U-M Director of Football Operations arrested on suspicion of DUI
Lot of news today
So today has been bad for my productivity
A blood test is smart when you know you weren't DWI.
Rejecting a breathlyzer is almost always smart.
why should someone "almost always" reject a brethlyzer?
Gives a person more time to process alcohol if they're on the .08 borderline. You are supposed to have license suspended for refusal, however most police don't actually want to process the paperwork for it.
I agree wholeheartedly that you should almost always refuse(or play dumb).
In Michigan it is supposed to lead to a six month suspension. However, rarely does it play out that way in practice.
'hard' suspension. very, very few exceptions.
I will disagree. In Oregon at least, the DA will extrapolate backwards to the time of the stop to what the BAC was at the time of stop. So delaying and making the officer get a search warrant for blood does not do the suspect any favors. Also, at least in Oregon, a breath test refusal makes the suspension significantly longer than just providing the breath sample.
There are some cops that are lazy and wont right a search warrant, but I know in my area it is part of the policy of the PD that a warrant will be written. And in Oregon the officers arrest on impairment. So theoretically a person could be arrested for DUI, blow below a .08, and still be convicted for DUI. In Oregon the .08 is only a DMV thing and actually has little to do with the criminal conviction.
This is nonsense. So you're saying a DA can use a higher BAC number than what was tested? Based on assumptions?
Methinks you may want to go back to the police academy.
Retrograde extrapolation, as it's frequently called, is a real thing and used fairly commonly in DUI cases. However, it's notoriously easy for the defense to pick apart.
Alcohol dissipates from the body at a rate of about .015% per hour.
Once the BAC result is found after the blood draw, the DA simply needs to add .015% per hour to get the BAC at the time of stop. So it is math and not just an assumption like you say.
It is an assumption because there's no way to know when the driver's BAC peaked. In other words, at the time of testing, the BAC could be rising or falling. And in any event, that .15% figure has been shown to vary substantially from person to person.
....O, except for that pesky "Constitution thing" ya know that whole part whwhere it's illegal for the government to force you to incriminate yourself. No biggie eh?
Hey we should start burning that rather than the flag!
(I hope I don't fucking need the /s)
Uh, what does that even mean? We're not talking about taking away constitutional rights. We're talking about the level of penalty for refusing to take a brethalyzer, something that already carries legal consequences in every state.
I hope your whole comment was sarcastic, but I think it is just the flag part.
/s
So you're happy with losing your rights and freedoms? Wow genius!
Maybe the Fifth Amendment isn't sexy enough for you to care about, but don't worry, they'll be eroding the good stuff soon, ya know like freedom of speech.
I suppose you're too cool to care about that one either.
I have no problem with license suspensions for refusal to blow I'm just totally against treating it as "blowing over" or attaching any criminal charges to it.
Since Driving isn't a right it's a privilege, that's a reasonable amount of compelling force, IMO.
I can get behind the license suspensiuon over it, but attaching any legal prosecution issues to it is MAJORLY problematic constitutionally. Revoking a privilege is fine(if not my favorite thing either, as someone may just be cantankerous or doesn't want an arguably inaccurate test to determine his or her fate and losing a privilege for a year for that seems.....excessive), but the criminal penalties associated with DUI are (rightly) so severe that assigning them simply based on a refusal to take a test just cannot be justified, with or without the fifth amemdment.
As always I ask, what if it was you in this situation, what sort of legal protection would you want?
to extrapolate back to a BAC guess. can be challenged of course, but sometimes is effective depending on other info elicited during trial.
The point is that the vast majority of officers aren't going to take the trouble to get a warrant. And yes, conviction on impairment is possible, which is why I said if you're completely stone drunk it won't matter either way.
nowadays, with fax and internet it adds maybe a 1/2 hr to the deal, sometimes an hour. if you burn off ~ .015% of booze an hour it can help you marginally at best, but meanwhile you've just tubed your license for a year.
looks like a creepshot. Just sayin.
No, what it results in is you getting a summary suspension hearing (may be called something different in Michigan) where the cops are going to recite the same three BS things every single time: slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and smell of alcohol. Unless you were absolutely out of your mind drunk, the hearings aren't that hard to win because most cops don't take the time to get the warrant for blood testing after you refuse the breathlyzer. As a general rule, willingly giving prosecutors and/or administrative agencies evidence they need to convict you is a bad idea.
Looks like they already did the blood work, according to the article. Doesn't mention a warrant, either.
"he was arrested at Airport Blvd. and State Street." What drinking establishments are down in that part of town?
None AFAIK. Just Costco and Taco Bell and Tim Hortons and whatnot. There are a couple liquor stores close by.
I got hit by a guy in a pickup truck not looking before he changed lanes about a block away from there in December, though. /csb
Change is painful enough, but when you do stupid shit like this on top of it, the press will be chomping at the bit. Mgoblog is going to a busy site this summer....
One day, the hoops team makes us feel good, the next, the football team brings us back to earth. I fully expect us to land a grad transfer in basketball tomorrow.
Sigh.
So I'm not going to sit in judgment or anything, but this seems really, uh, not smart and not reeking of excellence to me.
under your direction. Don't expect people to be perfect, but drinking and driving (if true) is never a good idea.
Harbaugh's guys are paid well enough to pay for a cab, especially this guy who gets a military officer pension on top of his salary. Amazingly poor judgement, again if true. No second chances for something like this, in my opinion.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
What if it isn't true?
It is astounding that people don't call a cab or an Uber if you're even slightly buzzed...really stupid to take chances like that. Twenty bucks for a cab and a sheepish explanation to the missus easily beats a wrecked car and an arrest.
Or you could live downtown and just stagger walk home.
Yeah, many of us have done it (raising my hand, back in high school) but if true, Minick loses credibility with the players, and if you lose that, what do you have? Sucks, but that's just the way it goes.
Agree entirely.
When I get absolutely shitfaced drunk nowadays, there's a 100% chance of me taking a cab, walking, or staying over at a friends place. However, there are plenty of times where I'm probably somewhere close or above the .08 limit and have no issues with driving.
1) If you do get pulled over for suspected DWI, don't tell the cop you drink and drive plenty
2) Stop doing it.