People and Alcohol

Guest writer, Allison Gamble, wrote and interesting article for me to post regarding the who, what, when, where, why, and how of alcohol.  Thanks Allison.

People and Alcohol

Humans' love of alcohol is millennia old despite the obvious downsides of alcohol abuse. Even with the traffic fatalities, health problems, and ruined relationships attributable to alcohol consumption, the industry still prospers. Alcohol sales increased by 10 percent from May 2010 through May 2011 during a period of 9.3 percent unemployment. It appears that people always find the money for a drink, even in hard times. Given the many negative repercussions of drinking, the question on many people's lips is why drink?

Why People Drink

In a world where special occasions are celebrated with a toast of champagne and glamorous TV sophisticates sip martinis out of first-rate crystal, it's doesn't take a mastery of forensic psychology to recognize the images glorifying alcohol. Social pressure, escapism, and stress offer understandable excuses for a drink. The allure of alcohol is often tied into smoothing social interaction and relaxing to have a good time. As a social lubricant, alcohol is hard to resist.

Drinking games and alcohol abuse are a right of passage for many. Teenagers and college kids have a hard time saying 'no' to alcohol for fear of being regarded as uptight or too serious. Peer pressure is a real problem for many young people: whether at the fraternity house keg party or an invitation for a drink after work, ordering a soda instead of something hard can make a person feel like an outsider or party-pooper.

Drunk Driving

Once that third or fourth drink is polished off and a drinker isn't thinking clearly, it's way too easy to forgo common sense and get behind the wheel of a car. About 30 people die daily at the hands of alcohol-impaired drivers. Estimated annual damages for drunk driving crashes total in the tens of billions of dollars. Given all the measures to deter drunk drivers, the problem remains a significant one.

Addicted to the Feel-Good Feeling of Alcohol

To fully understand the allure of alcohol it's helpful to recognize the reason a drink is so irresistible. A sip of alcohol is almost immediately absorbed by the small intestine directly into the bloodstream. When people jokingly say alcohol goes straight to their heads, they aren't joking. Traveling through the bloodstream, alcohol effectively expands blood vessels, causing the flushed, warm feeling associated with alcohol intoxication.

Once inside the brain, alcohol stimulates the nucleus accumbens, which is otherwise known as the 'pleasure center' of the brain. Dopamine is secreted from this pleasure center and rewards a drinker with the light-headed and euphoric feeling a person enjoys when slightly inebriated. This same chemical causes people to feel good after eating or having sex. Beyond small amounts, alcohol distorts vision, upsets equilibrium, and impairs thinking. When a drinker feels tipsy or drunk, it's because brain function really has been compromised.

Public Health

Several public health issues arise from alcohol consumption. Along with the substantial drunk driving menace, alcohol poisoning is a threat to binge drinkers. Symptoms of possible alcohol poisoning include confusion, slow or irregular breathing, blue skin, and loss of consciouness. An intoxicated person doesn't have to exhibit all of these symptoms to be suffering from alcohol poisoning.

Excessive drinking over time increases the probability of associated health problems. An estimated 79,000 US deaths annually are blamed on alcohol. This figure makes alcohol the third largest cause of death in the US due to lifestyle choices. Cardiovascular conditions such as myocardial infarction, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation can be aggravated by alcohol abuse. Other alcohol-related health complications are dementia, neuropathy, stroke, depression, anxiety, cancer, and liver diseases.

Prohibition

With so many problems associated with alcohol, it's no surprise that a movement fueled by a religious revival in the US aimed to ban the sale of alcohol in the early 1900s. After the broad circulation of anti-drinking propaganda in the form of scientific and religious pamphlets, posters, children's pamphlets, and songs, Prohibition officially began on January 16, 1920. A new constitutional amendment made it illegal to manufacture, transport, or sell alcohol, but wasn't taken seriously by many prominent citizens.

Nevertheless, it remained fairly easy to get an illegal drink. Many people kept private stashes of alcohol and were happy to share with friends and guests. Speakeasies and other establishments freely served booze, undermining the law and flouting the Prohibition movement. By 1933, it was apparent Prohibition was doing little to solve the social problems it was meant to address (in fact, it led to increased crime, and the illegal sale of alcohol fueled gang activity), and Prohibition was finally repealed.

Societal threats are typically met with a public outcry for elimination of the offending element or a cooperative effort to manage possible negative consequences. If Prohibition taught Americans anything, it was that simply forbidding substance abuse doesn't put a stop to it or solve associated problems. Managing the risks associated with alcohol by educating people about the health dangers of abuse and drunk driving and encouraging greater personal responsibility is the proper path to address the problem.

Supreme Court Rules That Those Who Administer Tests Must Be the Ones to Testify

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided on a landmark ruling that has significant bearing on all criminal defense cases across the United States. The ruling states that when trying to prove a criminal fact, the individual who performed the test to determine the fact must also be the one to testify in Court, and other experts or substitutes may not be used. This ruling also applies to law enforcement officers who use radar guns to determine a driver’s speed.

For example, what this means in a DUI test is that if a person arrested for suspicion of DUI fails a breathalyzer test, the police officer who administered the breathalyzer must be the one to testify in Court. This new ruling would exclude anyone else from testifying in court on the matter, whether it is a colleague, a witness to the test administration, or any other individual.

According to the Sixth Amendment, a person has the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The Supreme Court interpreted this clause to mean that while testimonies of witnesses received outside the courtroom may be used during criminal proceedings, actual evidence such as lab reports and breathalyzer results, as used in the example above, must be presented by the person who administered the test in the first place. The only exception to this rule is if both the prosecution and the defense agree beforehand to allow some other person to testify in place of the test administrator.

Source: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/06/23/Supreme-Court-Test-operator-must-testify-at-trial/UPI-26861308843865/#ixzz1QEvpAa4m

Kansas DUI Case Moves to the Supreme Court

A man in Kansas was acquitted in his DUI case recently, despite his breath being measured at .080 grams, the legal limit in the United States. The man’s attorney argued during his driver’s license hearing that a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of .080 was not enough evidence on its own to find his client guilty of DUI beyond a reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, the attorney was able to show that the Intoxilyzer 5000 had shown inconsistencies in recent tests. The Assistant District Attorney retorted that a BAC level of .08 was in clear violation of federal DUI law and pushed for conviction. The District Court Judge apparently agreed with the attorney and ultimately granted his Motion to Acquit.

The man was initially pulled over for weaving in and out of his lane of traffic. Upon his arrest, the man was taken to the county jail where he submitted to a breath test. Upon his acquittal, the man plead guilty to the lesser charge of failure to maintain a lane. The case is set to go to Supreme Court in the next couple of weeks.

If you have been charged with DUI or a similar crime, know that you have options for fighting your case. The key is to have an experienced attorney, like the man in this article had, review your case and serve as your advocate. If you have been charged with DUI, contact experienced, board-certified DUI attorney Glen Neeley for your free DUI case evaluation today.

Source: http://www.onlineattorneys4u.com/2009/10/kansas-dui-case-going-to-supreme-court/

Having Good Breath is a Crime In Utah!

 

I was asked the other day what the consequences are of a minor in possession/consumption of alcohol.  Interesting question with the new laws in effect now.  Lets say you were never in a car, you are 18 years old, and you rinsed our mouth out with Listerine.  An officer comes up to you and says I smell alcohol on you, please blow into my little breath test machine.  You do so.  Wow, you just registered a .02 with your good breath. Now what?

Pursuant to Utah Code 32a-12-209 you have just committed a crime.  The code makes it a crime for a minor (under 21) to have any measurable or detectable amount of alcohol in your body.  The harshest consequence that is now mandatory, even though you were not driving or even near a car, is that you will lose your license for one year.

Here is the exact language from the statute.

32A-12-209. Unlawful purchase, possession, consumption by minors -- Measurable amounts in body.
(1) Unless specifically authorized by this title, it is unlawful for a minor to:
(a) purchase an alcoholic beverage or product;
(b) attempt to purchase an alcoholic beverage or product;
(c) solicit another person to purchase an alcoholic beverage or product;
(d) possess an alcoholic beverage or product;
(e) consume an alcoholic beverage or product; or
(f) have measurable blood, breath, or urine alcohol concentration in the minor's body.

...(4) If a minor is found by a court to have violated this section and the violation is the minor's second or subsequent violation of this section, the court:
(a) shall order the minor to participate in an educational series as defined in Section 41-6a-501; and
(b) may order the minor to participate in a screening as defined in Section 41-6a-501.
(5) (a) When a minor who is at least 18 years old, but younger than 21 years old, is found by a court to have violated this section, except as provided in Section 32A-12-223, the court hearing the case shall suspend the minor's driving privileges under Section 53-3-219.  (the division shall: (A) impose a suspension for a period of one year;)

Utah Crime Lab and Budget Cuts

The Utah State Crime Lab analyzes all the DUI cases that involve blood draws.  Recently, in the Salt Lake Tribune, there was an article stating that budget cuts may cause cutting lab staff.  If that happens, the lab people in the article say that this could cause turnaround time on blood sample results to slow way down.  Here is the problem.  A person is entitled to a Driver's license hearing within 29 days of arrest.  If the blood result is not provided within 29 days to the driver's license hearing officer, there is very little evidence to suspend a person's driver's license.  This would benefit the driver, and has done so in the past on cases where the blood results were not ready in time for the hearing.  

The article states:

"That seems to be true throughout the state lab, where 15 to 20 scientists analyze about 15,000 items a year in thousands of cases. Now staff are poised to see how a 15 percent budget cut, which took effect July 1, could lengthen turnaround time. The lab, the main section of which is housed in Salt Lake City with extensions in Ogden and Cedar City, had to close its Price branch and cut three positions statewide.
Lab Director Jay Henry says he's hoping to get federal funds that would help patch holes at the lab, one of only two state-run labs nationwide accredited under international standards that require regular audits and a dedicated quality assurance manager."

Utah Crime Lab Makes a Mistake in a Utah DUI Charge

I was called on the phone today by KSL News today about a story that was unfolding.  A man hit and killed a UPS driver.  He was charged with a Vehiclular Hommicide by the goverment.  The Utah State Toxicology Lab tested his blood and came back with a result of .19.  The man was in disbelief, said he had not drank in 20 years.  The blood was then tested by a private lab.  Guess what?  the result was .000.  The State Lab then retested the sample and came up with .000.

How could this happen?  The lab claims that a number was transposed from a 9 to an 8.  I don't know what that means.  However, a sample is supposed to be tested 4 times with preliminary tests and then confirmation tests.  If nobody questioned this test and the sample was never retested, this poor man would be facing felony charges. 

That sad comment that the Lab superviser made was that "We're reminded of the effects that our work has on real people."   You have to be kidding me.  This reminds you that people are going to jail over your mistakes!

 

 

Continue Reading...

UHP draw blood for Utah DUI Arrests!

I have had several cases in Farmington, Utah, where the officer will draw blood from the arrested person rather than take him or her to get a breath test.  Is this really a good idea?  I mean, police drawing blood on the side of the road doesn't seem sanitary.   The police are there collecting evidence.  The police are not there to ensure the health and safety of the person arrested.  I'm not sticking my arm out and allowing a trooper stick me with a needle.  The Arizona police have the same type of practice.  Here's a story with some problems they are having with officers drawing the blood.


Tucson Region
Blood draws by officers in DUI stops questioned
Man files claim vs. county saying deputy infected arm
By Erica Meltzer
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 10.14.2007

"They have succeeded in getting blood evidence tossed out of court and charges against their clients dismissed based on the fact that it was a law enforcement officer, not medical personnel, who took the sample.
Now the man who believes an officer-administered blood draw caused his persistent infection has filed a claim against Pima County and the Pima County Sheriff's Department. A claim is the first step in a lawsuit.
"I think most of the public does not realize that law enforcement personnel are doing the draws," said Michael Bloom, an attorney in the case.
He said the practice raises several concerns, including that "the officer is not there in a medical capacity, he is there in a law enforcement capacity. He is not there to safeguard the health and safety of the suspect." " Continue Reading...

MADD wants punishment for drinking drivers, not just Drunk Drivers!

Here is an interesting article about the prohibition of drinking.  Some points that I find interesting are:
  1. The person who started MADD feels that the organization has gotten way out of hand and no longer supports the organization.
  2. MADD is pushing for complete prohibition of any alcohol.
  3. Lowering the legal limit has not lowered DUIs as predicted.
  4. Ignition interlock devices are not working.
"Lightner has moved on from MADD, and since then has protested the shift from attacking drunk driving to attacking drinking in general. "I worry that the movement I helped create has lost direction," she told The Cleveland Plain Dealer in 1992. BAC legislation, she said, "ignores the real core of the problem....If we really want to save lives, let's go after the most dangerous drivers on the road." Lightner said MADD has become an organization far more "neoprohibitionist" than she had envisioned. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol," she said. "I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving." Continue Reading...

Saturation Patrol, Utah DUI

The Utah police agencies used to do "administrative checkpoints" to pull people over for no reason and then check them for alcohol.  The problem is that that charges can be challenged because there are so many rules the police must follow to make them constitutional.  So the police answer this by doing Saturation Patrols.  The highlights of this technique are as follows:
  • Citizens get pulled over for a claimed legal, but usually minor reason.  (i.e. burned out license plate light, failure to signal for 2-3 seconds before turning, not coming to a complete stop, or if nothing else works, tell the driver the officer's computer shows the car is not insured when it actually does).
  • The police usually get several agencies involved like the Utah Highway Patrol, Salt Lake City Police Department, and the Salt Lake County Sheriff's office.
  • The patrol occurs heavily around the time the bars are in full force and the patrol occurs around these bars.
Here is a recent story where 35 officers got together, pulled over 774 citizens, and arrested one person for DUI.

774 PEOPLE PULLED OVER!  If an officer wants to pull you over, I'm sure the officer can find a reason.  What a waste of taxpayer money in an effort to effect the witch hunt.

Continue Reading...

Utah DUI--Could the .08 alcohol limit even be reduced lower?

Utah has one of the most stringent alcohol limits in the country.  Not long ago, the alcohol breath/blood limit was .10.  Pressure from sources that advocate against drinking caused most, if not all, states to reduce the limit to a .08.  Just a couple of years ago, Utah legislators wrote in certain criteria where a person cannot have alcohol in  their system that is .05 or above.  This involves a second offense and having children in the car.  The question is when will it go lower, "not if."  Here is an article where Britain is looking at this very issue.

Drink drive limit to be reduced
By David Millward, Transport Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:56am BST 17/06/2007

Bypass surgery may cause drink problem
The drink drive limit could be cut under plans being considered by the Government.

Stephen Ladyman, the roads minister, said that the Department for Transport would produce proposals for consultation later in the year.

advertisementThe Government first hinted that it was ready to reduce the limit - probably from UK is 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood to 50 in February.

Ministers have come under mounting pressure to do so from road safety groups and also the British Medical Association to act.

Earlier this year several police forces voiced alarm that the "do not drink and drive" message was not getting through, especially to young motorists.

The Department for Transport’s own figures showed that there were 1,050 17-19 year olds involved in drink drive accidents in 2005, compared to 810 a decade ago.

Yesterday a pan-European study showed that drink driving was the cause of an increasing proportion of fatalities on the country’s roads.

Motoring groups believe the Government could act if it is convinced that its strategy of strict enforcement of existing limits was no longer working.

Last night a DfT spokesman said: “As part of our latest road safety review in February we said we would keep under review the case for a lower drink drive limit.

“The UK already has stringent penalties for drink driving, and better enforcement than many countries, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do better.

“We have said many times that we plan to explore ways of making drink driving enforcement easier for police. This will take the form of a consultation later in the year - and until that is complete it is impossible to say what measures may or may not be taken forward.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml