 |
DWI FAQs - Baton Rouge Louisiana Lawyer, DUI, Driving While Intoxicated, Driving Under the Influence 1. I am 18 and being charged with both UDUI and DWI. Why am I being charged with two crimes? In Louisiana, the traditional offense is "underage driving under the influence of alcohol" (UDUI), or "driving while intoxicated" (DWI). UDUI requires only a .02 blood alcohol level and is used to charge persons under the age of 21 years old. DWI requires a blood alcohol level of .08. If you submit to the chemical test and test above these levels, you are presumed to be intoxicated. If you have any questions about an arrest or pending charges, please contact a Baton Rouge Lawyer of The Babcock Law Firm. 2. Can the officer take my license at the scene? The law in Louisiana is a "per se" statute, which provides for immediate suspension and confiscation of your license if your breath test result is above the legal limit. Your license will also be automatically suspended if you refuse to submit to the breath test. It is possible to avoid these suspensions if you contact an attorney, but you need to do so as soon as possible. Under Louisiana law you only have fifteen days to challenge the suspension. 3. How do I know if I am legally drunk? To be considered legally drunk in the state of Louisiana you must have a Blood Alcohol Concentration of at least 0.08. Your BAC will depend on your weight and the amount of drinks you have consumed. Typically, a man weighing 220 lbs. will reach a limit of 0.08 within five or six drinks. A woman weighing 140 lbs. will reach her BAC limit of 0.08 within two or three drinks. There are a number of other factors that can effect the results of a breath test, and even if you refuse the test you can still be found guilty of D.W.I. 4. Should I plead guilty to a DWI charge? No. If you plead guilty, you could face up to 6 months in jail, fines up to $ 1,000.00, 32 hours of forced community service and a 90-day suspension of your license, all for just a first offense. There are times when pleading guilty could be you best option but it is essential that you have an attorney to assist you eith that decision. You should have an experienced DWI lawyer from Babcock Law Firm on your side to assist you with your case. Contact us today to discuss your case. 5. Is there anything I can do to keep my driver’s license? To save your driver's license you must request an administrative hearing within 15 days of your arrest. At this administrative hearing an experienced DWI lawyer may be able to get information from the police officers that could save your license and help you win your case. Contact Babcock Law Firm immediately to discuss your case so that action may be taken before 15 days has passed. 6. Will my chemical test be used against me in court? The State must prove that the requirements outlined in Louisiana Revised Statutes 32:661-669 and the regulations promulgated by the Louisiana Department of Corrections have been followed or your breath test results can be thrown out by a judge and not be used against you at trial. 7. What restitution do I face if I have a BAC of 0.10 or higher and am involved in a motor vehicle accident? Punitive damages can be collected against the driver of the vehicle who was intoxicated pursuant to Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315.4, which states “in addition to general and special damages, exemplary damages may be awarded upon proof that the injuries on which the action is based were caused by a wanton or reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others by a defendant whose intoxication while operating a motor vehicle was a cause in fact of the resulting injuries.” In addition, a traffic accident that is alcohol related could result in criminal charges against the drunk driver, such as negligent homicide or negligent injury. Name: Phone: How did you hear about us? Search Engine Newsletter Attorney Referral Friend Referral Family Referral Yellow Pages Consultwebs Directory Other Directory Other Comments: Babcock Law Firm , L.L.C., All Rights Reserved Baton Rouge Lawyers, Personal Injury, DWI, Speeding Tickets, Motor Vehicle Crime, Slip & Fall Accidents, DUI, Driving Under the Influence, Driving While Intoxicated, Premises Liability, Products Liability, Unsafe Products, Dog Bites, Inadequate Security, Pharmaceutical Drugs, Medical Devices, Medical Malpractice, Product Recalls, Vehicle Accidents, General Corporate Litigation, Traffic Ticket Law Serving Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Lafayette, Lake Charles, Alexandria, Shreveport, Monroe, Ruston, Louisiana, LA Site by Consultwebs.com , Inc. - Webs For Law Firms - Lawyers Site Map Disclaimer
|
|
Field Sobriety Testing In Field Sobriety Testing In Illinois - Science V. Law - DUI Attorney Illinois Name: Email: Tell us about your problem Or click here for a more comprehensive form RAMSELL & ARMAMENTOS, LLC MEMBER, AMERICA'S TOP DUI & DWI DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TM 1-800-DIAL-DUI© ILLINOIS DUI DEFENSE CASES ILLINOIS CRIMINAL DEFENSE CASES Hyperlinking widget for 1-800-Dial-DUI and dialdui.com DUI Field Sobriety Testing In Illinois - Science V. DUI Laws By Donald J. Ramsell In People v. Bostelman (2d Dist. 2001) 2-00-0850, the Second District Appellate Court was called upon to decide whether field sobriety tests were admissible in the absence of evidence that the tests were generally acceptable under scientific principles or in the particular field in which they belong, as recognized by Frye v. United States , 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923). The Bostelman court, in holding that field sobriety tests need not comply with Frye , stated that the field sobriety tests “measured abilities that are tested innumerable times throughout the average day of the normally active person”, and therefore are not subject to attack under Fyre principles. The fundamental problem in the Bostelman decision is that it implicitly holds that police officers may create any number of physical or mental “exercises“ and then refer to them as “sobriety tests”. In fact, two of the “tests” given by the officer in Bostelman , namely the alphabet test and count backwards test, have never been validated as reliable indicators of intoxication. The three remaining tests in Bostelman , i.e., the One-Leg Stand test, the Walk-and-Turn test, and the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test have only been validated as reliable indicators of intoxication when they are properly administered and properly scored in strict compliance with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standards. According to NHTSA, the failure of an officer to comply with proper administration and scoring compromises the validity of these tests entirely. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration “DWI Detention and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Student Manual, Section VIII, 2000, AVA 20839-BBOINA, National Technical Information Service, Washington, D.C. 2000. In the late 1970's, NHTSA was called upon to develop a battery of reliable standardized field sobriety tests to aid in the detection of drunk drivers. The result was the One-Leg Stand test, the Walk-and-Turn test, and the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test. According to NHTSA, laboratory research revealed that the One-Legged stand test was 65% accurate in identifying subjects whose blood alcohol concentrations were 0.10 or higher, the Walk-and Turn was 68% accurate, and the HGN was 77% accurate. A large scale field valuation study was then performed in 1982 and 1983. As per NHTSA, this large scale validation study was the first significant assessment of the “workability” of the standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) under actual enforcement conditions, and it was the first time that completely objective clues and scoring criteria had been defined for the tests. U.S. Department of Transportation, N.H.T.S.A., US DOT HS 178 r10/95, “DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing, Student Manual”, Section VIII Page 11 (1995). If field sobriety tests simply “measure abilities that are tested innumerable times throughout the average day of the normally active person”, as suggested by the Bostelman decision, then why is the error rate as high as the 35% reported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration? The problem with the Bostelman decision rests truly not with the Court, but with the record on appeal upon which the Court was required to rule. The Bostelman appeal centered on the defendant’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking to exclude, as lacking foundation, the arresting officer’s testimony concerning the field sobriety tests defendant underwent and the arresting officers subsequent opinion concerning defendant’s state of intoxication. The recitation of the trial court proceedings by the Bostelman court suggests that the types of tests given and the procedures employed by the officer were virtually uncontested by his trial attorney. No evidence was introduced about the fallibility of field sobriety testing or about the manner in which these tests were administered. Had the record contained evidence gleaned from field sobriety student manuals, published scientific studies or testimony from experts on field sobriety testing, perhaps the Bostelman Court would have rendered a different decision. Two recent decisions from other jurisdictions did have adequate records on appeal with which to rule regarding the admissibility of so-called field sobriety tests; State of Ohio v. Homan (2000) 89 Ohio St. 3d 421 and U.S. v. Horn (2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Maryland) 00-946-PWG. In State of Ohio v. Homan , supra , the Ohio Supreme Court held that in order for the results of a field sobriety test to serve as evidence of probable cause to arrest, the police must have administered the test in strict compliance with standardized testing procedures. The Homan court noted that “when field sobriety testing is conducted in a manner that departs from established methods and procedures, the results are inherently unreliable”. Unlike Bostelman , the Supreme Court of Ohio acknowledged that “experts in the areas of drunk driving apprehension, prosecution and defense all appear to agree that the reliability of field sobriety test results does indeed turn upon the degree to which police comply with standardized testing procedures.” Citing from the extensive study performed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Homan court stated: “The NHTSA concluded that field sobriety tests are an effective means of detecting legal intoxication “only when, the tests are administered in the prescribed, standardized manner, . . . the standardized clues are used to assess the suspect’s performance [,and] . . . the standardized criteria are employed to interpret that performance.” It would seem that if, as Bostelman implicitly suggests, performing sobriety tests is simple, then an officers ability to administer and score the tests in a standardized manner should be equally as simple. Requiring the use of validated, standardized field sobriety testing in Illinois in order to avoid the possibility of erroneous arrests for drunk driving is a concept whose time has arrived, especially in light of the heightened penalties that have been attached to drunk driving convictions. The Bostelman decision actually took a step backwards. Whereas prior caselaw had suggested that the officer must receive formal training in the administration of field sobriety tests ( People v. Sides 199 Ill. App. 3e 203 (1990)), the Bostelman court stated that no such training is necessary. Rather, Bostelman states that “so fundamental are such exercises of balance, coordination, and basic recognition to the activity of the average person that ‘even a layperson is competent to testify regarding a person’s intoxication from alcohol, because such observations are within the competence of all adults of normal experience,’ (citing to) People v. Workman , 312 Ill. App. 3d 305, 310 (2000).” In the Northeast Multi-Regional Training (NEMERT) Alcohol and Drugged Driver Detection Manual, used to train many of the patrol officers in the Chicagoland area, it states that: “The recommended test battery consists of the nystagmus gaze test , the walk and turn test , and the one leg stand test . The administration and scoring of these tests have been standardized so they can be used in the way that makes them as sensitive as possible in detecting alcohol impairment. If the standardized administration and scoring procedures presented in this manual are not followed, then the decision-making guidelines are no longer accurate”. The devoid record presented to the Bostelman court left it uninformed on the science behind SFSTs, and left the court in the untenuous position of either affirming the trial court’s guilty verdict or establishing a far-reaching decision in DUI cases in Illinois in the face of a defendant who did virtually nothing to prove that the tests given to him were somehow unfair or improperly administered and scored. As stated in U.S. v. Horn , 00-946 PWG (2002 U.S. Dist. Ct. Maryland) “this highlights an inherent limitation in the process of judicial evaluation of the reliability and validity of any scientific or technical evidence: the court must . . . act as “gatekeeper” to decide whether the evidence is reliable and admissible. The court, however, is limited in its ability to do so by the quantitative and qualitative nature of the evidence produced by the parties, whatever research the court may do, and any help it may derive from courts that have addressed the issue before it. This process unavoidably takes place on a continuum, and a court faced with the present task of deciding the admissibility of scientific evidence must exercise care to consider whether new developments or evidence require a reevaluation of the conclusions previously reached by courts that did not have the benefit of the more recent information. In short, neither science and technology may rest on past accomplishments – nor may the courts.” U.S. v. Horn , id at p. 12-13 fn. 15. In United States v. Horn , supra, the District Court of Maryland reviewed extensive caselaw, received a multitude of studies and medical articles, and heard testimony from a variety of experts on both sides regarding the validity and reliability of standardized field sobriety testing. After hearing, the Court ruled that: The results of properly conducted SFSTs may be considered for probable cause or at trial; The results of SFSTs cannot be used to prove a specific blood alcohol concentration; There is a well-recognized causal connection between the ingestion of alcohol and exaggerated H.G.N.; A police officer trained and qualified to perform SFSTs may testify to his observations, if properly administered, but may not use value-added descriptions to characterize the subject’s performance, such as saying the subject “failed the test” or “exhibited” a certain number of “standardized clues” during the test; If the Government introduces evidence of nystagmus, the defendant may bring out either during cross-examination or by asking the court to take judicial notice of the fact that there are many causes of nystagmus other than alcohol ingestion; and If otherwise admissible, the police officer may give lay opinion testimony that the defendant was Driving Under the Influence, but he may not bolster the testimony by reference to any scientific, technical or specialized information learned from law enforcement or traffic safety instruction. U.S. v. Horn , id at pp. 3-5. In many respects, Horn follows Bostelman’s theory that a police officer may testify (just as any other layperson) that someone is under the influence of alcohol. Horn , however, makes clear that the police officer is not to be misrepresented to the jury or judge as some kind of expert, unless the government establishes that he is otherwise so qualified. Horn also recognizes the prejudice to the defendant that accompanies testimony regarding non-validated and non-standardized field sobriety testing by prohibiting non-standardized tests from being introduced into evidence. The Horn ruling is based upon and supported by a variety of scientific and technical resources, which will be further discussed in this article. As stated previously, the three SFSTs (HGN, One-Leg Stand, and Walk-and-Turn) were developed on behalf of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration beginning in the 1970's. Amongst the reports discussing the development of the SFSTs is a June 1977 final laboratory study of subjects dosed to varying blood alcohol levels prepared for NHTSA by Dr. Marcelline Burns and Herbert Moskowitz Ph.D. entitled “Psychophysical Tests for DWI Arrests”. DOT-HS-802-424, National Technical Information Service, Washington, D.C. (1977). This is the study which found the HGN 77% accurate, the One-Leg Stand 65% accurate, and the Walk-and-Turn test 68% accurate in detecting impaired drivers. A March 1981 final report prepared for NHTSA by Dr. Burns titled “Developments and Field Test of Psychophysical Tests for DWI Arrest” recommended the use of the present three test SFST battery. Tharp V, Burns M and Moskowitz H, DOT-HS805-864. National Technical Information Service, Washington, D.C., 1981. In 1982, a field evaluation of the three SFSTs was begun, where battery-trained police officers recorded data on 1,506 drivers stopped for “suspicion of DWI’, as well as a review of data recorded on an additional 1,000 drivers stopped for DWI in other states. The results of that field evaluation were reported in “Field Evaluation of a Behavioral Test Battery for DWI, Research and Development”, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, D.O.T. HS-806-475 (Sept. 1983 NHTSA Technical Note). This study reported that the HGN test was 82% accurate, the One-Leg Stand 78% accurate and the Walk-and-Turn 83% accurate in the detection of DWI offenders. The authors of the 1983 report noted that there were significant reasons to be extremely cautious about the data collected and the conclusions drawn regarding the effectiveness of the field sobriety tests that were used. First, officers were not randomly assigned to different groups, so outcomes may have been affected by selection and assignment bias. Second, and most important, in the great majority of cases the drivers were given portable breath tests prior to the arrest decision, so the officers evaluation of the field sobriety tests may have been affected by this knowledge of the drivers reported alcohol concentrations prior to the arrest decision having been made. As a result of these studies, in 1984 the NHTSA published their first field sobriety testing manual, “Improved Sobriety Testing”, U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA (1984) DOT HS-0-421-018. It stated that “if the standardized testing and scoring procedures in this Manual are not followed the decision making guidelines will not be accurate”. Amongst the important aspects noted in the 1984 NHTSA Improved Sobriety Testng Manual’s administration and scoring of the procedures, is that the officer is told to “be sure to mention [to the suspect] that part of your evaluation will be based upon how well he follows instructions and performs exactly as demonstrated”. With regard to the HGN test, officers are informed to “check yourself monthly with (a 45 degree template) to be sure that your accuracy has been sustained”. The manual also notes that, the onset point at a BAC of 0.10 is about 40 degrees (the 45 degree angle correlates to 0.05 BAC). For the Walk-and-Turn test, the manual notes that the instructions should be given “exactly” as contained in the manual. The manual further states that the officer should observe the suspect from three or four feet away and remain motionless during the suspects performance of the Walk-and-Turn test, because excessive motion will make it more difficult for the suspect to perform, “even if he is sober”. “People more than 60 years of age, over 50 pounds overweight, or with physical impairments should not be given this test”. Further, according to the manual, “the Walk-and-Turn test requires a line that the suspect can see”. The 1984 NHTSA Manual also notes that the One-Leg-Stand test requires adequate lighting. “In total darkness, the One-Leg-Stand is difficult even for sober people”. Again, the officer should be at least 3 feet away and remain relatively motionless. “Being too close – just as in the Walk-and-Turn Test – makes the test more difficult” states the manual. The officer is instructed to time the One-Leg-Stand Test and to terminate it after the end of the count by the suspect or after 30 seconds, if the person counts slowly. Since 1984, the essential ingredients of Standardized Field Sobriety Testing has remained unchanged. That is, field sobriety tests are only valid when properly administered and properly scored in strict compliance with NHTSA standards. The reason for this is obvious - the tests measure not just balance and coordination, as noted in Bostelman , but they also measure a person’s ability to follow instructions exactly, even when their balance is unimpaired from alcohol. Many studies have been published in scientific or medical journals which are highly critical of these Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. These studies either criticize an officer’s actual administration and scoring of the tests – i.e., “they don’t do them as trained and instructed”, or they are critical of the reported accuracy of the tests in gauging impairment. In a study written by Dr. Spurgeon Cole, Ph.D., Dr. Cole is highly critical of the reliability of the SFSTs when used to prove impairment or alcohol levels. In “Field Sobriety Tests: Are they designed for Failure?” Perceptual and Motor Skills (1994), Dr. Cole analyzed the 1977 NHTSA report, the 1981 NHTSA report and the 1983 NHTSA Field Evaluation report, and observed the following (as reported in the Horn decision supra ): 47% of the subjects in the 1977 NHTSA laboratory study who would have been arrested actually had BACs below 0.10; in the 1981 NHTSA report, 32% of the subjects were incorrectly judged to have BAC’s at or above 0.10; the accepted reliability coefficient for standardized clinical tests is .85 or higher, yet the reliability coefficients for the SFSTs as reported in the NHTSA studies, ranged from .61 to .72 for the individual tests and .77 for individuals that were tested on two different occasions while dosed to the exact same BAC. More alarming, inter-rater reliability rates (where different officers score each subject) ranged from .34 to .60, with an over-all rate of .57. As further stated in Horn : Dr. Cole’s study theorized that the SFSTs, particularly the Walk-and-Turn and One-Leg-Stand tests, required subjects to perform unfamiliar, unpracticed motions and noted that a very few miscues result in a conclusion that the subject failed and had a BAC in excess of 0.10. His hypothesis was that individuals could be classified as intoxicated/impaired as a result of unfamiliarity with the test, rather than actual BAC. He tested this hypothesis by videotaping twenty-one completely sober individuals performing either “normal-abilities tests” (such as reciting their addresses or phone numbers or walking in a normal manner) or the Walk-and-Turn and One-Leg-Stand tests. Id . The results of Dr. Cole’s study were that 46% of the officers that viewed the videotape of the sober individuals performing the SFSTs rated the subjects as having had too much to drink, as compared to only 15% reaching this decision after seeing the videotape of the subjects performing the normal-abilities tests. Horn , supra. Dr. Cole concluded: “[The SFSTs] must be held to the same standards the scientific community would expect of any reliable and valid test of behavior. This study brings the validity of field sobriety tests into question. If law enforcement officials and the courts wish to continue to use field sobriety tests as evidence of driving impairment, then further study needs to be conducted addressing the direct relationship of performance on these and other tests with driving. To date, research has concentrated on the relationship between test performance and BAC and officers’ perception of impairment. This study indicates that these perceptions may be faulty.” Horn , supra . In “End-position nystagmus as an indicator of ethanol intoxication”, Science and Justice 2001, Vol 41: pp 113-116, published by the Forensic Science Society, the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test was studied under clinical experimentation. The authors concluded that the HGN has a high baseline error and a dose/response relationship that varies greatly depending upon whether the subjects BAC concentration was rising or falling. Further, the officers noted that videotapes recorded by cameras in police vehicles revealed that police officers rarely comply with the minimum requirements of the nystagmus examination procedures for which they were trained and certified. The Science and Justice study further stated that fatigue testing determined that subjects had distinct nystagmus in one or both eyes after being awake for an average of 11.2 hours. Distinct nystagmus was noted in 55% of the group after being awake an average of 24.5 hours. In 52 videotapes of officers who arrested persons for Driving Under the Influence, only one officer conducted the HGN test in a manner consistent with the approved procedures. The study stated that “the HGN test has routinely been applied in situations where a high incidence of false positives is to be expected.” In a survey of police surgeons who attended a training seminar devoted to use of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests pioneered in the United States (and are the subject of discussion herein), 44% of the police surgeons expressed reservations with the use of the SFSTs. “Drugs Driving - standardized field sobriety tests: a survey of police surgeons in Strathclyde” Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine (2001) Vol. 8: pp 57-65. In an article entitled “Psychology, Public Policy and the Evidence for Alcohol Intoxication” American Psychologist 1070 (Oct. 1983) a series of experiments performed at Rutgers University’s Alcohol Behavior Research Laboratory to test the ability of social drinkers, bartenders and police officers’ abilities to estimate the sobriety of individuals was reported. Each group was charged with reliably judging an individual’s intoxication. All three subject groups – the social drinkers, the bartenders, and the police officers – correctly judged the subjects level of intoxication only 25 percent of the time. In other states, the laws regarding the admissibility of field sobriety tests (other than HGN) is largely unsettled. In Hawaii, the courts held that the One-Leg Stand and Walk-and-Turn are non-scientific in nature, but the prohibited the officer from testifying that a person “passed” or “failed” these tests without laying a proper foundation. State v. Ferrer 23 P.3d 744 (Hawaii Ct. App. 2001). Conclusion The Bostelman decision perpetuates an urban myth that sobriety tests– any sobriety tests whether nonvalidated or improperly administered by a police officer – are reliable indicators of intoxication. This decision passes to the jury the unenviable task of weighing upon the validity and reliability of field sobriety tests in the vacuum of the jury room. Had the Bostelman court been given the information that was received into the record by the Homan court or the Horn court, perhaps their decision would have been different. Defense counsel would be well advised to do their homework and be well prepared when defending a client charged with Driving Under the Influence when the testimony rests upon questionable field sobriety exercises or improperly administered or improperly scored Field Sobriety Tests. Further, even when performed properly, counsel should be prepared to establish that these tests are not foolproof, and have been the subject of criticism in the legal, scientific and medical communities. About The Author Donald J. Ramsell is the founding Director of Ramsell, Armamentos & Klis, L.L.C. in Wheaton, Illinois. His firm has defended over 7,000 DUI cases since 1986. Recently, Donald was certified as a field Sobriety Testing Instructor using NHTSA Standards. About Our Firm About Our Attorneys 40 Ways to Beat a DUI Illinois DUI Law Resources DUI Articles and Information DUI Case Highlights Criminal Defense Criminal Case Highlights Letters from DUI Clients Free Case Review Office Location Contact Us National Attorney Directory Free Case Review Blood Alcohol Calculator Nationwide DUI Attorney Directory Home Site Map © 2006 Ramsell, Armamentos & Klis, Attorneys At Law, L.L.C.
|
|
Blood Alcohol Levels and Blood Alcohol Levels EKU Home President's Welcome A to Z Index Calendars Contact Us Blood Alcohol Levels Student Affairs Go What Do You Say To Someone About Their Alcohol Abuse? Where To Go If You Need Help For Yourself Or A Friend Blood Alcohol Levels and You Local Alcoholic Anonymous, Narcotic Anonymous, and Al-Anon Support Groups Blood-Alcohol Level .02-.03% Requires 2 hours for all alcohol to leave the body. You feel mildly relaxed and maybe a little lightheaded. Your inhibitions are slightly loosened, and whatever mood you were in before you started drinking may be mildly intensified. Blood-Alcohol Level .05-.06% Requires 4 hours for all alcohol to leave the body. You feel warm and relaxed. If youre the shy type when youre sober, you lose your feelings of shyness. Your behavior may become exaggerated, making you talk louder or faster or act bolder than usual. Emotions are intensified, so your good moods are better and your bad moods are worse. You may also feel a mild sense of euphoria. Blood-Alcohol Level .08-.09% Requires 6 hours for all alcohol to leave the body. You believe youre functioning better than you actually are. At this level, you may start to slur your speech. Your sense of balance is probably off, and your motor skills are starting to become impaired. Your ability to see and hear clearly is diminished. Your judgment is being affected, so its difficult for you to decide whether or not to continue drinking. Your ability to evaluate sexual situations is impaired. Students may jokingly refer to this state of mind as "beer goggles", but this BAL can have serious repercussions. Blood-Alcohol Level .10-.12% Requires 8 hours for all alcohol to leave the body. At this level, you feel euphoric, but you lack coordination and balance. Your motor skills are markedly impaired, as are your judgment and memory. You probably dont remember how many drinks youve had. Your emotions are exaggerated, and some people become loud, aggressive, or belligerent. If youre a guy, you may have trouble getting an erection when your BAL is this high. Blood-Alcohol Level .14-.17% Requires 10 hours for all alcohol to leave the body. Your euphoric feelings may give way to unpleasant feelings. You have difficulty talking, walking, or even standing. Your judgment and perception are severely impaired. You may become more aggressive, and there is an increased risk of accidentally injuring yourself or others. This is the point when you may experience a blackout. Blood-Alcohol Level .20% Requires 12 hours for all alcohol to leave the body. You feel confused, dazed, or otherwise disoriented. You need help to stand up or walk. If you hurt yourself at this point, you probably wont realize it because you wont feel pain. If you are aware youve injured yourself, chances are you wont do anything about it. At this point you may experience nausea and/or start vomiting (keep in mind that for some people, a lower blood alcohol level than .20% may cause vomiting). Your gag reflex is impaired, so you could choke if you do throw up. Since blackouts are likely at this level, you may not remember any of this. Blood-Alcohol Level .25% All mental, physical, and sensory functions are severely impaired. Youre emotionally numb. Theres an increased risk of asphyxiation from choking on vomit and of seriously injuring yourself by falling or other accidents. Blood-Alcohol Level .30% Youre in a stupor. You have little comprehension of where you are. You may suddenly pass out at this point and be difficult to awaken. (But dont kid yourself: Passing out can also occur at lower BALs. But, at lower blood alcohol levels, you may decide youve had enough to drink and go "pass out". With an alarming BAL like .30% your body will be deciding to pass out for you.) In February 1996, an 18-year-old student died of alcohol poisoning with a BAL of .31% after attending two frat parties the night before. Blood-Alcohol Level .35% This blood alcohol level also happens to be the level of surgical anesthesia. You may stop breathing at this point. In February 1996, a second student, age 20, died of alcohol poisoning with a BAL of .34% after drinking six beers and twelve shots in two hours. Blood-Alcohol Level .40% You are probably in a coma. The nerve centers controlling your heartbeat and respiration are s-l-o-w-i-n-g d-o-w-n, s-l-o-w-i-n-g d-o-w-n. Its a miracle if youre not dead. In April 1994, a 21-year-old student died of alcohol poisoning with a BAL of .40% after a "Hell Night" sorority party. Dealing With Katrina Students Faculty and Staff Self Help Crisis Services News GCS 199: Career Counseling Seminar Employment Contact Us EKU Counseling Center 521 Lancaster Ave. • SSB 571, CPO 52 • Richmond, KY 40475 • 859-622-1303 © 2006 EKU Comments to 383 visitors since August 17, 2005 EO/AA Statement
|
|
DUI SCHOOL REGISTRATION INFORMATION DUI School D.U.I. SCHOOL DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE PROGRAMS Desoto, Manatee and Sarasota County. EFFECTIVE 01/01/2006 DUI SCHOOL REGISTRATION INFORMATION Level 1: $216.00 ($205.00 + $11.00 for MVR*+DRI*) Driving Under the Influence-1 (DUI-1) : Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles approved 12 hour course using primarily didactic method of instruction to satisfy statutory requirements for first offense of DUI, DUBAL, Refusal, DUI reduced to RECKLESS DRIVING if substance abuse related, Boating under the Influence (if court required), and/or related arrests/convictions requiring course attendance in an alcohol/substance abuse education program. Program includes required psychosocial evaluation to determine risk(s) for future substance abuse problems. Referral to licensed substance abuse treatment program will be made for persons meeting criteria for mandatory referral. Level 2: $326.00 ($315.00 + $11.00 for MVR*+DRI*) Driving Under the Influence-2 (DUI-2): Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles approved 21 hour course using primarily group method of instruction dealing with the special problems of the multiple offender. Required course of attendance for person with second or subsequent lifetime offenses of the following: DUI, DUBAL, Refusal, DUI reduced to RECKLESS DRIVING if substance abuse related, Boating under the Influence (if court required), and/or related arrests/convictions requiring course attendance in an alcohol/substance abuse education program and persons who have already completed a level one DUI program. Program includes required psychosocial evaluation to determine risk(s) for future substance abuse problems. Referral to licensed substance abuse treatment program will be made for persons meeting criteria for mandatory referral. * MVR = Motor Vehicle Record = $6.00 * DRI = Driver Risk Inventory Test = $5.00 ALL FEES ARE PAYABLE AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION. ALL FEES PAID ARE NON-REFUNDABLE. WE ACCEPT CASH, MONEY ORDER, VISA/MASTERCARD OR CHECK* *(CHECK WRITER MUST BE PRESENT AND HAVE DRIVER LICENSE OR STATE I.D.) To register for the DUI SCHOOL you must have the following information: Complete Police Report Citation / Ticket Blood Alcohol Content (B.A.C.) test results or refusal affidavit Court orders ( if applicable) Drivers license number If you have a driver license from another state or if you are newly licensed in Florida , after being licensed in another state, then you may need to contact the driver license authority from other states where you held a driver license to retrieve your driving record. You may also be able to obtain a copy of your driving record online @ www.mccfl.edu/tsi PLEASE ALLOW 1 HOUR FOR REGISTRATION ! Bradenton Sarasota Venice 5840 26 th St West 1991 Main St. Suite #123 8000 S. Tamiami Trail Bldg. 18 PDC (Located in Main Plaza ) Bldg. 800 PDC Bradenton FL 34207 Sarasota FL 34236 Venice FL 34293 941-752-5286 9 41-362-4224 941-408-1520 Mon & Tues: 8am - 6:30pm Mon, Tue, Fri: 8am - 3:30pm Mon, Tues, Wed, Fri: Wed Fri: 8am 3:30pm Wed & Thurs: 8am 6:30pm 8am10:30am & 1pm-3:30pm Thursdays: 1pm - 6:30pm You Drink & Drive. You Lose. Launched in December 1999, the You Drink & Drive. You Lose. campaign is a partnership of criminal justice and traffic safety organizations in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, that is committed to reducing deaths from impaired driving. Thanks to the combined efforts of thousands of devoted public and private partners, more than 150 million Americans have learned about the campaign from print, broadcast and Internet media. Last Modified: 12/8/2005
|
|
DUI / DWI, Drinking 
