Mississippi appeals court orders new trial in DUI case

The state Court of Appeals said occasionally judges should consider the reasonableness of a motorist's decision to drive while legally intoxicated. The court kicked back to Amite County a DUI case for that reason.

George C. Stodghill was convicted in 2002 of first offense driving while intoxicated, a misdemeanor. He was sentenced to 48 hours in prison and fined $1,000, both of which were suspended due to what the trial judge called mitigating circumstances.

At least you're not jumping to the conclusion that "he definitly is."

No I wasn't making that conclusion. But, not that you mentioni it, anyone sober driver that refules to take a test that will prove him innocent and at the same time cost him his license for refusing it is just plain stupid. I've never heard of a sober driver refusing to take a test which he has agreed to take in advance, because it would prove his innocence. Quite the opposite. So. I wouldn't call saying that it is stupid to do so jumping to a conlcusion..

Your opinion about DUI is understandable considering your personal experience. But, unfortunately, the DUI laws are increasingly become a way for the state to extract revenue and impose its power over the citizenry. Studies have shown that the 0.08 BAC laws have a negligible effect on decreasing drunk-driving-related deaths, but a significant effect on increasing the number of citizens arrested for DUI - there were approximately 1.6 million DUI arrests last year.

No sir, if you are going to deliberately incapacitate yourself without making contingency plans, the consequences of your behavior are your problem.

In many cases, people are making such contingency plans, but they're getting arrested anyway. And MADD has a lot to do with these abuses of government power. Click here, here , and here to see how this once-noble organization has changed from having the admirable mission of getting drunks off the road and raising awareness about drunk driving, to a bunch of modern-day Carrie Nations that are hell-bent on re-imposing Prohibition, not all at once, but "drip by drip".

If you don't want to agree to consent to a sobriety test on demand, don't accept a drivers license in the first place.

In Alabama (as far as I know – this is what I learned from jury duty), the refusal to take a Breathalyzer test will result in the suspension of your license for a period of time (6 months I think). That refusal in itself is a crime.
In order to be convicted of DUI the officer presents evidence in court (driving recklessly, alcohol smell on breath, can’t walk, etc). The result of the field Breathalyzer is simply another piece of evidence. You can be convicted of DUI without having submitted to the test.
I disagree with the law about refusal alone being a crime, but it is the law passed by our elected representatives.

how often do you think a sober. non drinking driver refuses a test?

I have no idea but I do know about a similar event.
I have been stopped for speeding a few times (I drive around 70,000 miles a year – the “law of averages” catches up with me at times – that and the fact that I do speed a bit). On four occasions I have been asked if I would consent to a search of my truck. Each time I asked what behavior the officer had observed that would indicate that I had something to hide. Three of those four times I was told that simply speeding (usually 10 mph over the limit) was the probable cause. Once the officer told me that someone had reported a truck similar to mine that might be transporting drugs.

The drug thing seemed reasonable. I have no idea if he was being truthful but I consented. After the search the officer told me that they had been trying to ID and catch this guy for several weeks.

The other three were absurd so I said no. Two of the guys threatened me that they could search anyway and did’t need my consent. I responded nicely and respectfully that that was their prerogative what they did, but that they would have to do it without my consent. All three let me go.

In none of the cases did I have anything to hide. At one time in this country we valued the protection against unreasonable search and seizure. I have a real problem with any enforcement agency imposing anything without probable cause. I will resist continually.

I strongly disagree with the premise that refusing to cooperate indicated guit.

....And MADD has a lot to do with these abuses of government power.

I will be the first to admit to you that the potential for abuse is phenomenal. From the interesting sources that you provided, it looks rampant.

I'll tell you up front that I don't drink. I also believe that it is none of my business if you - or anyone else drinks. It only becomes my business if you get out on the road and are unable to control your (not you in particular - "you" in general meaning other people) automobile.
I have no beef with people who drink while driving if they are in control of their automobile.
If your are going to have a law that says DUI is illegal, and your going to use a Breathalyzer the determine that point, the there has to be some tangible declaration of what that limit is.

From the looks of things, based on the information you provided, what started out as a noble effort has been reduced to revenue generation for the state.
I think a better approach might be to set the BAC limit higher, something where it is known that you are not in control of your faculties, and let the lower levels be determined by observable behavior (weaving, slurred speech, etc.)

I would be opposed to people being arrested for simply having a drink and driving, but who are capable of controlling their automobile.

BTW - thanks for the sites, still surfing them.

I think a better approach might be to set the BAC limit higher, something where it is known that you are not in control of your faculties, and let the lower levels be determined by observable behavior (weaving, slurred speech, etc.)

From the data on alcohol-related traffic accidents that Jeanne Pruett (who owns www.ridl.us) has compiled, the BAC at which drivers are significantly at risk is 0.14, almost twice as high as the currently-accepted limit of 0.08. But MADD (and their government allies at NHTSA) are pushing for an even lower BAC: 0.05: in other words, you could be arrested for DUI after taking cough medicine or using mouthwash. This nonsense, coupled with the unconstitutional use of roadblocks (so-called "DUI checkpoints"), does virtually nothing to stop problem drunk drivers. It does everything to turn law-abiding citizens that may enjoy a beer with friends at a pub or a glass of wine at a restaurant into criminals and generally diminish respect for law enforcement.

does everything to turn law-abiding citizens ... into criminals
Seems to be a lot of that. One way to justify your existence as a group is to "show" how you have helped take "criminals" off the streets. Instead of really targeting the criminals, a good way to up your "stats" is to make more criminals. A lot of "gun control" laws are like that.
While I am adamant about a "little mercy" policy for truly drunk drivers, I appreciate your cordial discussion. You have brought to my attention a area where I have succumbed to the "it doesn't affect me" syndrome. I really have not paid attention to the DUI laws and how the un-necessary strictness effects law abiding citizens.
It is a bit humbling that I have fallen into that trap. Most of my peers consider me a very vigilant citizen when it comes to freedom and Governments proper role.

I will be more aware from now on. - Thanks!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.