Drunk driver is the act of operating a motor vehicle while the operator's ability to do so is disrupted due to alcohol consumption, or with the level of alcohol in the blood exceeding the legal limit. For drivers 21 years or older, driving with 0.08% or higher in blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is illegal. For drivers under 21 years old, legal limits are lower, with country borders ranging from 0.00 to 0.02. Different BAC limits apply when operating a ship, aircraft, or commercial vehicle. Among other names, a drunk driving criminal offense may be called driving under influence (DUI), distracted driving (DWI) or operating interrupted (OWI).
Video Drunk driving in the United States
Prevalence
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 1.5 million people who were drunk driving were arrested nationally in 1996. In 2012, 29.1 million people admitted driving under the influence of alcohol. In 1997 an estimated 513,200 DUI offenders were under penitentiary supervision, down from 593,000 in 1990 and up from 270,100 in 1986.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that in 1996, local law enforcement agencies made 1,467,300 arrests nationwide for driving under the influence of alcohol, 1 out of every 10 arrests for all crimes in the US, compared with 1.9 million such arrests during the peak year on in 1983, accounting for 1 out of every 80 licensed drivers in the US. This represents a 220% increase in DUI capture from 1970 to 1986, while the number of licensed drivers increased by only 42% over the same period.
The arrest rate for alcohol-related violations among Native Americans was more than double the total population during 1996, and nearly 4 out of 10 Native Americans held in local jails have been accused of public order offenses, most often driving while drunk. In 2012, 29.1 million people admitted driving under the influence of alcohol.
Recent analyzes have shown that cities where service sharing is operating operate to show mixed results, whether the availability of such services affects the level of impaired driving.
Accident
The risk of traffic accidents increases with a higher BAC.
NHTSA estimates that approximately 18,000 people died in 2006 from an "alcohol-related" collision, representing 40% of total traffic deaths in the US. During the 2001-2010 decade, this figure shows only 3% variation, and no trends.
Drivers with a BAC of 0.10% are 6 to 12 times more likely to get into accidents or fatal injuries than drivers without positive blood alcohol. NHTSA said 275,000 people were injured in alcohol-related accidents in 2003. About 60% of BAC scores for motor vehicle accidents are lost or unknown. To analyze what they believe to be complete data, statisticians estimate BAC information.
NHTSA defines fatal collisions as "alcohol related" if they believe drivers, passengers, or non-motorists (such as cyclists or cyclists) have a 0.01% or greater blood alcohol content (BAC). NHTSA defines nonfatal collisions as alcohol related if an accident report shows evidence of alcohol, even if no driver or occupant is tested for alcohol. NHTSA specifically notes that alcohol related does not necessarily mean a driver or non-occupant is tested for alcohol and that the term does not show collisions or deaths caused by the presence of alcohol. If anyone involved in an accident (even passengers) has a 0.01% greater BAC, then NTHSA classifies accidents as alcohol-related. Alcohol-related injuries were estimated at 275,000 in 2003.
Maps Drunk driving in the United States
Legal and regulatory
For the most part, DUI or DWI is a synonym term that represents a criminal offense of operation (or in some jurisdictions only in physical control) of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs or a combination of both. The key investigation focuses on whether the faculty of the driver is disturbed by the substance consumed. Successful detection and prosecution of drivers who are harmed by prescription drugs or illegal drugs can be difficult. Breathalyzer has been developed for the purpose of regulating roadside or laboratory tests that can detect the true level of a substance that is controlled within a person's body.
History
New Jersey enacted the first law specifically to criminalize driving while inxicated, in 1906. The New Jersey law states that "a drunk person will drive a motor vehicle." Violations of this provision may be punishable by a fine of up to $ 500, or a period of up to 60 days in the county jail.
The preliminary law, as applied in New Jersey, requires proof of a drunken state with no special definition of what level of inebriation qualifies. The first generally accepted legal BAC limit is 0.15%. New York, for example, who imposed a drunken driving ban in 1910, amended this law in 1941 to establish that it would be prima facie evidence of poisoning when a captured person was found to have a BAC of.15 percent or higher. , as ensured through tests administered within two hours of capture.
In 1938, the American Medical Association created the "Committee to Study the Problems of Motor Vehicle Accidents". At the same time, the National Safety Council established a "Testing Committee for Intoxication".
In the US, most of the laws and penalties greatly increased from the late 1970s, and into the 1990s, largely due to pressure from groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) and such leaders Candy Lightner. Significantly, zero-tolerance laws enforced are criminalized driving a vehicle with 0.01% or 0.02% BAC for drivers under 21. This is true even in Puerto Rico, despite maintaining an 18-year legal drinking age.
On May 14, 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that all 50 states lower the benchmark to determine when the driver is legally drunk from 0.08 blood alcohol content up to 0.05. The idea is part of an initiative to eliminate drunk driving, which accounts for about a third of all road deaths. Given this encouragement by the NTSB, and in addition to various media reports, many bloggers/authors have posted content discussing the Debate Around Lowering the Legal Limit from 0.08% to 0.05%.
Federal law
After the passage of federal law, the legal limit for commercial drivers is now set at 0.04%. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations prohibit those holding commercial driver licenses from driving with a concentration of 0.04 or greater alcohol. Commercial drivers with alcohol concentrations of 0.02 or greater, but less than 0.04, should be excluded from the task for 24 hours.
Country law
In interpreting the terms DUI, DWI, OWI and OVI, some countries make it illegal to drive motorists while under the influence or driving while drunk while others indicate that it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle. There is a separation of authority across the country on this issue. Some countries allow the enactment of DUI, DWI and OWI/OVI laws based on vehicle "operation and control", while others require actual "steering". "The difference between these terms is material, since it is commonly held that the word 'drive,' as used in this kind of law, usually shows the movement of vehicles in some directions, whereas the word 'operate' has a broader meaning so as to include not only the movement of the vehicle, but also the actions involving a vehicle engine that, alone or sequentially, will drive the motive force of the vehicle. "( Country v. Graves (1977) 269 SC 356 [237 SE2d 584, 586 -588, 586. fn. 8]
Each state in the United States assigns "blood per se" or "breath alcohol level" as a threshold point for an independent criminal offense. This is often referred to as the "legal limit". This is a permissive assumption of guilt in which a person's BAC is 0.08% or greater (milligrams per deciliter unit, representing 8 g of alcohol in 10 liters of blood). Some states (eg, Colorado) include lower payloads, sometimes referred to as "impaired driving time" that may apply to individuals with 0.05% or higher, but less than 0.08% per se for a fee more serious.
Each country has an "all-container" provision designed to cover circumstances in which the person is under 0.08%, but that person still appears to be harmed by legal definitions. This type of "catch-all" law covers situations involving a person under the influence of drugs or under the combined influence of alcohol and drugs. With the emergence of legalization of marijuana, this arrest provision covers all prosecutions committed against those charged with driving under the influence of drugs or even drugs and alcohol.
All states in the US have implied permit laws stating that licensed riders have given their consent for a quietness and/or Breathalyzer field test or similar way to determine blood alcohol concentrations. In 2016, the United States Supreme Court at Birchfield v. North Dakota states that both the breath test and blood test are searches under Fourth Amendment, concluding that requiring a breath test is constitutional without a search warrant; However, requiring more blood tests involves no skin piercing, since traffic safety purposes can be obtained in a less invasive manner.
Each state has increased the penalty for refusing to submit to the Immediate License Test in accordance with the Law of the State Accord. In California, refused to submit a breath or blood test when arrested for driving under the influence of carrying additional penalties from a one-year suspension permit under California Vehicle Code Section 13558 (c) (1).
Arizona
Arizona has a BAC limit of 0.08% for DUI standards, but drivers can also face heavier DUI costs like Extreme DUI (Ã,§ 28-1382 (A) (1)) because it has BAC greater than 0.15% or Super Extreme DUI (§ 28-1382 (A) (2)) for BAC over 0.20%.
California
Like every other country, California has a BAC "per se" limit of 0.08% based on California Vehicle Code Section 23152 (b); and under the above-mentioned federal law, a 0.04% lower limit for drivers who hold a commercial driver license (CDL). California also has a 0.01% limit for drivers who are under 21 years old or on probation for previous DUI violations under California Vehicle Code Section 23136 and 23140. California also makes it illegal for people on probation for DUI conviction to drive with blood or breath alcohol concentrations of 0.01% or more based on Vehicle Code Section 23154. Although the presence of BAC 0.01% or greater does not necessarily result in prosecution for driving under influence, it would expose the driver to one or two-year suspension through administrative measures by the California Department of Motor Vehicles. If the same person has a 0.08% or greater BAC, he will ask for what is called a "double action", which means a suspension for driving with a 0.08% or greater BAC and a suspension for driving with a BAC of 0.01% or larger when in DUI Experiment.
In California, within Mercer v. DMV (1991) 53 Cal.3d 753, the California State Supreme Court contrasted the term "drive," which is generally understood to require the movement of the will of a vehicle, with the term "driver," defined in California Vehicle Code Ã,§ 305 as a person either driving or in actual physical control. The court shows that the phrase "real physical control" does not appear anywhere in drunk driving driving legislation. Furthermore, the court notes that since the "driver" is defined as a person who is driving or in actual physical control, the two terms (drive vs. actual physical control) must have a different meaning. Establish this criminal law strictly, not extensively, as requested by Keeler v. High Court Amador County (1970) 2 Cal.3d 619, 631, the court stated that actual physical control is not enough to shape the driving. Therefore, the term: "drive", at least for the purposes of drunk driving legislation, requires the movement of the will of the vehicle. In reaching this conclusion, the California Supreme Court stated that in everyday use the phrase, "driving a vehicle," is understood as requiring evidence of a vehicle's will movement. Many dictionary definitions-including Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1981), cited by the Court of Appeal in the case that led to the California Supreme Court's review of the case supported the definition of "drive" that included movement. (See, e.g. Id ., In p.Ã, 692.) fn. 5. The Mercer Court argues that they believe that this definition is consistent with the usual and ordinary understandings of the term, and suggests the meaning in which the word is intended by the Legislature in the current context.
The earlier "catch-all" California provisions were found in California Vehicle Code Section 23152 (a); but the new law made effective on January 1, 2014, two new sections were made to make parts that specifically deal with people who were accused of driving under the influence of drugs, (which includes prescription drugs if it can be shown that the drug -the drug interferes with the driver), and driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
- CVC 23152 (a): It is unlawful for anyone who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or under the combined influence of alcoholic beverages and drugs, to drive a vehicle
- CVC 23152 (b): It is unlawful for anyone who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, alcohol in his blood to drive a vehicle.
- CVC 23152 (e): It is unlawful for anyone under the influence of any drugs to drive a vehicle
- CVC 23152 (F): It is unlawful for a person who is under the combined influence of alcoholic beverages and any drugs to drive a vehicle.
Nevada
Nevada has an implied clearance law, an agreement to be received by any motor vehicle recipient, who makes a breath or compulsory blood test if an officer has a reasonable suspicion of interference. Refusal is the reason for arrest and law enforcement can use reasonable power to obtain blood samples
Wisconsin
Wisconsin considers the first violation of drunk driving as a violation of the city, and New Jersey treats all cases of drunk driving with no serious injury or death as a traffic violation. The amount of alcohol intake to reach BAC 0.08% may vary with individual body composition and health circumstances. Prior to the increased emphasis on drinking and driving in the 1980s, the standard 0.10% -0.15% was in place.
New Jersey
New Jersey has a general 0.08% BAC limit, but people can be punished for drunk driving even when BAC is below that limit.
North Carolina
North Carolina has a general BAC limit of 0.08%, a lower limit of 0.04% for drivers who hold a commercial driver license (CDL) when operating a commercial vehicle. In addition, it is illegal for anyone under the age of twenty-one (21) to have or consume alcohol.
Doctor Reporting
The six states require doctors to report patients who are driving during an interruption. 25 other countries allow doctors to violate doctors-patient confidentiality to report impaired drivers, if they so choose. The American Medical Association approved a doctor's report in 1999, but was deferred to the state about whether the notice should be mandatory or permissive. Medical bioethicist Jacob Appel of New York University said the doctor's report may deter some patients from seeking treatment, writes "Reporting can eliminate some dangerous drivers from the road, but if it really creates other dangerous drivers, by frightening them from treatment , then society has sacrificed secrecy because there is no real result in a saved life. "
Penalty
The consequences of impaired driving costs include criminal and administrative penalties. Criminal penalty imposed as a result of criminal charges. Administrative fines are imposed by state agents, and in some cases may apply even if a person stops due to a driving disorder not being punished for such breach.
Criminal Penalty
Punishment for drunk driving from country-to-state and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It is not uncommon for different punishments from district to state within a particular country depending on the practice of each jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions require greater jail time and fines, even on the first offense. For example, Ohio required a mandatory 72-hour prison sentence for a first offense conviction; However, the jail time component is satisfied with the presence of Ohio A.W.A.R.E. The program, which is a 72 hour alcohol education program. Compared to many other countries, such as Sweden, punishment for drunk driving in the United States is considered less severe unless alcohol is involved in incidents that cause injury or death to others, such as DUI, DWI or OWI with Large Body Injuries (GBI) or Vengeance vehicles motorized.
Redirection program
The State of Washington used to allow those accused of the first drunken strike to complete a diversion program that caused the allegations to be dismissed following the completion of the Redirect Program. In 1975, under the revised code of Washington or RCW Section 10.05, the State Legislature of Washington established a suspended prosecution option for the arrested perpetrators for driving under the influence of alcohol or destructive drugs (DUI). It is intended to encourage individuals to seek appropriate treatment and, under this option, defendants with significant alcohol or drug dependence problems may petition the courts to delay their disposition of cargo until they have completed intensive substance treatment and meet other required requirements by court. If the defendant successfully completes the program requirements, the allegation is dismissed; for those who fail, deferred status is revoked and the defendant is tried on the original DUI indictment. (RCW 10.05.010 and 10.05.020) In 1992, the University of Washington Institute of Alcohol and Drug Administration evaluated DUI's pending prosecution and concluded the program reduced DUI recidivism. In 1998, the legislature modified the DUI law. Among other things, the length of suspended prosecution control was increased from two to five years and the defendants were limited to one prosecution suspended at any time in their lifetime.
Driving Despite Court Disorders
This innovative court uses substance abuse interventions with repeat offenders who plead guilty to driving while intoxicated. Those accepted into the diversion program are required to distance themselves from alcohol. Some are required to use a device that monitors and records any level of alcohol detected in their bloodstream.
Administrative fine
Federal federal Asylum Criminal Law, which makes state law applicable to land provided or acquired by the federal government when such act or omission is unenforceable by the entry into force of the Congress, recognizes guarantees relating to DUI's punishment as punishment. According to 18 U.S.C.Ã,§ 13:
... what may or will be imposed through judicial or administrative acts under the law of a State, territory, property or district, for confidence to operate a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol, shall be considered to be the punishment provided by that law...
SR-22 - Evidence of Financial Responsibility
SR-22 is an addition to the insurance policy. This is a form of administration that proves the coverage of an insurance company, or posts private public bonds in the minimum state liability coverage coverage for licensed drivers or vehicle registrations. SR on SR-22 stands for Security Responsibility, and is required to restore a suspended driver's license following DUI confidence in 49 states and the District of Columbia. It is submitted to the DMV State by the car insurance company to serve as evidence that the driver has the minimum liability insurance required by the state. They are basically an agreement between the driver's insurance company and the State DMV which requires the driver's insurance company to notify the DMV of each State that the driver's insurance has been terminated or expired; thereby instituting suspension of drivers driving privileges until proof of insurance is re-filed with DMV Country.
While SR-22s are usually filed with their respective DMV States, some States require the driver to carry the SR-22 proof or carry it in a registered vehicle, (especially if the driver has been cited for aberration coverage or other administrative violations). ). SR-22 may prove coverage for vehicles regardless of carrier (scope of owner responsibility), or protect certain persons regardless of the specific vehicle being operated (operator responsibility coverage).
As stated, this form is required in 49 states and the US District of Columbia to register vehicles for public road use. It is also necessary to redeem a suspended license because of the expiration coverage in these required countries. These countries also, in general, require that the issuing issuer provide the relevant DMV of the country with timely updates on the status of the coverage. If the policy with SR22 cancels, a form called SR26 is issued and sent to the state's DMV. After learning that there is an interval in coverage, the country will suspend the driver's license again. Other SR-22 submissions need to be submitted to regain the driving privilege.
Alcohol education program
Each jurisdiction imposes the completion of an alcohol education program, commonly known as a DUI program, following DUI/DWI/OWI beliefs. In addition, some countries impose additional requirements that a person attends the Victim Impact Panel (VIP) managed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), established in 1982. Both the DUI class and the Victim Impact Panel are available in some states for the first offense. DUI depends on the judge's decision.
DUI Plate
In 1967, Ohio began issuing special license plates for DUI offenders who were given limited driving rights such as work-related driving until the courts could decide that they could have full rights back. In 2004, the plates were mandated by state law for all DUI offenders. Unlike the Ohio standard-issue plate (which in 2008 had an image from the Ohio side of the country), the yellow DUI plate with red writing with no stickers or registration charts. They are usually referred to as "party plates".
Minnesota has a similar program, where the plates are white with blue or black text. The plate number is "W", followed by letters and four numbers. These plates may be issued to drivers with at least 2 violations within a five year period; three violations within a period of ten years; having BAC twice the legal limit; or have children in the car at the time of arrest. In Minnesota, DUI plates are referred to as "whiskey plates", whiskey being the name of the letter W in the NATO phonetic alphabet.
Ignition Interlock Device - IID Device
Some states, such as California, may apply the installation of ignition latch devices in cases where the driver's BAC is more than 0.20%, or 0.15% in some places. These additional sanctions are intended to prevent and punish the operation of vehicles at very high BAC levels and the simultaneous dangers posed to the safety of persons and property by highly disturbed drivers.
On July 1, 2010, California implemented a pilot project for DUI penalties. In four districts, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Tulare and Alameda, the first offenders convicted of drunk driving were required to install the ignition device in their car for a period of five months and a second offender for a period of one year. Previously, this requirement was only required for a third offender and allowed for a second offender, and then for a period of three years. DMV California has written a guide to clear up some ambiguity in the law. Costs associated with ignition ignition devices include $ 70- $ 150 for installation and fees in the range of $ 60- $ 80 per month thereafter.
Vehicle Confiscation and Removal
Some states, such as California, allow for the detention and seizure of vehicles under certain conditions.
Investigation and arrest
The following is a common procedure when law enforcement officials have a reason to suspect drunk drivers.
Suspicious Sense of Confusion to Stop & amp; Hold
There are some situations where the officer will make contact with the driver, some examples are:
- Officers on patrol have observed erratic, suspicious driving, or a series of traffic violations indicating the possibility that the driver may be experiencing a disruption. This is the most common reason to stop a suspect.
- A police officer has stopped the vehicle due to a lower traffic violation, notice of signs of poisoning, and initiates a DUI investigation.
- The driver has been involved in a car accident; officers have responded to the scene and are conducting an investigation.
- The driver has stopped at an uncomfortable checkpoint (also known as a roadblock).
- The police have received reports, probably from anonymous citizens, that the car described has been driving erratically. Officers must verify erratic driving before pulling the driver. In some cases, the driver will no longer be in the vehicle.
The following list of DUI symptoms, from publications issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (DOT HS-805-711), is widely used in training officers to detect drunk drivers. After each symptom is a percentage number which, according to NHTSA, shows statistical opportunities through research that the driver is over the legal limit.
If officers observe enough evidence to have "Reasonable Mistakes" to legally justify further detention and investigation, they will ask the driver to get out of the vehicle.
Investigation
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, police officers should conduct DUI Investigations in accordance with certain protocols called phases. According to NHTSA training, DUI Investigations are categorized by these phases:
- Phase 1 - "Vehicles in Motion"
- Stage 2 - "Personal Contact"
- Stage 3 - "Pre-Screening Capture"
The Vehicle in Motion Phase deals with the observation of law enforcement officers over suspect driver maneuvers. The Personal Contact Phase is where the officers are actually in contact with a DUI suspect. The Pre-Capture Screening Stage is part of a DUI Investigation that includes the Pre-Field Pre-Trail Test and Field Uncertainty Test, including the Preliminary Alcohol Prevention Test. This phase also includes post-capture proof chemical testing even though it occurs after DUI capture, not before DUI capture.
Officers will usually approach the driver's window and ask some initial questions. During this phase of termination, officers will record if they detect any of the following poisoning indicators
- The smell of alcoholic beverages on the driver's breath or in cars is generally
- Speech is unclear in response to a question
- Aqueous, bloodshot, or reddish eyes
- Face flushed
- Eyelid eyelids
- Difficulty understanding and responding to questions intelligently
- Fumble with SIM and registration
- The presence of containers containing alcoholic beverages in the vehicle.
- Acceptance of alcoholic drinks
If the officer is adequately observed to have reasonable suspicions to justify further detention and investigation by law, they will require the driver to get out of the vehicle.
Field Awareness Test
One of the most controversial aspects of DUI termination is the field proximity test (FSTs). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has developed a model system to manage Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) training. They have published a number of training guides related to FST. As a result of the NHTSA study, walking and turning tests were determined to be 68% accurate, and a one-foot standing test was only 65% ​​accurate when administered to people within the study parameters. The test is not validated for people with medical conditions, injuries, 65 years of age or older, and 50 pounds or being overweight. Officers will arrange one or more field tests of tranquility. FST is considered to "share the attention test" which tests the suspect's ability to perform the type of mental and physical multitasking required to operate the car. However, this test can be a problem for people with an unclear disability that affects proprioception, such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.
Three tests validated by NHTSA are:
- Nistagmus Test Horizontal View, which involves following an object with the eye (like a pen) to determine the movement characteristics of eye movement.
- The Walk-and-Turn test (heel-to-toe in a straight line). This test is designed to measure a person's ability to follow instructions and to remember a series of steps while dividing attention between physical and mental tasks.
- One-Leg-Stand Test
Alternative tests, which have not yet been scientifically validated, include:
- Romberg Tests, or Modification-Position-Attention Tests, (feet together, back, eyes closed for thirty seconds).
- Finger-to-Nose test (head end to back, eyes closed, touching tip of nose with tip of index finger).
- The Alphabet Test (Read all or part of the alphabet).
- The Finger-Count Test (touch each finger from hand to thumb is calculated with each touch (1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1)).
- Counting Test (count down from a number that ends with a number other than 5 or 0 and stop at a number ending in other than 5 or 0. A series of numbers should be more than 15).
- Initial Alcohol Screening Test, PAS or PBT Test, (breathing into "portable or preliminary breath test", PAS Test or PBT).
Standard Medan Accuracy Test
Although most law enforcement agencies continue to use these FSTs, most use a validated 3-test test of field validity , called the Standard Field Confirmation Test ( SFST). The approved NHTSA test battery consists of a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, or HGN Test; Walk-and-Turn Test, or WAT Test, and One-Leg-Stand Test, or OLS Test.
In some states, such as Ohio, only standardized tests will be accepted as evidence, provided they are managed and objectively scored "in substantial compliance" with NHTSA standards (ORC 4511.19 (D) (4) (b)).
According to NHTSA, this test is not designed to measure damage, but rather to give the probability that the driver is at or above 0.08% BAC. However, research has shown that there is reason to doubt the usefulness of tests in helping officers to make such a determination. In 1991, Dr. Spurgeon Cole from Clemson University conducted a study of the accuracy of FST. His staff recorded people conducting six trials of tranquility, then showed footage to 14 police officers and asked them to decide whether the suspects had been "drinking and driving" ( sic ). The concentration of alcohol in the blood of each of the 21 DUI subjects was 0.00, unknown to the officer. The result: the officers gave their opinion that 46% of these innocent people were too drunk to drive. This study shows the possibility of FST inaccuracies.
An ongoing field futility test involves a person suspected of breathing into a small handheld breathing apparatus. This is often referred to as the PAS Test, or the "Early Alcohol Examination Screening", or PBT, "Early Breathing Test" and precedes the actual capture and subsequent requirement to submit a chemical proof test to a respiratory or blood suspect. smaller used breath test kits, cheaper versions of larger, more sophisticated instruments in the police station, commonly known as Breath Breath Test using EBT device, or Clear Breath Test tool. However, an increase in the number of jurisdictions begins using the Portable Opening Deep Test device, or PEBT device, which is a more sophisticated version of the smaller and cheaper versions of larger and larger instruments in police stations. However, where larger EBTs typically use infrared spectroscopy, PEBT and PAS devices use relatively simple electrochemical fuel cell technology When used for the Early Alcohol Screening Test, or PAS Test, their purpose, along with other FSTs, is to assist officers in determining whether he has a probable cause of the capture.
There are three tests selected to be "Standard Field Accuracy Tests", namely: (1) Nistagmus Test Horizontal View; (2) Walk & amp; Turn Test; and (3) One-legged Test.
Nystagmus Horizontal Gaze Test
The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, or HGN Test, is managed by a police officer checking the eyes of the test subjects.
Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) Hints
- I will check your eyes. (Please remove your glasses)
- Stay calm and follow the stimulus with just your eyes.
- Do not move your head.
- Do you understand the instructions?
Evaluation of Nistagmus Horizontal View
There are six instructions or instructions sought by police officers on the Horizontal Horizontal Test Nystagmus, they are as follows:
- Lack of subtle pursuits
- Different and continuous nistagmus and maximum deviation
- Onset of nystagmus before 45 degrees
Total Cues: 6 Cues - Decision Point: 4/6 Cues
While the original study showed that 6 of the 6 cues meant that a person was more likely to be above 0.08% at the time of the test, subsequent research conducted by NHTSA indicated that "Hits" occurred when the number of marks reported for the given BAC fell within the range of: & gt ; 0.06% at 4-6 pointers or instructions; 0.05-0.059% at 2-4 pointers or instructions; 0.03-0.049% at 0-4 instructions or instructions and & lt; 0.03% at 0-2 instructions or instructions. "Toughness of Nystagmus Studies Horizontal View" (September, 2007)
The Walk-and-Turn Test (WAT)
The walk-and-turn test consists of two phases: Instruction Phase and Phase Walk. During the test, individuals are directed to take nine steps along a straight line. Individuals should walk heel to toe, and while looking at the real or imaginary line, count the steps out loud. Subject lessons must remain beside them. To reach the end point, the individual must turn around using a series of small steps, and return to the starting point. Appropriate instructions, in accordance with NHTSA Guidelines, are as follows:
Walking and Enabling Test Instructions (WAT)
- Put your left foot on the line, then place your right foot on the line in front of your left, with the heel of your right foot on the tip of your left foot.
- Do not start before I tell you to do it.
- Do you understand? (must receive affirmative responses)
- When I tell you to get started, take the 9-step heel-to-tip on the line (show it) and take the 9th step heel-to-finger down the line.
- As you activate the ninth step, keep your front foot in the line and rotate it with a few small steps with the other foot (show it) and take the 9th step heel-to-finger down.
- Make sure you look at your feet, count each step hard, keep your hands on your side, make sure you touch the heel-to-toe and do not stop until you complete the test.
- Do you understand the instructions?
- You can start.
- If the suspect does not understand some parts of the instructions, only the part where the suspect does not understand must be repeated
Run and Enable Evaluation Test
There are eight clues or hints sought by a police officer on Walk & amp; Turn Test, they are as follows:
- Can not keep balance during instruction
- Starting too fast
- Stop running
- Misleading heel-to-toes
- Step off line
- Use weapons for balance
- Inappropriate turns
- The number of incorrect steps
Total Gestures: 8 Alerts - Decision Points: 2/8 Alerts
Stand One Foot Test (OLS)
The One Stand Stand Test consists of two stages: Instruction Stage and Balancing Stage. Appropriate instructions, in accordance with NHTSA Guidelines, are as follows:
- Stand with your feet together and your arms by your side (demonstrating)
- Keep position until notified otherwise.
- When I tell you, I want you to lift one leg, one foot, about 6 inches from the ground, feet show, both legs straight and see the raised legs. Calculate aloud in the following ways: 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004 and so on until prompted to stop
- Do you understand the instructions?
- You can start the test.
One Standing Test Evaluation
There are four instructions or instructions sought by a police officer in the One-Tier Test, they are as follows
- Play while balancing
- Use weapons to balance
- Hopping
- Lower your feet
Total Gestures: 4 Alerts - Decimals: 2/4 Alerts
Critical field test criticism
Critics of standard field seizure trials often question the statistical evidence behind them, and the officer's ability to manage tests and actually assess alcohol-related disorders. According to Barone, one study involves drunk people who are required to conduct standardized field-level serenity tests, and their performances are recorded. "After seeing 21 videos of drunken people using standard field tests, police officers believe that forty-six percent of people have" too much "should not be out of the question for a test standard field tranquility that will be re-examined for reliability and validity Standard tests that claim to have scientific support should be repeatable At the same time, standard field peace tests do not have a specific standard for assessment, and it is left to the officer's discretion to determine if what he sees is really a sufficient signal to count against the test subjects.For humanity errone The NHTSA study of 1977 had a fault rate of 47 percent, and the 1981 study had a 32 percent error rate, which was considered very high for scientific studies.
One of the main criticisms of field peace testing is that judgment is left to the discretion of police officers. An officer may have some bias towards the suspect and assess the test more critical than necessary. In addition, it is virtually impossible to know whether a police officer is using appropriate procedures to manage field security tests when a case is brought to justice. Original research conducted by NHTSA is often debated because of the way in which they are performed and the reported conclusions. One author commented that "The report for the three studies published by NHTSA lacks much of the material and analysis expected in a scientific paper, and nothing has been published in peer-reviewed journals" (Rubenzer 2011).
Walking & amp; change the test critic
One of the main problems with the walk-and-play test is that some signs of alcohol damage can come from other physical problems. At the same time, there are signs of other physical disorders that can come from a variety of causes, including fatigue, injury or disease, and anxiety. Those who are not physically active, elderly, or obese may have trouble completing a flawless walking and walking test. NTSA used to say that those who are overweight 50 pounds or more may have trouble performing the tests, and that the suspect should walk along a real line. "Later the NHTSA manual removes heavy comments, and also includes the phrase 'imaginary line' at the instruction stage, although the original research always uses a visible line". The fact that officers are no longer required to provide a line for suspects to walk together may affect test results, and often add to the supervision received from critics.
Possible Cause for Arrests
If officers have enough probable cause that the suspect has been driving under the influence of alcohol, they will make arrests, handcuff the suspect and transport them to the police station. On the way, officers may advise them of their legal implied obligations to submit a blood proof of blood, breath test, or perhaps urine dependent on jurisdiction.
The laws relating to what are actually causes may vary from country to country. In California it is a dubious assumption that a person with a BAC of 0.08% or higher is driving under the influence. However, article 23610 (a) (2) of the California Vehicle Code states that driving with a BAC between 0.05% and 0.08% "shall not imply that the person is or is not under the influence of alcohol".
Chemical Test
A prisoner will be offered a breath chemical test, blood or, less often, urine. The results of the breath test are usually available immediately; urine and blood samples are sent to the laboratory for later analysis to determine the BAC or the possibility of drugs. Some countries seek to impose criminal penalties for refusing to submit a breath or blood test; However, at Birchfield v. North Dakota, the United States Supreme Court visited the issue of whether the country could criminalize the refusal to submit to chemical tests. The United States Supreme Court ruled that states could criminalize refusal to submit a breath test; but there was no refusal to submit to a blood test without a McNeely warrant, named from Missouri v. McNeely (2013), which is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the Missouri Supreme Court, regarding the exemption for the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution in an emergency situation. [1] The United States Supreme Court ruled that police in general should obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunk trigger suspect to a blood test, and that the natural metabolism of blood alcohol does not form an urgent will that justifies blood-taking without consent.
Regarding blood tests, some commentators, such as Jacob Appel of Brown University, have criticized the role of medical personnel in this process. According to Appel, "If doctors approve today in the lifting of the blood of resistant patients, they may soon be asked to pump the unwanted patient's stomach contents or even perform accidental surgery to take bullet proof".
While chemical tests are used to determine the driver's BAC, they do not determine the extent of driver damage. However, state legislation usually provides a denied legal preconception about intoxication at BAC 0.08% or higher (see assumption of blood alcohol test).
Ordering & amp; Charging
If determined after being arrested that a person's BAC is not reaching or above the legal limit of 0.08%, they may be exempt at no cost. Nevertheless, a person may still be charged for driving under the influence of alcohol on the basis of driving symptoms, observed disturbances, acceptance or performance on field peace tests. And if there is suspicion of drug use, a blood or urine test may be, or at least the testimony of a specially trained officer called the Drug Treatment Expert (DRE). Assuming enough evidence of a driving disorder of drugs, the arrested may face charges of driving under the influence of drugs or the combined effects of alcohol and drugs.
Most of the time, drivers will be kept in detention cells (sometimes referred to as "drunk tanks ") until they are deemed drunk enough to be released on bail or on "their own confession" ("OR"). A date to appear in court for an indictment will be given to them. If they can not guarantee or not be given O.R., they will be imprisoned to await charges in detention.
Charges for uninterrupted driving costs
In the United States, paying DUI tickets, court fees, and attorneys' fees is only the beginning of a person's financial obligations after DUI conviction. The additional cost of DUI confidence often involves the cost of installation and maintenance of the Ignition Interlock Device device, which serves the same function as the Breathalyzer to enable the vehicle to start. A person convicted of driving under the influence of cargo may also expect to pay higher insurance rates and premiums. In addition, DUI records prevent entry into Canada without proper documentation.
Prevention
Drunk drivers are a public health problem in the United States, and reducing their frequency may require a community-based integrated approach that uses sanctions and care. Several intervention programs have been developed, such as the Paradigm Developmental Model of Treatment (PDMT), a program that encourages a paradigm shift in the view of actors about themselves and the world.
The National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism suggests environmental intervention to help eliminate drinking and driving together.
Fly and boating under the influence
The Federal Aviation Regulations 91.17 (b. Span> 14 C.F.R. 91.17 ) prohibit pilots from aircraft with alcohol levels of 0.04% or more, or within eight hours of consuming alcohol, or under the influence of any drug disorders. The same prohibition applies to every other crew member assigned on the plane (flight attendants, etc.). Some airlines impose additional restrictions, and many pilots also impose stricter standards on themselves. Unregulated commercial pilots are usually dismissed or voluntarily resigned, and they may lose their pilot certificate and become subject to criminal prosecution under Federal or State laws, effectively ending their careers.
Similar laws apply to other activities involving transportation; Michigan prohibits drunken cycling, horseback riding, driving a car, using a farming tool, or boating, the last whether the pilot or passenger, with many of the same thresholds of poisoning. In terms of boating, the law is expanded to include kayaks, canoes, sailboats - floating devices that need to be piloted in the water. Different countries have different laws and classifications on the level of offenses attached to quotes for boating under influence. For example, Virginia has a very similar penalty for BUI as it does for DUI. Those convicted of boating when drunken face punishment include a fine of up to $ 2,500, up to one year in prison, lose your carrier license for up to three years and the mandatory registration and settlement of Virginia's Alcohol Safety Action Program.
Alcohol use was the number one contributor to the death of US recreational boats between 2003 and 2012, accounting for 15 percent of deaths in 2003 and 17 percent in 2012. A Canadian study published in 2011 examined 18 years of data on recreational boats, and concluded that the "real number" of alcohol-related deaths in the country "may be between 46% and 56%".
International Comparison
In countries like England and Australia, drunk driving and deaths caused by drunk driving are much lower than in the US. Drunk driving deaths in the UK (population 61 million, 31 million cars) were 380 in 2010 (21% of all fatal accidents). In California (population 36 million, 32 million cars) there were 950 deaths from traffic accidents involving drivers with Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) 0.08 or greater) in 2009 (31% of all fatal accidents). Consumption of alcohol per capita in the UK and Australia is higher than in the US and the legal age for drinking is lower.
Research in the UK suggests that groups that are dangerous to drunk driving are young men in their early 20s and not teenagers. Not infrequently the police forces in Australia randomly stop the riders and hand them over to a random breath test. This test involves talking or blowing to a handheld device to give a reading. Refusing a roadside test is a violation, and is subject to the same penalty as drunk driving. This detection method is not used in the UK, and this is not a violation in England or Wales for fully licensed drivers to drive with a BAC of less than 0.08% (Australia and Scotland have a 0.05% limit). Also in Australia it is a violation for every person driving on Student plates or experiments ('P1 or P2') (under 20 years old) to drive with alcohol altogether in their system. BAC should be 0.00% and still below 0.05% for "instructing learners".
Unlike the United States, these countries do not see restricting access to alcohol as it has a useful role to play in reducing drunk driving. Their experience is a random breath test, severe punishment, including jail for the first offense (in the UK), combined with public service blanket blanket is a more effective strategy.
Also, Australian and British law does not recognize DUI crime Murder and punishment for causing death by drunk driving is much lower than the United States. In England, judges make sentencing decisions based on the amount of alcohol available. This can lead to imprisonment for the first offense.
In Germany, the 0.05% legal limit drops to 0.03% if the driver is found to be in a traffic accident. 0.00% is the standard for those under 21 years of age.
See also
- Carrollton bus disaster, about the 1988 bus crash in Kentucky caused by a drunk driver resulting in 27 deaths
- America West Airlines Flight 556: pilot arrested for trying to fly while drunk
- UU DUI in California
References
- Rubenzer, S. (2011). Assess poisoning. "Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 29" (1), 116-137. doi: 10.1002/bsl.935
Further reading
- Barron H. Lerner, One for Road: Drunk Driver Since 1900. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments