Blood Alcohol Level

breathalyzers to accurately represent

Breathalyzers - Steal This - National Motorists Association Breathalyzers Fail Legitimacy Test The technological backbone of the nation's anti-drinking and driving crusade is the Breathalyzer test. This is the process where the breath of suspected drunk drivers is tested for the presence of alcohol. The Breath alcohol content is then converted by a standardized formula to determine the Blood alcohol content, which is the actual indicator of impairment. The whole process appears very scientific, very equitable, and very fair. The problem is that the process is not any of these things. It is not scientific nor does it rely on existing and accepted science. It is not equitable in that there is a wide variation in the results from person to person. And, it is not fair given that persons who are not realistically impaired are found "guilty" of drunk driving and persons who may be significantly impaired escape detection as drunk drivers. Blood alcohol content can be accurately measured by a blood test. Blood alcohol content has been generally accepted as an accurate indicator of impairment. Setting aside the accepted fact that alcohol tolerance and effect varies greatly from individual to individual I want to exclude that issue to focus solely on the ability of the breathalyzer to accurately determine Blood alcohol content by measuring Breath alcohol content. Peer reviewed and uncontested studies (LaBianca, Simpson, Thompson et.al.) prove a margin of error of 50 % when comparing breathalyzer estimates of Blood alcohol content to actual Blood alcohol content! That means a breathalyzer reading of .1 % represents a Blood alcohol content level somewhere between .05 % and .15%, hardly a level of precision on which to base an irrefutable presumption of guilt! When confronted with this proven inability of breathalyzers to accurately represent Blood alcohol content some state legislatures, in their wisdom and desire for expedience, have decided to grant Breath alcohol content the same status as Blood alcohol content as irrefutable evidence of intoxication, impairment and drunk driving. This is criminal in its error and implementation. Breath alcohol content is a legitimate measurement of only one thing, the alcohol content of the sample of air it is measuring. It is not an accurate indicator of Blood alcohol content, nor an accurate indicator of alcohol related impairment. Breathalyzer readings should not be considered as per se evidence of Driving While Intoxicated (or impaired) unless the reading is high enough to overcome the inherent 50 % margin of error. That means a Breathalyzer reading must exceed .2 % in a state with a .1 % DWI threshold to be granted per se status (irrefutable presumption of guilt). Breathalyzer readings above .1 % and below .2 % should be accorded prima facie status (rebuttable presumption of guilt). Breathalyzer readings below .1 % should be accorded no credibility beyond providing probable cause for a DWI arrest. In no case should breath alcohol content be considered an accurate measurement of Blood alcohol content or the degree of impairment. The desire to eradicate the deaths, injuries and property damage associated with drunk driving does not excuse the courts or legislatures from their duty to provide just laws that are fairly administered. If standards, limits and quantities are included in these laws they should be relevant to the subject at hand, clearly delineated, and accurately measured. If there is room for substantial error there should be appropriate opportunities for the accused to address those errors in their defense. The "rush" to arrest and punish drunk drivers has badly trampled these principles. If you looked at our site and didn't join, could you tell us why? Click here to send a brief note. (C) National Motorists Association, All Rights Reserved.

?
sr@=?0?

)MHXoEx]kTu?;/V`
"@!vd@p#IAxe^!YvlW%UrJDY!""~K?aV#!,(;*;Y er{{Tis??!F[B t?M^s{!?SZEpOZa?^V[T;p A[m?v^#^/g'bv)5%?Vq ?wvb^`/$D&\-;}~Kvm=]HRKmm#alMn"Kb*,x+}hVX?n&ZN4r't-/|:}:s&m@yYöq|c1{jC.Lsm_Tst?YY!|-2]3P i~?F Qju21# Eo?qUbG-u].T7/IWh_s ~G~~VV??u_# :=1Mq3q:{?\q72*nvgq7rsWYkStPI+7/X4Q@{7_nd8k:|F?Xo2p:eW 'G' ?VI]~==$f&Uy?[6@p& ?b+Y/&&cx6?*,W}qDi
F[dM^???i %{+)e76@gXh-M+dk!?s@F
:B1me3{::s
\o3gwbzv9C?3#g,wvt3z~{vQBB?K1?Ty?t]o+9rP\LH\
n/h%+9rPB1atGzCU WrG*W0rr
+|ra5Pr?/7B`y@pFL! W@N{;rt`\:WX$XOu^Sbq}Ayx 1mt`c%77|`CgW{s8r[/7GZ9zYn82j?{FA#Yn8]@_C |¸m|,__W|6;llsiG2_nF$Prr#\7};_pr3#W,7zwniO\z¸?D0W?,?e~iGy^AOqfa1?Vy3?[}#~H~

~/l|_:h*"nlqc%ocmCgW26t6~o[p?/7vz2ow?k(z(_06}|2ow??QWdS$KQ/Bj8sNS;?nL5?6t/oESiw{A+?6tF35"icXt=cOJ?=lC_yzELrR1Z;?"ni,.}EOr?d\/'$?H|E1qVTP/"a'?n t/}dN'Cmn/h%kCCm|anhmhHsmtpN:iCgG4w~6?[wTyNs'|g&wF;s\o;9Yl?zGS_A?GY$/Oz6R{\:'?=]LU}P!8kp(^J8Pp?G
p(6t#PCm|.?CO?}??9eC;_04}MPr#?M!G;s8Own'z90GtN*#cg?cR?~?K?{4]=|zsO_?W§t)?Vhat??d:Om(}|l?Oa?j(|l?OMe
i_n5}|2?}]?9]:8?IOW_$??:,?L99-
?6~iC0QHl+
?6t6~%99?U#Q_?{Îl?+wr#YKw`?Zv?BzwF\7\&I?s?|?u\p}Fq,]{?yB;l{f\&~O
ur~O!l?|Gcr#\:|Q;l[f\&~Kur~K"l[#:.xy&_pXU,?Oh}COp?a9Wqr bm^#hGYf#!oJ?z&~"z"bS;gZ}8::?q=?~o8?qYGk #U|9I#Mmu}! t??#x?q:6?Q;[Ze);u(-KaK~bgq\}D4?)wbof?L;??%x$LCPOm?K/)w3_8?2b?;rql%?uqyq%Q;anGvBO5
(

\

,robin.room@sorad.su.se:mailto:robin.room@sorad.su.se#y90


Document Word.Document.80$Microsoft Document`
/0
DArialngs0tt*0DWingdings?0tt*0@.@n?" dd@


@@``@
8
L+

,"$?0?

)M
0

A


A

@
w
?;?;

g
4KdKd*0
ppp
@ F10.0 Acute intoxication due to use of alcoholA. The general criteria for acute intoxication (F1x.0) must be met.G1. There must be clear evidence of recent use of a psychoactive substance (or substances) at sufficiently high dose levels to be consistent with intoxication.G2. There must be symptoms or signs of intoxication compatible with the known actions of the particular substance (or substances), as specified below, and of sufficient severity to produce disturbances in the level of consciousness, cognition, perception, affect, or behaviour that are of clinical importance. G3. The symptoms or signs present cannot be accounted for by a medical disorder unrelated to substance use, and not better accounted for by another mental or behavioural disorder B. There must be dysfunctional behaviour, as evidenced by at least one of the following:& C. At least one of the following signs must be present:& & :
P.

4
='



+

n
)The other ICD-10 code for intoxication -2**$

B. There must be dysfunctional behaviour, as evidenced by at least one of the following:1) disinhibition;2) argumentativeness;3) aggression;4) lability of mood;5) impaired attention;6) impaired judgment;7) interference with personal functioning.C. At least one of the following signs must be present: 1) unsteady gait;2) difficulty in standing;3) slurred speech;4) nystagmus;5) decreased level of consciousness (e.g. stupor, coma);6) flushed face;7) conjunctival injection0
P

P
P
b

5

-



R


(Clinical assessment & BAC (Y91 vs. Y90)))$
Factors which might affect the relationship:Extent of assessor s experienceOpportunity to observe or test behaviourProximity in time of BAC and assessmentExtent of subject s tolerance of alcoholVariations in drunken comportmentCulturally-influenced assumptions about social location and on recording of intoxication &-

-
l


+Clinical assessment and BAC: prior studies,,(
Jetter, 1938: 13% of those admitted with  acute alcoholism had zero BACHonkanen, 1977: 14% with  no intoxication had positive BAC,12%  heavily intoxicated had zero BACSimilar result in second Finnish studyTeplin & Lutz 1985: Alcohol Symptom Checklist: 0.85 correlation with BACUS  field sobriety tests for law enforcement:mostly positive, even distinguishing .08% separately from .10%Some more pessimistic reportsTypically test movement and coordination  can such tests be used in a busy ER?TZ{
x
Z{x6

C





@Y90 & Y91 in the WHO Collaborative Study on Alcohol and InjuriesAA$
Comparing:BAC measurement (breathalyzer)Clinical assessment by physician or nurseIncluded recording of clinical signs of intoxicationAssessment by interviewer (4 sites)Equivalencies assigned for comparison:No intoxication d" 0.59 per milleMild intoxication0.60  0.99 per milleModerate intoxication1.00  1.99 per milleSevere/Very severe intoxication 2.00 and moreTau-B correlation 0.68Better agreement on none vs. some than at higher levelsPI
P5P$
P'P
PP8
PI5$'8}


L

Conclusions and options

There is an association between assessment and BAC, but only medium strong at any site.Y91 is not a satisfactory substitute for Y90BAC worth routinely measuring (though not always causal)Summary codes vs. full BAC?Recategorize?Developing clinical instrument to estimate BAC?(rather than intoxication)Or separate Y91, use it as a measure of ostensive drunkenness?Relation of F10.0 to Y90, Y91? Field-testing of F10.0?Y90 for BAC, Y91 for impaired coordination, F10.0 for disinhibition?tP*
P0P
PP*0,





0` 33` Sf3f` 33g` f` www3PP` ZXdbmo` \?3y`?` 3f3ff
` 3f3FKf` hk]wwwf?` ff\`Y{ff` R&- {p_/` 3333
?" d
d@,|?
" dd@


" @ ` n?" dd@


@@``PR







@

`

`
p

$(
6
8










`}
*T Click to edit Master title style!!

0










`

RClick to edit Master text stylesSecond levelThird levelFourth levelFifth level!
S
0
5








^
`
X*


0

x}`U? @$f&D!9H&r0*šUl/ZWwu-sgbys9^w^{z?7||8M`&`-^pmmZt8Z]fUHjF+"o^!ru/o kD&P
/Balp :811##& &"&Q S3TdB"A2D91QB?
11Q+"A{1^/@|q!bb)b++#.A\q9ekW"B}[i?^_maE1sRe A50? Fv?EA?"g`GUi0Ia9}T/Rn:G(
V
?#'?0=#u,Mld?-IhMEsZ?~$sKO5WDGYpfU9F1LH?lEw1qu !p)TU}d-?:hh|J4Z?|`H#=|zEi^)NWt.g xZ^Mct757c.7M_??vtwSWv`{[cGIv&+oUcGS0I6mlc6mNIwrYC#'^cTlO; 5xS?4O@/jv5`2V56BP9-mmo)qhEy6kav_{)7VBz?mlc6mlc3{+^| e
F{k?-q?xÃSKhNDl^§1n?
g^W.fp\n5#Nv+Wf*@F|d:|/_Uq j$=Kr=;z#?pR^g`&r{^,}o"FZ^m+,ys5u,%?im:@~~&Q}hDfD@r6UrhSnygk+ |Bs3OÄya^RTT-3S?jH*?K
.$6}=:42\Z54MVVS+YD?by7Li[H\+(dYQ$@KUhZZ?44JV31?Yty1DaKA_l\XQ?RJvq)1ker2C|}-b?ikJ+)=d*?uKym?VVfDfip~E0??ga*E?$;yQAtL][½7-ZL*?(@-M]z]kK}g]G^ol?pPXK,?2T\TCmt$?`+tdf:3ofYhWY
E?&N]] 5? 'sa7(Gw"2$g"(#h2ifW]ix?7,?72FK?\BE"V VKIOF^uv,??Qh@#BVT[Q;[7 nA?w'9A k-?y?hGgxm}]&{A=61o?,dj?72F.3w=IJ6g0e;6Z0ng{?3~G
$?#{_Vs;_6g?ap;t06w*^3"nnXy9PsA\U8xm:C\P3QhZ8n-tv=I?_-_40C?Ppik?o?vbl?6h@la%XxpI*stS9Pu?.y#~*Ioc*l9ÅTx?|0AhKj[;je(Yiw1Y0Iv*\ 7xHT,7P?zcVks}d'0lY-3'A$_N}\8ua2?F&+{:)CQhICPTxulg[XaSY?Dg?J³mg[X+2&?$ ; C
of=;R?KDb?C{^$q?]p9zoY$&.JUe?0]0?v)_u w

_
#o0oAd!cS%RDb.B?A#?wDlE?q~c}ggmKv9xqB;.,'?Bd#"!txD
qb6b9Br/#V7Gzo?!:MzW#yeN5R-zD_w{o25)E}?-^6M'
c]{o6#2
Pj(E- L2oW@\n^??,!OII%
Ig7iMgvP}yN;i3&?Z;xG)`4{3%}fs*4x9nt9.p97h9nd9.`?^UIh7u |~uc}A?IrV?uNFi1P`.dSmAu?vQk?l0Y#?ewm+~kasVxUEpZ?up?K`?5hxrU?zc7#--peuV{{{@?}vaQ^F%?kC?@?W`_COPpooZgF[L{6^. |wE ??E?09crK???;v3Z?g?63mlc?C)eW
Jut3_6Z.?Bw?J~J{%?=B]`3`H
fo8t?gr" 9ee:y^{8???~TDuX0j?t*"{!qpB
%'ZbI F?&r;1?4zRgOb;MO}zJ?inpV 7EK~eh?{I|33IEfw/5hbSnizk _?a
^.?Vhbzze!wJžY1T?e"Toyz@Qj|_TXq6_Dcf#U1$ôh?BaB_/mmu;s-?NN}/mMK^/u].n&jv!746#~HKp@?'?3?/ _a}SOodz9$^]qT|_1Yw~3OF/A
02k?zt=ahhmHcch@3"O4JIy|:!=y?
W,T??v4,~,?V5v4#mlc6mlc4do~m{'5d=|{5^@?[N/?Tsr)K{/E?"&*i1o{j_[iG2tOi_kdjhmrZ,'S"?q? Svjx~^a|qn%$A'56mlc6mlc~?Ý2q X{?O:Gu\sxCbf^?bE]/?OcxS5~56\(xks}? ;14?\'uT~?*;f#{B8"/=yWm\3W_?e/kd~R?vsj$=Kr= 2WX,gs0_{l!??=?|JfJ;a'4i (Za)%QZR?2N9Ka!C}q1kK4jY2?%?qcgP++C3KCt]4YJb4(?}?vTSW&p`V:?"J33+6BzkKS^RY!T8V:+@ s"PEb!u$*hty::2Lh{Uyjw qbGiM3%_K??z)ox
"?Nf
/D"1E'b8q}^O|~w]}3q5]F4Qz{/@Gq[gCgdsq8V{q2qEla Is$dv:d/b6?H&y1B'{
X%|?WIp8tLR"Iw*gIKq?_ni?N}??hNP;!\Hn/?5cVnIV3( vnW/ La3w?|N|gv?=iMr ?M"n6ZLd!e=WNSQ~fG?Ÿ1_V$RDb.[Jz72gc1ndHfV$5zDBtmKO5`]$V7|7D;O:nkAmt~ !wE{#t.c""GC??1)g/O_3~zssW/ "S=DlE?qah'9A k-y?hGgxmGOrwLzzC{lpI/6Z~Jrv}?Ÿ1s'cxK/b^~Tmshm`_
S+PAjY7& &|51y/?D?-?`v`(n?w?a?Fv^=?rZksBt RMe?!/BcC#z?hLRO,w@e$O{nP8d$oE0D32 C5@@'|F~.I%Va?lhTN:T]6`=K?J[Dx]BqWD*]f`^Q] robemtet2RxnXX,$.B COrNll.0AJlM%}+laAeJPZI?)+C_$d{@VeXBay? 2hd³mg[X+2&?$G@9 ?0]0?v)_?r`XO=d# 6Bc{9v9Nr9n9~Sj9f9Nb9qmhZ?F~#XO'tL1BF]aGI]lI?$X 4oU\rNwCGG[?n?1h4bs??)P\+D@`i9"yHR~?@G-2$H2;'}Jr^?ds_M_qf1A x,{kX[aXK?+ {:vaQ^N'kC?@?W`_COPpoow?'.l]xj[mBzod=?0?N=?0"=b?-AXNb5_@Ml-?j\CC{;.Ku8onIGU?
-"?Zj[!HF.EU4D,nY]lG+[T:q*A;K&`õsse5,?gAY0!Ars+*7&6za?2?$'?d$k/caq??+?|i?*k8 k4YZ"$t4.V3TEcU,D??9hHf0,b9X"?cQ??v{??E*^Uc].BM=7)"u&CLp_k?kg.Yepa'0}06EU6P16`=uh_M}c0c%[G?/IT;vg(ghmPLIrNO4mlca{c
ZPRE~^Ksh-H7l?(tW?Y,OX61`O7zjO*](a0?a`H#jV6ZQX'lM).Rp0_C{j5A9{MbuhB4?x\x
o^Ag3\(hwc~.db3jEy2ce)t/`-48='?Ofan#xodXnd6KR$J\P(beYrFJL;*1K|^wIgSa(*LbNLYMC-k"Bw**8T(?
tk/wtaG_JCe%bo,F(pR"Eg?OgO?TwQM!*LydkVJ|A:6?#\y+Rs9bb '^ItAKn;G?:F{[??[xt7^wV)e'E^tZM?NN3wa&'AsKn2Gp2Vs['st##sFjy$?ToXk'U*:2'UyX?lWu Q=O%o]^78uBJanPHz aIY/z?'e1yb}z?fx*YSH.4ETS/z x^"dr9?.??.w6?r$]Tm|;UNe*PH.?˜U]Gzm|T/S4tRH5.K7t]lH3Ÿde3õT:;\3KaYb%Yo5B[v9'?z%r_QeY&OL?1gBlRJ/.???dt|?NnzHGz!mfxQhzGz!mfS}Toikkl)=aTz?VO z?T=Zz=PT+SIBrMSZijrT+S|4MMjejR&d_y|FMnh^?3x9'3Oo!L#OhQBZ]7ZIK qxKNmSfLvJ~;STr\.9!u8U^ Bwx;4y7nk\XwxSio*MMOZJ:K7MMjejR{V!57MMjejR{h2OWn[*YK\bOW?xf{T:;g?#T:;Jg'Ys"5`M"_z#^7R/A+= r}n@47&\{#5=? rwaFr(riK,IQYjp2VKH?KjkiK,bQYjp+b4?H¾x ÌbLqGt?Q]=e[k7Fg2,]a2*r=jrÂXAQXk%eXJ[,oy?\2#2%Ue+*C#/"?Czeo+;q[:obyi^|~g/R77|~'kh?-%XrH
5?"BNDzFHJL*OVQSUK[Y


w

Oh+'0
`h
$
@
L
p
|



The relation between Blood Alcohol Content and clinically assessed intoxication: lessons from applying the ICD-10 Y90 and Y91 codes in the emergency roomGretchen ThomasCheryl Cherpitel2Microsoft Office PowerPoint@@/@L21
@`}0
G$g
[
y33-
-

$xx-
-
'

@Arial-
.


H2+The relation between Blood Alcohol Content r


.

"System04-


@Arial-
.


@2&and clinically assessed intoxication: 

.
-


@Arial-
.


32lessons from applying the ICD .
-


@Arial-
.


2l
-.
-


@Arial-
.


2n10 Y90 and 
.
-


@Arial-
.


62(Y91 codes in the emergency room
.
-


@Arial-
.


28BRobin Room

.
-


@Arial-
.


N2?/Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs










.
-


@Arial-
.


%2G8Stockholm University





.
-


@Arial-
.


!2O9Stockholm, Swedeni


.
-


@Arial-
.


(2V3robin.room@sorad.su.se



.
-


-
V3Vm-


@Arial-
.


[2f8Presented at an International Conference on Alcohol and 













.
-


@Arial-
.


62lInjury, Berkeley, California, 3











.
-


@Arial-
.


2l^
-.
-


@Arial-
.


2l`6 October, 2005


.
-


.+,D?.+, ?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY[\]^_`acdefghiklmnopqtRoot Entry
dO)Pictures
Current User

jSummaryInformation(
ZPowerPoint Document(
DocumentSummaryInformation8
b

Driving Under Influence Of

Drug testing article - Retired Lawyer Tackles The Law On Driving Under Influence Of Drugs Retired Lawyer Tackles The Law On Driving Under Influence Of Drugs Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON) Wed, 11 Dec 2002 Author: Kelly Egan Rick Reimer was a prominent criminal lawyer in Pembroke. Then he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Mr. Reimer uses marijuana daily to cope with the effects of his illness and intends to use an impaired driving charge to scrutinize the law's approach toward marijuana and its impacts on life. As Canada inches closer to softer marijuana laws, a retired Killaloe lawyer is asking the courts to rule on the murky issue of driving while under the influence of cannabis. Rick Reimer intends to use an impaired driving charge to scrutinize the wobbly approach of legislators toward the use of marijuana and its impacts on daily life. In a case that begins in a tiny courtroom tomorrow, he is both the accused and defender. Mr. Reimer, 47, a prominent criminal lawyer in Pembroke until his retirement two years ago, uses marijuana daily to cope with the effects of multiple sclerosis. He was diagnosed four years ago and, in November 2000, was granted a Health Canada exemption to use the drug for medicinal purposes. "I smoke marijuana constantly, from morning until night," said Mr. Reimer, estimating he smokes about 10 to 12 joints a day. On Feb. 11, he was pulled over on Highway 60 as he made his way toward Pembroke at about 11 a.m. on a clear, sunny morning that followed a fresh snowfall. He was stopped by an OPP officer near Round Lake Centre for allegedly weaving about the road. Mr. Reimer displayed some of the classic signs of impairment: slurred voice and unsteady gait. Those are precisely the symptoms of his disorder, he says. The smoking of marijuana, he argues, actually makes him a better driver. "There's no doubt whatsoever that I am not impaired in any way, shape or form by marijuana smoking, any more than a tobacco smoker would be," he said yesterday. One of the central issues in the trial promises to be the inability of police officers to assess precisely -- at the roadside or in the station -- the level of impairment caused by marijuana smoking. Unlike the test for alcohol, there is no quick and easy method to determine levels of THC in a driver's system. And unlike alcohol, THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, stays in the body for long periods. Mr. Reimer hopes to use the criminal trial to expose what he considers the government's hypocritical attitude toward the legal use of marijuana. The unusual court case comes the same week Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said he intends to proceed with legislation, likely to be introduced by April, that would decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana. "If Cauchon comes down with decriminalization, you're going to see all kinds of situations where cops pull over drivers," said Mr. Reimer. "There is no way for the officer to gauge what level of THC, if any, is in the bloodstream of the driver." Mr. Reimer said the federal government has failed to deal with these issues, just as he thinks it has bungled the matter of medicinal marijuana. "They should have been thinking of this 20 years ago. Instead, they buried their heads in the sand and now they've been dragged kicking and screaming into it and they've been caught with their pants down." As a defence lawyer, Mr. Reimer defended dozens, if not hundreds, of impaired drivers. He is so well-known in the justice community in Renfrew County that an out-of-county Crown, Mac Lindsay of Ottawa, was brought in to prosecute. Mr. Lindsay declined to discuss the case in detail yesterday, except to say he would be calling the arresting officer and a toxicologist. Proving the effect of marijuana on a driver -- at least to a criminal court standard -- has been difficult. In Eastern Ontario during the last eight years, there have been two well-known failures, blamed on holes in the Criminal Code. Home Products FAQ News Contact Us Links Pot Smoker All rights reserved 1999-2003 Books Etc. Report Site Problems to: webmaster@cleartest.com

intoxicated driving"). It assigns

Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1010.7 - DRUNK AND DRUGGED DRIVING BY DOD PERSONNEL  You are here: About > Careers > U.S. Military > Publications & Regulations > Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1010.7 - DRUNK AND DRUGGED DRIVING BY DOD PERSONNEL Careers U.S. Military Essentials Military Pay Charts Frequently Asked Questions Glossary of Military Terms How To's Topics The Services Joining the Military The Orderly Room Pay and Benefits Publications & Regulations Military Humor Justice, Law & Legislation Family & Domestic Off Duty Pictures and Graphics Music, Sounds, & Software Life After the Military Military Shopping & Surplus Deployments & Conflicts Weapons Buyer's Guide Before You Buy Top Picks ASVAB Study Guides Books About Joining the Military Military Gift Ideas Product Reviews Forums Help FREE Newsletter Sign Up Now for the U.S. Military newsletter! See Online Courses   Search U.S. Military Department of Defense Regulations DoD Directive 1010.7, "Drunk and Drugged Driving by DoD Personnel" Join the Discussion Visit Our Message Forum Related Resources • DOD Regulations • Army Regulations • Air Force Regulations • Navy Regulations • Marine Corps Regulations • Coast Guard Regulations This Directive establishes DoD policy regarding drunk and drugged driving by DoD personnel (hereafter referred to as "intoxicated driving"). It assigns responsibility for and explains DoD policy and procedures on the establishment and operation of the DoD intoxicated Driving Prevention Program, which is designed to address the problem of and increase the awareness and attention given to intoxicated driving b DoD personnel. It establishes the DoD Intoxicated Driving Prevention Task Force (DIDPTF) and cancels the Secretary of Defense Memorandum, "Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)," November 26, 1982 (hereby canceled). Note: This Regulation is available in both PDF File Format and ASCII Format. While ASCII will load faster, it will not contain tables and photos which may be available in the original document. If you choose the PDF Format, you must first download and install the FREE PDF Viewer Program from Adobe Software . Depending on your Internet connection speed, large regulation files may take several minutes to download before they can be viewed. View Publication Subscribe to the Newsletter Name Email Recent Discussions War's Stunning Price Tag Questions, questions, questions No Brokeback Mountain for overseas From Rod Powers , Your Guide to U.S. Military . FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now! Advertisement Most Popular Pay Charts 2006 Military Base Pay Charts Fy2006 Military Base Pay Chart - Enlisted 2006 BAH Rates Air Force Enlisted Jobs What's Hot Military Humor - Out-Gunned Retirement Pay Army Job (MOS) Descriptions and Qualifications - 31L--Cable ... Fy2006 Military Annual Average Salary - Commissioned Officer Annual Salary Charts Related Topics Military History U.S. Gov Info / Resources U.S. Politics: Current Events Retirement Planning   Topic Index | Email to a Friend Our Story | Be a Guide | Advertising Info | Work at About | Site Map | Icons | Help User Agreement | Ethics Policy | Patent Info. | Privacy Policy | Kids' Privacy Policy ©2006 About, Inc., A part of The New York Times Company . All rights reserved. Around About Popular Cameras, MP3 Players, Phones Guide to Distance Learning How to Make Money on eBay How to Reduce Income Tax PHOTOS: Hybrid Cars What's Hot Military Humor - Out-Gunned Retirement Pay Army Job (MOS) Descriptions and Qualifications - 31L--Cable ... Fy2006 Military Annual Average Salary - Commissioned Officer Annual Salary Charts Headlines 2006 Military Pay Charts Complete set of military pay and allowances charts for 2006,... Air Force Security Forces Undergoing Transformation As the Air Force continues to adapt for the future,... Navy Announces Early Discharge Program The Navy has announced a voluntary early separation program for... Army Recruiting Referral Bonus Program Soldiers (active duty, reserves, and Army National Guard), can now...

OUIL CAUSING DEATH --

WPC

2BIJ
ZA|xTimes New Roman (TT)HelveticaCG Times (Scalable)PalatinoArial (TT)



C\ P6Q
P



`2PkC

P



c P7

P4



bX Pg9C

P=



J2PQ
P2?
phoenix
#X P7
XP#
OUIL CAUSING DEATH -- Instructions on Elements John PowellJohn Powell0
2

Default Paragraph Fo
Default Paragraph Font
11
#XP\ P6QXP#





#X P7
XP#

#&Q2PkC

&P#


OUIL CAUSING DEATH Instructions on Elements
People v David William SchaeferPeople v James Richard Large#126067; 127142, July 27, 2005DAVID R. CRIPPS for defendant SchaeferJOHN P. KOBRIN for defendant Large

#&QX Pg9C
&P#
Vacated judgment of Court of Appeals in Schaefer reversing conviction of OUIL causing death; remanded to Court of Appeals for consideration of remaining issue; reversed judgment of Court of Appeals in Large affirming lower courts' refusal to bind defendant over on OUIL causing death; remanded to district court. Cases below: unpublished opinion (#245175, 32504): unpublished opinion (#253261, 81004).The plain text of the OUIL causing death statute, MCL 257.625(4), does not require that the prosecution prove that the defendant's intoxicated state affected his or her operation of the motor vehicle. The statute requires no causal link at all between the defendant's intoxication and the victim's death. Defendant's operation of the motor vehicle, not the defendant's intoxicated manner of driving, must cause the victim's death; intoxication is a separate element of the offense. To the extent that People v Lardie, 452 Mich 231 (1996), held that the defendant's intoxicated driving must be a substantial cause of the victim's death, Lardie is overruled. To prove OUIL causing death, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant was operating his or her motor vehicle in violation of MCL 257.625(1), (3), or (8); (2) the defendant voluntarily decided to drive, knowing that he or she had consumed an intoxicating agent and might be intoxicated; and (3) the defendant's operation of the motor vehicle caused the victim's death.The element of causation is comprised of both factual cause and proximate cause. Factual cause exists if, but for the defendant's conduct, the result would not have occurred. Proximate cause is a factual cause of which the law will take cognizance. The victim's injury must be a direct and natural result of the defendant's actions; if an intervening cause superseded the defendant's act as a legally significant causal factor, the defendant's conduct was not a proximate cause. However, if the intervening cause is objectively reasonably foreseeable, it does not supersede the defendant's act. Ordinary negligence of a third party is reasonably foreseeable; gross negligence is not.In People v Schaefer, the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on causation as defined in People v Lardie, supra, but the court did err by simply reading the statute to the jury because the jury could not be expected to understand that the statute required the prosecution to prove both factual and proximate causation. However, the error was harmless; failure to explain causation was not outcome determinative. The design of the highway could not have been a grossly negligent intervening cause. People v Large must be remanded to the district court for a determination of whether the victim's behavior (riding a bicycle with no brakes down a partially obstructed hill onto a busy road) was a superseding cause of the accident.Justice Weaver, concurring, wrote to explain that, contrary to her opinion in Lardie, both factual and proximate cause must be shown.Justice Corrigan, concurring, wrote to suggest an analytic approach to the remaining issue in People v Schaefer.Justice Cavanagh, concurring in part and dissenting in part, concurred in the majority's interpretation of the statute, but stated that applying the new rule, which overturns the prior interpretation of MCL 257.625(4), to these cases violates due process and infringes on the protections inherent in the Ex Post Facto Clause. Any construction different that the one set forth in Lardie was both unexpected and indefensible.Justice Kelly, concurring in part and dissenting in part, concurred in the interpretation of the statute, and agreed with Justice Cavanagh that applying the new rule in these cases violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. 

#X P7
XP#