Blow under legal limit and get convicted of DUI?

I was wondering if it is possible to get convicted of DUI if you blow under the legal limit? Say the limit for driving under the influence is .08 but you blow a .04 can they convict and/or arrest you?

If they can do either, what is the point of having a legal limit in the first place if they can arrest you for whatever they want?

louV774:

I was wondering if it is possible to get convicted of DUI if you blow under the legal limit? Say the limit for driving under the influence is .08 but you blow a .04 can they convict and/or arrest you?

Not for DUI but many states have a lower offense of OUI: Operating Under the Influence to charge drivers who are operating a vehicle impaired but not at a high enough level to charge at the felony level of DUI.  There are lower level offenses that states can impose that one could conceivably be arrested and ultimately convicted for even if not for a formal DUI if impaired but not enough for the higher level charge.

louV774:

f they can do either, what is the point of having a legal limit in the first place if they can arrest you for whatever they want?

The point is you shouldn't even be on the road if there is the slightest chance you are impaired.  For your safety and everyone else's.

louV774:

I was wondering if it is possible to get convicted of DUI if you blow under the legal limit?

Yes.

louV774:

Say the limit for driving under the influence is .08 but you blow a .04 can they convict and/or arrest you?

Yes.

louV774:

If they can do either, what is the point of having a legal limit in the first place if they can arrest you for whatever they want?

That's a big leap from driving while impaired to getting arrested for "whatever they want."

If you don't understand the difference, then leave your car at home when you drink.

Hang on a second here.

You could blow a 0.0 and be they can arrest you for DUI.

Maybe you are under the influence of drugs, subscription or otherwise.

Further, so far as I know, if the police officer thinks you are impaired, you could be arrests at a .01 or whatever.

Then it will be up to you to prove you were not impaired.  You would do that in court.

The police officer is out there for the reason of trying to keep the street safe for everyone.

If you are underaged, you can't blow anything above 0.0 as far as I know.

Anyway, that is what I know about the subject.

If you were arrested for DUI, my suggestion would be to hire a lawyer that specializes in this area.

If you blew less than the .08, well, who knows.  The details are going to really matter.  Don't post them here in my opinion if you are in this sitiation.  Just tell your lawyer and that is all.

Good luck with whatever you are dealing with!

What is the point of having a legal limit of .08 if they can arrest and or convict you for whatever they choose? Answer this? Anyone.............

I am not able to answer your question.

I only know that's just how it works.

As far as I know, even if you are taking prescription medication, you could blow a 0.0, and if you appear to be impaired, they could arrest you for DUI.

Here's the thing.

You go to court, and prove your case. 

I've been there and done that already.

It will probably cost you somewhere in the $10,000 range when all is said and done.

I do not know your situation.

I will tell you, I'm more familiar with this than I even care to admit.  I have been arrested for DUI 2 times.

I was found NOT guilty 2 times.

It cost me alot of time and a lot of money.  I learned quite a bit in the process of course!

I lost my license for about 2 weeks each time.  I paid a lawyer heavy and he helped me through it.

I wish you the best of luck!

fcommons:

What is the point of having a legal limit of .08 if they can arrest and or convict you for whatever they choose? Answer this? Anyone.............

I already answered that.

If you don't know the difference between being arrested for driving impaired and being arrested for "whatever they choose" then assisting you in reaching enlightenment is beyond the scope of this site.

fcommons:

What is the point of having a legal limit of .08 if they can arrest and or convict you for whatever they choose?

The .08 is the per se limit, meaning regardless of how good you might have been driving, if you're caught over that limit, you can be charged and convicted  It does NOT mean if you're under that limit that you can't still be charged and convicted if you displayed the inability to operate your vehicle as would a sober person.  You can be convicted of driving under the influence of aspirin if it effects your ability to drive....

So you mean if I work late and am super tired from work I can be arrested for being impaired by driving poorly because I am tired? That is like detaining a mexican because he looks illegal. Do they give you a ticket because your car can go a 120? I dont think so. The law is the law. Being tired can impair you, working out super hard can make you dizzy, many things can impair you. Now lets get back to the legal limit for intoxication. Why is there a limit of .08 if that does not really exist? Why even have that in the books if it does not mean what it spells!

fcommons:

What is the point of having a legal limit of .08 if they can arrest and or convict you for whatever they choose? Answer this? Anyone.............

The term "legal limit" is not accurate, and all too many in the public have bought into the idea that if their blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is under .08 they are safe from conviction on a DUI charge. But that's not the case in most, if not all, states.

Instead, the typical DUI statute has two parts to it. The first part is the basic DUI offense of operating a vehicle while your ability to drive is impaired by drugs or alcohol. In order to win a conviction on that offense, the state must not just prove that you had been drinking or using drugs and driving, but that your ability to drive was impaired. For example, if the cop observes you stumbling out the car after the stop, slurring your words badly and barely able to put a coherent thought together, that would be obvious signs that your ability to drive was impaired. If your ability to drive is impaired, ANY amount of alcohol or drugs in your body will be enough for conviction of a DUI.

So, what's the purpose of the .08 BAC? That's where the second part of the DUI statute comes in. If you are driving and have a BAC of .08 or more, the law presumes you are impaired. In that case, the BAC result of .08 is all the state needs to prove impairment—it doesn't have to show that you were actually impaired. This is what can get folks who don't show much visible effect from the alcohol convicted of a DUI offense. They might have avoided a DUI conviction if the state had prove impairment, but with the BAC of .08 or more, the state's case is made just with that fact.

Because of the two parts to the DUI law, every driver should be aware that it is possible to end up convicted of a DUI even with only a very small amount of alcohol in their system. Just one drink along with some sign of impairment is all it takes. So, every time you get behind the wheel after you've had anything to drink, you run a risk that you may end up facing prosecution for a DUI. Of course, the more you drink, the greater the risk. But the notion that many have that being under a BAC of .08 makes you safe from a DUI conviction is just plain wrong.

louV774:

Why is there a limit of .08 if that does not really exist?

You're misunderstanding the statutes.  I told you the .08 provision is a per se statute.  If you're over .08, it doesn't matter how you're driving. That is NOT the only DUI statute on the books.  There is more, including the standard drunk driving statute which says it's illegal to drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol.  Under the second provision, there needs to be evidence that you were impaired.  The test results can work for you or against you at trial.  Driving tired can get you a careless driving or inattentive driving ticket.  Same if you're stupid enough to drive when dizzy.  

louV774:

So you mean if I work late and am super tired from work I can be arrested for being impaired by driving poorly because I am tired?

The DUI law focuses on impairment caused by alcohol or drugs. If you had been drinking and were tired, the cop may attribute the impairment to the booze (after all, alcohol can make you tired, too) rather than the fact that you worked late, and arrest you for DUI. If you had no alcohol or drugs in your system and were simply tired, you haven't committed a DUI offense. In that case, the cop might instead cite you for something else, like careless driving, or whatever, depending the particular facts at hand.

And if you were impaired due to a reaction with a prescription drug or even an OTC --you might get arrested and convicted of a driving while impaired charge or careless driving etc. .

All an arrest requires is "probable cause". The police do not have to know whether you are legally intoxicated at the time of the stop. Indeed, until the tests are done, there is no human way that officer could know with absolute certainty.

I won't say that probable cause is so low a standard that you can trip over it. However, it's maybe a notch or two above, not much more than that.

Guilty or not guilty is decided in the court system, not by the police or even the prosecutor. But, blowing below a .08 is not a get out jail card. First off, you can be intoxicated from drugs other than alcohol that might not show up on a blood test for alcohol or you could be "impaired" from a combination of drugs that might include alcohol, but also something else. In all states operating a motor vehicle while impaired from other drugs, including legally prescribed medications, is prosecutable.

The burden is on the state to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, if you choose to fight charge on the basis of the blood alchol test, your fate is in the hands of those 12 unknown people on the jury.

>But, if you choose to fight charge on the basis of the blood alchol test, your fate is in the hands of those 12 unknown >people on the jury

Actually, at least in my case, I chose not to have a jury.  I don't know if that's an option in all states or not.

My lawyer figured we were better of having the judge decide it.  He was right.