Essential Utah DUI and Drunk Driving Reference and Scientific Research Articles
When you learn about the junk “science” that “supports” your Utah DUI arrest, chances are that you will become physically sick. Utah has always been known as a unique state, but the state’s use of Standarized Field Sobriety Tests (that have never been tested with a sober “control” group – thus rendering them useless for prediction), along with the use of the most inaccurate Intoxilyzers ever manufactured (CMI Intox 5000 (3 filter and CMI Intox 8000 – both machines having been rejected for accuracy problems by many other states, and used in Utah for a single breath test rather than two -as every other state that uses them to avoid mouth alcohol false results), calibrated in a completely unique manner – different from every other single state in America, and used for a single sample, rather than dual samples taken twenty (20) minutes apart, brings breath testing to a whole new level of charade.
Scientific Principles Don’t Have Morals – Why Utah DUI Science Is Fundamentally Flawed
This isn’t opinion, it is fact, supported by scientific testing -by uninterested scientists, using accepted scientific methods. Consider that a DUI is the only criminal matter where you can be convicted using field tests that you have never performed before and a machine that is accepted as accurate but in fact is highly inaccurate. There is no area of life where one is suddenly called upon to do balance exercises on the side of the road, under the gaze of a disapproving police officer, where a single missed heel to toe step of more than a half an inch, and a step off line, in the dark, judged by the light of a flashlight – causes the person to fail the test. The very idea is preposterous, and would not be accepted in any other field of law; these tests have never been demonstrated to show any ability to discern between sober and drunk drivers because they have never been tested on drivers NOT suspected of drunk driving. That’s right! These “tests” have only been “tested” on suspected drunk drivers and even in these tests the tests are only 67 – 78% effective in picking out drunk drivers – meaning that the police mistakenly actually let the 33-22% of drivers go while they were over .05! The tests are thus self-validating. It’s as if we invented a test to see if police could discern between drunk and sober drivers by smell, they got 70 % correct, and let 30% go, wrongly; and then we stated that the test was 70% effective in picking out drunk drivers. THIS IS UTTER INSANITY ! And it is based on the tests the police themselves claim back these field tests up!
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Has Had An Unwanted Effect On DUI Science
For understandable reasons, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)has almost singlehandedly controlled the political and statistical discourse of DUI’s on a national and local level for nearly two decades. Formed with the best of laudable intentions, the unfortunate effect of this pressure has been to punish DUI offenders and lower the acceptable per se driving limit – the limit at which drivers are presumed “impaired” without regard to actual impairment. The problem with this great intention is that it has undisputably backfired – by lowering the limit from .100 to .05 around 2002 nationally, the effect was to bring in a huge percentage of drivers that had previously been unaffected; drivers that were not problematic from an accident point of view suddenly became ensnared in the legal system with DUI’s that demonstrated little or no impairment and would have been let go in the past.
.100 Was A Better Level Than .05 Because Drivers Could Feel The Effects Of Alcohol And Thus Better Self-Police Themselves To Avoid Driving
The lowering of the BAC level from .100 to .05 in about 2002 had twodeleterious effects on drunk driving; first, it allocated expensive legal and treatment resources that would have been used on real drunk drivers, for people that previously had not been in the system, and would not have entered the system but for the lowering of the legal threshold from .100 to .05, and; second, it markedly increased litigation for people who, perhaps rightfully, believed that they were not impaired or over .05, and brought the previously ignored, inherent inaccuracies in Intoxilyzers that were not as important at the .100 level, but became very important at .05; simply put, .100 was a better level for defining per se impairment, both because it happens to be a level at which more people demonstrate objective signs of impairment, and most importantly – it is the level at which people themselves feel the effects of alcohol, thus supplying an innate self-reflective, self-discretionary decision that more people could make with better clarity; in other words, people at .100 know they have had too much to drink because they can feel it – below this level, for regular drinkers, there is no similar feeling.
Why Alcohol Related Deaths On America’s Highways Have Remained Stagnant Despite DUI Arrests
Not surprisingly, despite many safety advances in car design thathave proven effective in reducing occupant deaths during catastrophic crashes, alcohol related deaths have remained steady for the past twenty years. In short, lowering the level of alcohol related deaths is inherently problematic and can not be achieved using the traditional method of enforcement and punishment for a variety of reasons. These reasons include but are not limited to the following:
The Majority Of DUI Related Deaths Are Caused By 16-26 year Olds That Have Less Driving And Alcohol Experience
(1) The fact that the majority of DUI related deaths occur within the 16 – 26 year old age group, a group of drivers with less experience driving and less experience driving; and these drivers often have double or even triple the legal limit BAC’s, at which level their decision making process is non-existent; MADD can’t expect these impetuous drivers to stop and make a rational decision because they are so impaired by alcohol, this higher brain functioning is gone;
The Remaining DUI Related Deaths Are Caused By Drivers With Very High BAC’s : .160 Or Higher
(2) An analogue to 1 above, is that the majority of DUI related deaths are caused by drivers with BAC’s g more than double the legal limit, for which the same facts mentioned above are also at work; no one with a high BAC is weighing the risks and rewards of driving drunk at the moment they decide to drive – their reasoning process has been suppressed by their alcohol intake.
Other DUI Related Deaths Are The Result Of Poor Statistical Process And Categorizing Any Auto Death With Any Alcohol
(3) The remaining 25% or so of drunk driving related deaths can be traced to poor statistical process, and other causes. The fact that hardly any deaths can be traced to drivers with .100 BAC’s or below, points to poor statistical analysis and method, and aggressive record reading, which makes NHTSA list any crash or death as alcohol related if ANY person involved, including a passenger has a BAC of even .010, which is about 1/10 the legal limit. This statistical aggression has the effect of sweeping an accident with an empty beer can in a car into a full-fledged alcohol related death – which is patently ridiculous. MADD might not want to admit it for political reasons, but the entirety of their argument is moral in nature, not scientific. We all agree that we’d like to stop the senseless deaths caused by alcohol, but the fact is, that with current enforcement measures, America has demonstrated over the past twenty (20) years, that virtually nothing can be done about drunk driving deaths, because they are unavoidable.
Take The Time To Get Educated About DUI’s And Fight!
People ask often, “how can I fight my DUI, it’s beyond impossible!”And this self-defeating tone is the starting point for their demise; if you don’t take the time to learn about DUI’s and the shaky science on which they are based, of course you have no chance. Actually that’s not even true. The fact is that if you do NOTHING, but make the state prove its case, twice (once in justice court and the other in district court (did you know you have two chances??), and you take the two years it takes to do this, statistically, you will win your case about 10% of the time just because cops retire, move, and get DUI’s themselves, and they must have the cop that arrested you to move forward, – time is a defendant’s best friend. Now that may not sound like much, but its a very large number compared with 0% If you take the time to read the articles we have gathered for you, and become educated about the process, you will quickly gain more knowledge than the people who run the state breath testing program. In this section of our website you can find a variety DUI articles regarding Field Sobriety Tests and the Intoxilyzer, and learn about why you should fight your DUI. Please feel free to browse through and read the articles, we know you will find the information helpful. Information is the key to prevailing in your Utah DUI charge because this is the only area of law where unproven field tests and inaccurate machines not only have a hand in convicting you – but are completely responsible for the effort. Drinking and driving is NOT illegal, only impairment and BAC over .05 is illegal; would you accept a lie detector test that was known to be inaccurate? Then why accept a machine that that is known to be inaccurate?
Please feel free to browse the listed titles for scientific articles and information, or call and speak to an attorney seven (7) days a week, all day and all night. It’s free, and only complacent people let the government accuse and convict them without challenging the State.
UTAH DUI Process 101 – The DMV Hearing
You Must Request A Hearing Within Ten Days To Avoid Automatic License Suspension !
If you’ve received a DUI in Utah, the first thing you must do is request an administrative hearing from the DMV, in writing by contacting the Utah Division of Motor Vehicles, Department Of Public Safety, POB 144501, SLC, UT, 84114-4501. Failure to request a DMV hearing within ten days from the date of arrests will result in automatic suspension of your driving license for a minimum of 120 days, with virtually no way to get it back (absent a lawyer). If you believe the officer failed to properly explain the DMV process, or confused you, as many do, by explaining the court process but not the DMV process, you may have a lawyer investigate the possibility of obtaining a late DMV hearing. If you have mailed within ten days, but been denied a hearing, you have a valid argument for granting a late DMV hearing, but that is unlikely to happen within the thirty days prior to automatic suspension; thus leaving you without a valid license to drive on, even if you have arguably properly requested a hearing- unfair at best.
Do Not Try To Testify Your Way Out Of A License Suspension!
If the officer shows up at your DMV hearing, and you don’t have aUtah DUI lawyer, DO NOT make the mistake of trying to testify your way out of a suspension by telling the hearing officer what you think the officer did wrong. First, you don’t know what the rules of standardized field sobriety tests are, so they won’t be impressed. Second, everything you say is recorded, and so will be used against you after the hearing officer crosses you and leaves you in the dust. If you decided to represent yourself, say nothing at the hearing, just show up, and then request in writing – a copy of the hearing as a MP3 for use during the criminal phase.
Utah License Suspension A Late DMV Hearing Is Requested That Takes Place After 30 Days
If you think that your license would remain automatically valid because the DMV screwed up, you’d be wrong. And if you get caught driving on that suspended license you have a Class C Misdemeanor on your hands and an automatic 120 days suspension once that charge makes it through to the DMV, and of course, another reinstatement fee of about $65.00! Failing to reinstate, as many people do, results in a suspended license, and . . . you guessed it, automatically more suspension time based on driving on a suspended license; even though you have served the underlying suspension. This means that you must ask for a reinstatement pending your hearing in writing and have it granted; do not take anything someone says on the end of the phone – it’s a huge mistake!