Chiara's Dad Speaks Out
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

The ClubHouse: General Discussion Archives: Archive Two: Chiara's Dad Speaks Out
 SubtopicMsgs  Last Updated
Archive through July 24, 2002 25   07/24 12:46pm
Archive through July 24, 2002 25   07/24 03:19pm

Stargazer

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 03:23 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Hi all, I worked for the CHP for years and dated a CHP sergeant for 8. I just emailed and asked about the comment someone made that she may have had a cranky officer (re: drugs and drinking). He told me that even if the officer was cranky that he would have tests to back up his allegations. I know this isn't going to sound good but it's not one they would do to a person if they were cranky because tests could prove otherwise. I'm guessing she will get a fine for not carrying her license (which is pretty standard for not possessing a valid license on you while driving), a monentary fine and community service. After reading what the judge said, I think being on BB will hurt her with that judge. I just did not get the feeling that this judge is easily impressed by "famous" people breaking the law. I'm hoping that BB does NOT pay her fine, I want her to have to pay the fine (although I think her daddy will pay it for her). I don't know if DUI's are like child support whereas it goes across the country and ties in with other states (if you are behind and lose your license in CA you can't get one in NV either)I'm just curious if it will tie into her license in NY or CT wherever her license is from.

Halfunit

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 04:29 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Serena - the drugs don't always have to be recreational... many prescription drugs have serious effects that can impair judgement. Vicadin, Darvecet, Codeine, etc. Also, if the drug she was on was Prozac, she is not to drink alcohol with it.

From healthsquare.com: Prozac may cause you to become drowsy or less alert and may affect your judgment. Therefore, driving or operating dangerous machinery or participating in any hazardous activity that requires full mental alertness is not recommended.

And that's without adding booze!

And DUI just doesn't mean booze. It's under the influence of anything that can impair your driving ability. Heck, you can be sighted for DUI just by drinking Nyquil or cough syrup.

OK, off the soapbox!!!

Katrina

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 05:06 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Stargazer, I have moved back and forth between NJ and CA, and it seems to me that the driver's license application forms I had to fill out required me to indicate whether my driving privileges had been revoked/suspended in any other state. Seems like a no-brainer and probably SOP across the country by now. (Obviously, lying on that official application could cause you further problems.)

Sanfranjoshfan

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 06:22 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Kaili: "DUI charges are sometimes crap though...my cousin was pulled over for tinted windows one night on his way home from a Firefighters meeting...he blew right at .10 (our legal limit), but a few minutes later was below limit when he blew again at the station."

I just read this thread....and saw that no one responded to this anecdotal case. It's quite right that if his BAC was right AT the legal limit at first and then was below it later....that may be a technicality to base a legal defense on.

But let's be real here....being right at .10 definitely impairs judgement.

It impairs judgement enough to be 20% OVER the legal limit in many states.

And in every state, and in every country...no matter what the laws are....driving with a BAC of .10 is most defintiely NOT "sober driving", nor is it safe or impairment-free. Judgement is impaired a good deal at the level, no matter what the law is in your area. Personally, I beleive he deserved what he got, whether he was "technically" under that high limit of .10 or not. He could've killed someone.

Just trying to be realistic in a world of legal technicalities that often cause more harm than good.

Your cousin's DUI charges were anything BUT "crap".

JMO

Kapow

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 06:51 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Prozac/Serafem/fluoxetine (and most SSRI's) do typically carry the warning not to take with alcoholic beverages. However, it is only for the first two - three weeks of treatment that this potential side effect really has a chance of occurring. FDA regulations insist that this warning be included on every bottle prescribed. It is the rare person who experiences drowsiness when taking these meds. Usually people complain of sleeplessness (among other things). SSri's are not usually contributors in traffic (or other) violations caused by drowsiness.

Serena

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 07:12 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Halfunit, I agree that virtually any psychotropic substance can potentially cause drowziness and counterindicate operating machinery. Including aspirin.

And of course, many cough syrups and niquil contain not insignificant amounts of alcohol, as we had reinforced by Krista last year :}

It's just interesting to me that Prozac (fluoxetine HCL) could ever be implicated in a DUI, with or without alcohol. Cause millions of people out there are under its influence, both with or without alcohol. If someone's over the legal limit, and mention they take Sarafem, it's about the same as saying they took aspirin or an antihistamine or any other drug not specifically contraindicated with alcohol. Even if you;re having an unexpectedly violent reaction upon first taking something, I don't think you'd be charged IF you hadn't also been drinking. There's no way SSRIs are going to be implicated in DUIs unless you're taking a dose way above what you're been prescribed.

If you believe they are as a rule, impairing with alcohol, then you could argue that if Chiara's blood alcohol level was BELOW the legal limit, AND she takes Sarafem, the combination is a DUI.

Doctors do not tell people don't drink while taking Prozac, so even though someone might be 'driving under the influence' of prozac, I can't imagine they are regarded as impaired under the law.

If they are, it's insane :}

Jaydubzz

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 07:30 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Amen, Josh!

Kaili

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 08:53 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
The thing is, and this is back to the difference between .08 and .10 in general- do you really think lowering it would make a difference? I mean, does anyone sit around drinking thinking about whether they are at .08 or at .10? I don't think a person could tell the difference on their own. I had 3 beers tonight at dinner (and by the way, I didn't drive) and I don't have a clue what my BAC would be.

Maybe my cousin was wrong- he is my cousin and that alone puts a filter on how I view it. I don't know how much "mouth alcohol," as I mentioned in my previous post, played a role in it. Regardless, he paid his fine, took his class, and definitely learned from the experience. Many people who get DUIs do not- and they become repeat offenders.

Sanfranjoshfan

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 09:04 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Good point Kaili....I had meant to ask if your cuz had changed his behavior re: drinking and driving. I don't think people try to drink right up to the legal limit either....but I do believe that one's judgement is affected somewhat after just one drink and then, with every drink after that, good judgement becomes more precarious. Someone who has reached a BAC of .07 would be in no shape to make such a borderline judgement. JMO

I'm glad your cousin learned from his experience! :-)

Sanfranjoshfan

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 09:08 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I've seen people so drunk they slurred speech and couldn't stand up....but were convinced they were not too drunk to drive. That's the problem....if you've had enough alcohol to affect your judgment, then your judgement should not be trusted....

Kaili

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 09:10 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Makes perfect sense, except that if your judgement is affected you may not realize it is affected and that cancels out the sensibility of not trusting your judgement. If that makes any sense :)

Sanfranjoshfan

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 09:13 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
That makes sense....hence the campaign "Friends don't let friends drive drunk"! A person whose judgement is affected by alcohol needs to trust (or be forced to accept!) a SOBER person's judgement! (sometimes easier said than done, tho)

:-)

Wcv63

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 09:15 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I think BAC ignition-locking devices should be standard in auto design. Of course people will find a way to disable them but if pulled over with a disabled device a fine and/or other punishment should be imposed.

It's the only way I can think of to absolutely ascertain that someone over the limit doesn't start up a car. Now, it wouldn't work if the drinking was "in the car while driving" but that's another story.

Kaili

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 09:20 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I also think they are a good idea to be standard on cars. It would save a lot of money in the long run, and be beneficial to everyone on the road. The city I used to live in- we didn't have cabs and the city bus only ran until 9 or 10 pm. With bar time being 2 am I'm sure there were plenty of people on the road drunk.

A little off topic..Did anyone ever see the thing on TV about driving with lack of sleep and how that can be just as dangerous as driving drunk or on drugs?

Another question, if a person is stopped for driving eratically, and they are high/on some other illegal drug (not drunk), can they get a DUI? I mean...do they test for drugs ever if the alcohol test comes up clear and you aren't in possession of anything?

Whoami

Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 09:31 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
There's also DWI (driving while impaired). If DUI doesn't include drugs, I'm sure DWI would. I'm no cop/expert though. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Vinnyinla

Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 12:23 am EditMoveDeleteIP
LA Times reported that a CBS spokesperson remarked "At least she won't be driving in the house"!

Goddess146

Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 12:39 am EditMoveDeleteIP
The State of Illinois just had a DUI auto confiscation law go into effect. If you are caught DUI or driving on a DUI suspended license, they will confiscate the car the drunk is driving. It does not matter to whom the car belongs.

I would like to see laws like this in all 50 states. There is no excuse for DUI. None!

Sanfranjoshfan

Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 01:00 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Laws like that can get a little sticky....in Calif (or maybe just here in the SF Bay area) there is an anti-drug law. If you live in a low-income public housing project and if anyone there is busted for drugs, the lease holder is evicted. There was a big deal about some old folks that were evicted because of this zero tolerance law. One was an old person whose caregiver was found to have a crack pipe on his person....the old person he was caring for was evicted. Another case involved an old lady who had a younger relative staying with her....the younger relative was busted smoking a joint, not even within the housing site and that prompted an eviction of the old lady. Neither of these old people that were the actual lease holders had anything at all to do with drugs, but lost their homes due to the acts of others that they could not control.

For me personally, it would be fine....I never let anyone drive my car....but some families could be at great risk because of the actions of others that were unkown risks for the car owner...

Snee

Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 01:00 am EditMoveDeleteIP
that was one thing i mentioned in the other thread, goddess. i want seizures in cases like that.

Halfunit

Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 05:26 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Kaili / Whoami:

First, I am no cop expert, I'm just married to one (hee hee!!).

DUI/DWI are very similar. I believe the difference is this:

DUI is driving under the influence. This doesn't mean you are over the legal limit. You can get a DUI for a BAC of .04. All DUI means is that something you have ingested is influencing the way you are driving.

DWI is driving while intoxicated. This means that it has been established by BAC that you are at or over the legal limit. A lot of times, if someone is charged with DWI, you will also see the DUI charges too, as both offenses apply.

As for DUI of controlled substances, yes you can be charged just like alcohol. Hubby has gone to many classes to be able to detect what illegal drugs people may have taken just by their appearance and actions. There is also the HGN test (horizontal guage nastigmus or something like that). This is the "follow my pen" test. This test was discovered by a doctor to check for mind altering drugs in the body. When you look all the way left or right, your eye goes into the corner of the socket. There is a slight fluttering movement. When you are under the influence, the fluttering becomes more spastic. This is something the body cannot control, and that's a big reason why you see this test done roadside for DUI. Hubby is more knowledgable on this, but he's sleeping at the moment or I'd ask him!!

I'm not sure if drugs are responsive to the HGN test, but I would assume they are. I know that in the classes he has attended, they teach you how to know what people may have taken based on motor skills, pupils, speech, etc. It really isn't that hard to tell (how many of us have seen someone and said, "They must be high on something."), but the classes get a little more involved as far as determining what type of drugs the person might have taken.

If you want to know something more specific, ask me and I'll ask hubby when he gets up for work!!

One more thing - YES, I am biased so take this for what it's worth - hubby does not pull people over with out probable cause (PC). He takes people's rights very seriously, and while there may be cops out there that do this, he doesn't. I'm not saying that PC has to be something major, it could be a license plate light that has burned out, a cracked windshield, or an underinflated tire, but he always has PC.

As the old saying goes, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about!

Sorry if I came across as partial, but hey, I am and I can admit it. I would say that 95% of law enforcement go out and do their job with integrity and pride. Yes, there are bad apples, but show me a profession that doesn't have them. Hubby has come home cut, punched, kicked (by a drunk wearing cowboy boots that left a scar), cursed at, and spit on. He has come home with vomit on his boots and has had people urinate in the back of the cruiser - which he is responsible for cleaning out. Yes, he chose this job, but most people don't think about the negatives that come with it. I'll can also tell you that he has come home in tears about two little kids who were found lying in their sweat because it was so hot and mom couldn't afford a fan. It affected him so much that he and I went out and bought two fans and dropped them off at the house, anonymously. Those are the things that make it worthwhile to him. The good that he can do outweighs the bad he has to go through.

Whew, my fingers hurt!! :)