A curve argument refers to the rise and fall of BAC levels. Tracked on a graph, it's sort of a bell curve. The argument is that at the time of operation a person had just finished drinking and had unabsorbed alcohol in their system. Driver is stopped, does the field tests, goes to the station, blows. In all that time, the BAC has risen as the alcohol is absorbed. So if someone blows a .15 in WI they will have an ignition interlock on their car. The defense will argue that BAC was rising so at the time of the stop, he was at a .14.

 

This seems like an easy argument but it isn't. The stop would really have to occur within 30 mins or so (dependent in part on food consumption) of consuming the last drink. Eliminating alcohol takes longer than absorbing. It's far more likely that a person is on the way down rather than rising. Most defendants won't have a good memory of what they drank anyway.

Yeah, I'm surprised most judges would even care to listen to that, considering how there is really no record of when the drinks were consumed...

At the end of the day local governments make too much money off of DUIs to take steps that could end their highly profitable enforcement measures.

 

So how would you make drunk driving penalties harsher? It seems like raising fines is the best for everyone. Jail time costs people jobs, stress on families, etc. Here part of the fines are made as donations to not for profits like the Boys and Girls Clubs and the local Animal Shelter.

Yeah, I'm surprised most judges would even care to listen to that, considering how there is really no record of when the drinks were consumed...

 

Well, it's all about testimony. It's not like a prosecutor has evidence of their drinking in most cases so they can kinda say whatever.

So how would you make drunk driving penalties harsher? It seems like raising fines is the best for everyone. Jail time costs people jobs, stress on families, etc. Here part of the fines are made as donations to not for profits like the Boys and Girls Clubs and the local Animal Shelter.

 

Wisconsin is the only state where OWI isn't criminal, yet the penalties are some of the harshest. I know someone who got a DUI in Illinois with .25 BAC. Got off with a fine lower than WI minimums and basically just had to stay clean and take some classes. Would have had a IID in Wisconsin plus maximum fine and a 9 month revocation.

 

Of course, the problem here is that OWI is so common that I'm not even sure there is shame associated with it.

 

Oh, interestingly enough, the average BAC for first offense OWI in WI is .17. Generally, people drink and drive a LOT before they get caught.

So how would you make drunk driving penalties harsher? It seems like raising fines is the best for everyone. Jail time costs people jobs, stress on families, etc. Here part of the fines are made as donations to not for profits like the Boys and Girls Clubs and the local Animal Shelter.

 

Fines just help rich people not care.

Wisconsin is the only state where OWI isn't criminal, yet the penalties are some of the harshest. I know someone who got a DUI in Illinois with .25 BAC. Got off with a fine lower than WI minimums and basically just had to stay clean and take some classes. Would have had a IID in Wisconsin plus maximum fine and a 9 month revocation.

 

Of course, the problem here is that OWI is so common that I'm not even sure there is shame associated with it.

 

Oh, interestingly enough, the average BAC for first offense OWI in WI is .17. Generally, people drink and drive a LOT before they get caught.

One of those random stats I heard on the news a week ago was that the average person caught for driving while intoxicated has done so more than 70 times before they were actually cited.

One of those random stats I heard on the news a week ago was that the average person caught for driving while intoxicated has done so more than 70 times before they were actually cited.

 

They told my brother a number like that in his DUI classes like that as well

ON the subject, from CNBC:

Restaurants Fear Tough Drunk-Driving Law Will Be Buzzkill for Light Drinkers

Link is there if you want to read full article.

One of those random stats I heard on the news a week ago was that the average person caught for driving while intoxicated has done so more than 70 times before they were actually cited.

 

I've only done it once, so I guess I have 69 more freebies, huh?

 

A curve argument refers to the rise and fall of BAC levels. Tracked on a graph, it's sort of a bell curve. The argument is that at the time of operation a person had just finished drinking and had unabsorbed alcohol in their system. Driver is stopped, does the field tests, goes to the station, blows. In all that time, the BAC has risen as the alcohol is absorbed. So if someone blows a .15 in WI they will have an ignition interlock on their car. The defense will argue that BAC was rising so at the time of the stop, he was at a .14.

 

This seems like an easy argument but it isn't. The stop would really have to occur within 30 mins or so (dependent in part on food consumption) of consuming the last drink. Eliminating alcohol takes longer than absorbing. It's far more likely that a person is on the way down rather than rising. Most defendants won't have a good memory of what they drank anyway.

 

This?

This?

 

Yep

Sorry to hear about this Tex.

In the early 70's my uncle and cousin were killed in a head-on accident with a drunk. My uncle (my dad's only sibling) had just retired and took his son on a fishing trip to Arkansas. They were killed there. Shortly after this happened my dad and I were driving home from work one night and were behind a guy swerving all over the road. I could sense my dad's rage. After a stop-light my dad cut the guy off and forced him to pull over. My dad got out of the car and walked to the drunk's car. He took the guy's keys and we drove to the Elmhurst police station where my dad went in and handed over they keys and told them where the guy's car was. I remember being quite surprised that my dad didn't get in trouble.

Your dad is a BOSS!

A curve argument refers to the rise and fall of BAC levels. Tracked on a graph, it's sort of a bell curve. The argument is that at the time of operation a person had just finished drinking and had unabsorbed alcohol in their system. Driver is stopped, does the field tests, goes to the station, blows. In all that time, the BAC has risen as the alcohol is absorbed. So if someone blows a .15 in WI they will have an ignition interlock on their car. The defense will argue that BAC was rising so at the time of the stop, he was at a .14.

 

This seems like an easy argument but it isn't. The stop would really have to occur within 30 mins or so (dependent in part on food consumption) of consuming the last drink. Eliminating alcohol takes longer than absorbing. It's far more likely that a person is on the way down rather than rising. Most defendants won't have a good memory of what they drank anyway.

There was a superb episode of Franklin & Bash that dealt with this situation perfectly.

There was a superb episode of Franklin & Bash that dealt with this situation perfectly.

Yeah isn't that when Franklin started chugging beers in court?

Yeah isn't that when Franklin started chugging beers in court?

He chugged something - don't remember what. It was a convincing argument.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/video/#!/new...Viral/211200691