an airman's personal statement and events of his DUI

Briar Rabbit said:
I try to stick to a 2 beer limit, maybe on a rare occasion 3. Weight is about 230. I have formed the opinion if I am ever stopped to request an actual blood test instead of blowing in a device calibrated by a policeman. I am sure most are good but just like prosecutors don’t know if I trust all of them? So not being experienced would this be a good thing to do or a mistake?
Click to expand...

Getting somewhat off topic here, but the devices aren't calibrated by the police, but rather by people who work in a lab whose job it is to calibrate them. Also, I can't speak for all states, but in my state, you don't pick the test, the police does. You are more than welcome to obtain and pay for your own blood test at the hospital, but the breath test is the official result used in court.
 
There might be two breathalyzers: the portable kind used roadside, and the "real" one back at the station with the results that are used in court (this is where you could request the blood test instead). You might be able to decline the roadside test, but declining the real one has consequences.

State laws differ, so check first.
 
idahoflier said:
I guess we will have to disagree on that. There are a few BAC calculators online that I have tried and they all agree that if a 180 LB middle aged male consumes between 7 and 8 drinks over three hours then his BAC will be at least 0.15%. That level of drinking is not uncommon. I'm not defending the guy's actions, there is no excuse for driving intoxicated, but I don't believe you can draw the conclusion that based on this one incident he has an alcohol problem.
Click to expand...
Okay, so you think a drunk every 20 minutes for 3 hours is "social drinking"? Then we will have to disagree.
 
Kritchlow said:
I think most here are failing to see the big picture.... if someone has tolerance, and they can behave correctly (read pass roadside sobriety), than why not send them on their way even if they’re 0.25???
I mean if they can drive just fine... why punish someone because they have tolerance??
Is that a new law that I’m not aware of??? Driving just fine but you have tolerance?
Click to expand...
That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. You can die at 0.25, and you think someone who does hat regularly is fine to drive? Wow.
 
Since the heart attack I have been taking large doses of dihydrogen monoxide without a prescription. Should I report that on my next medical..??
 
Zeldman said:
Since the heart attack I have been taking large doses of dihydrogen monoxide without a prescription. Should I report that on my next medical..??
Click to expand...
Far be it from me to tell a fellow POAer what to do but undiluted hydrogen hydroxide is bad for you. Dilute it with ethanol and some esters and stuff.
 
KaiGywer said:
Getting somewhat off topic here, but the devices aren't calibrated by the police, but rather by people who work in a lab whose job it is to calibrate them. Also, I can't speak for all states, but in my state, you don't pick the test, the police does. You are more than welcome to obtain and pay for your own blood test at the hospital, but the breath test is the official result used in court.
Click to expand...

Unless the cop took some stupid class at a hotel conference and became the "drug whisperer" lol

Many people have been popped for a DUI who had ZERO drinks.


http://www.11alive.com/mobile/artic...-arrested-while-stone-cold-sober/85-437061710
 
KaiGywer said:
Getting somewhat off topic here, but the devices aren't calibrated by the police, but rather by people who work in a lab whose job it is to calibrate them. Also, I can't speak for all states, but in my state, you don't pick the test, the police does. You are more than welcome to obtain and pay for your own blood test at the hospital, but the breath test is the official result used in court.
Click to expand...
It was an obscure part of the law but in NC drivers had the ability to request a pre-arrest Test. So if you were pulled for suspected DWI instead of having to be arrested and hauled down to the intoxilizer you could request a test prior To arrest.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
And these are the sort of cops that make the rest look bad, and help fuel protests.
Click to expand...

Nah, the majority are like that, if they wernt, criminals like the cop in that article wouldn't have been so bold as to kidnap and imprison innocent citizens on his own camera, if there was any accountability or honor his fellow officers would have arrested him at gun point for the felony crimes he committed on camera and rescued his victim. What do they do instead, they "process" the victims and back their fellow officer.
 
Zeldman said:
Since the heart attack I have been taking large doses of dihydrogen monoxide without a prescription. Should I report that on my next medical..??
Click to expand...

You need to stop that, don't you realize dihydrogen monoxide is responsible for 100 percent of drownings?

Bob
 
James331 said:
Nah, the majority are like that, if they wernt, criminals like the cop in that article wouldn't have been so bold as to kidnap and imprison innocent citizens on his own camera, if there was any accountability or honor his fellow officers would have arrested him at gun point for the felony crimes he committed on camera and rescued his victim. What do they do instead, they "process" the victims and back their fellow officer.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I concede your point here. You'd think someone would ask about the number of people getting arrested, but showing negative for drugs and intoxication. I concede there are bad departments. But I was just saying that the entire population of police are not bad, just as your citation makes the clear point that there are many that shouldn't be working as cops.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Yeah, I concede your point here. You'd think someone would ask about the number of people getting arrested, but showing negative for drugs and intoxication. I concede there are bad departments. But I was just saying that the entire population of police are not bad, just as your citation makes the clear point that there are many that shouldn't be working as cops.
Click to expand...
I agree with Cap’n Jack. I have had more breaks from officers way back in my youth than arrogant or dishonest officers. But I did have a couple of those a****les that I crossed paths with that gave me an undeserving bad time too. And it only takes one or two to make you gun shy of all ones you don’t personally know.
 
Last edited:
tawood said:
I suppose in my own story, I'm I've lied to...myself?

I think alcohol is a horrible drug for many people. But I think that the statements about tolerance is only valid for some, or maybe most, people...but DEFINITELY not all people.
And I also think, you do a disservice by claiming ANYONE at a .15 is an all star drunk.
Click to expand...
I can't believe I'm agreeing with the Fuzz...
 
Matthew said:
He said he was at a Christmas party (or get-together, or whatever), 1/2 mile from home. So maybe a local bar or restaurant. A large margarita, dinner and a beer, another large margarita afterward, maybe finishes his wife's, gets pulled over as soon as he leaves the parking lot.

Some of those big mixed drinks, especially the "premium", can hold enough shots to count as multiple drinks. 2-3 of those, and a beer or two, and you are up to 7-8 drinks before you know it.
Click to expand...
The "drinks" parameter is as ambiguous as the "serving" parameter. I'll bet that gets casual drinkers caught unawares ("I only had two, so I'm legal.")
 
Briar Rabbit said:
I try to stick to a 2 beer limit, maybe on a rare occasion 3. Weight is about 230. I have formed the opinion if I am ever stopped to request an actual blood test instead of blowing in a device calibrated by a policeman. I am sure most are good but just like prosecutors don’t know if I trust all of them? So not being experienced would this be a good thing to do or a mistake?
Click to expand...
Repeat after me: Never, ever, trust the police.

In a lot of states I don't think you get the option to decide what kind of test they will use to arrest you.
 
"I'll never drink before flying" But you did - the qualifier is how FAR in advance did you stop drinking.

I'll be honest- anyone who blows a 0.156 and is still conscious enough to be able to communicate with a police officer and not stumble out of a car has alcohol tolerance. Tolerance is developed over a long period of time where you drink alcohol moderately to heavily 4-7 days a week.

I don't think you are helping yourself at all by claiming you were not that drunk - in fact - you are demonstrating and arguing you have alcohol tolerance. Which is what the FAA is looking for in order to revoke or not grant a medical certificate.

I encourage you to find friends and relatives who do not drink to excess, perhaps have three drinks one day a week. . . and buy a mostly accurate breathalyzer for a couple hundred $$$ - and take your friends to a bar while you stay sober and have them consume 4 drinks in an hour - no food. Then test. They'll all be over the legal limit. They'll be loud, happy, without inhibitions- give them two more - and put them ver 0.10 - and people who are not regular drinkers will have the room spin, they may get sick - and definitely will not feel good the next day. Whereas, you claim you're still going along with the self-awareness to think you are intoxicated - because you are tolerant.

don't get me wrong- MADD is a bunch of annoying corporate money hounds these days - and the 'business' of intoxication does well extracting money from people once they are arrested for anything.
 
Matthew said:
There might be two breathalyzers: the portable kind used roadside, and the "real" one back at the station with the results that are used in court (this is where you could request the blood test instead). You might be able to decline the roadside test, but declining the real one has consequences.

State laws differ, so check first.
Click to expand...

If a person thinks they're likely enough to get in that situation that they feel the need to check state laws on DUI evidence rules in advance, that right there suggests a problem.
 
Palmpilot said:
If a person thinks they're likely enough to get in that situation that they feel the need to check state laws on DUI evidence rules in advance, that right there suggests a problem.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily - we haven't had any roadside sobriety checkpoints around here lately. But if you get stopped, haven't been drinking, and somehow give the cops enough reason to claim probable cause to check deeper, then you might want to know your rights ahead of time.
 
mryan75 said:
That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. You can die at 0.25, and you think someone who does hat regularly is fine to drive? Wow.
Click to expand...

So you are claiming when I blew a .16, I was a seasoned alcoholic?
(not driving or operating any sort of machinery, but walking and talking no problems).
 
mtuomi said:
So you are claiming when I blew a .16, I was a seasoned alcoholic?
(not driving or operating any sort of machinery, but walking and talking no problems).
Click to expand...
The definition of Alcoholic is different between the W.H.O and the FAA.
 
mtuomi said:
That was the first time I ever had alcohol.
Not sure how I had built all that tolerance.
Click to expand...
The first time you drank you had a breathalyzer and blew a 0.16? Thats what you are having us believe? That was awfully convenient.
 
comanchepilot said:
The first time you drank you had a breathalyzer and blew a 0.16? Thats what you are having us believe? That was awfully convenient.
Click to expand...
As I said before, I've dealt with thousands of intoxicated people in my career...and with that experience, plus my own first time drinking, I believe @mtuomi.

This idea of "tolerance is ALWAYS through practice", becomes a problem if it isn't true for the likes of the FAA, MADD, AA, etc.
 
Last edited:
comanchepilot said:
The first time you drank you had a breathalyzer and blew a 0.16? Thats what you are having us believe? That was awfully convenient.
Click to expand...

Yep, it involved a college style challenge and some competitive drinking. Ex German police (calibrated) Dräger breathalyzer. You could buy them for cheap from eBay-style sources back then.
 
Everybody thinks they pass the field sobriety tests. All you're doing is volunteering for evidence to be used against you. Understand a .08% BAC is **NOT** required in most places to convict you of impaired driving. .08 is only the per se limit where the state doesn't have to show you are intoxicated. You are assumed to be at that point. You can be convicted at lower numbers.

As for the BAC tests. They fall generally into two classes. The PBTs which aren't usually admissible for the per se limit. These are the same class gadget you can blow into for a quarter at a bar or by for a few bucks on line. They're not calibrated period.

There are calibrated breathalizers (such as the intoxilizer) and depending on your state, you may not get a choice of chemical tests. If you refuse, you can be sanctioned and if they don't follow it with another test, you are in a world of hurt with the FAA who will assume you just had a high BAC at the time.
 
Last edited:
The '0.15 and still standing automatically means tolerance' is one of those things that 'makes sense', I am just not sure it is based on sound science. With the tests for long term use (CDT/GGT) available now, it should be possible to get data to support or refute this, I just haven't been able to find any.

There was a gentleman who crashed a 210 a while ago who turned out to have a post mortem of 0.29 (0.33 in the eyeball) . He had a previous incident in 2005 when he wrecked a plane and blew a 0.26. He went through the psych eval at the time and managed to convince the doc and the FAA that he didn't have a dependency, just a use disorder. Jumped the hoops and got his medical back 2 years later. It all went well until he was found dead in his wrecked plane with 1/2 bottle of Vodka and his system full of pills (he had also forgotten to inflate the cabin seal and got hypoxic).
 
Florian, until 2009, you could (by policy) be considered to NOT have dependency (evidence of tolerance) up to 0.2499. But that was changed to 0.1999 in ~2009. And anything at 0.15-0.199 was referred to a HIMS psychiatrist for determination.
 
bbchien said:
Florian, until 2009, you could (by policy) be considered to NOT have dependency (evidence of tolerance) up to 0.2499. But that was changed to 0.1999 in ~2009. And anything at 0.15-0.199 was referred to a HIMS psychiatrist for determination.
Click to expand...
Totally arbitrary numbers. As has benn shown here, it’s not “one number for all”.
 
mtuomi said:
So you are claiming when I blew a .16, I was a seasoned alcoholic?
(not driving or operating any sort of .
Click to expand...
No, not at all. You're just like every other drunk: "just fine" at twice the legal limit!

Denial is not just a river in Africa.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Thst

Thats what bureaucracies do. Pick firm numbers not based on science and create policy. The EPA is the same way. Can’t have truth and logic direct policy. That’s messy and hard to implement.
Click to expand...
To be fair, though, it's just not possible to write regulations that take every possible situation into account. In the case of intoxication, whether driving or flying, it's tough to muster up a lot of sympathy for someone who "might be drunk, might not". You don't just accidentally drink and drive or fly, and the down sides are certainly no big secret that's going to take you by surprise if you get caught.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top