver even drank the single can of beer. Which is why the law increasingly package-deals the consumption of alcohol – any alcohol at all – with “drunk” driving. Put another way, why should it be a punishable offense to have been drinking when one’s driving can’t be faulted? Unless of course the object of the exercise is to impose a kind of low-rent Prohibition – to punish people for drinking – this makes no sense at all.īut it does seem to be the object of the exercise.
0 kommentar(er)
