Althouse: "I only had two beers" -- it's the "two-beer" defense to drunk driving.

December 16, 2006

"I only had two beers" -- it's the "two-beer" defense to drunk driving.

Are you going to believe that or the breathalyzer? It's a serious question in Canada.

9 comments:

Troy said...: More junk science from the defense bar, unfortunately too many jurors buy into it.; 12/16/06, 10:34 AM
Bissage said...: Joel,

I typed out what follows before I read your comment. Could you set me straight?

* * * * * * * * *

Did the trial court preclude the defendants’ expert evidence as equivocal or did the factfinder reject it as incredible? If the former, then the trial court treated the “two-beer defence” as a true affirmative defense and tossed the presumption of innocence out the window. If the latter, then the appellants are arguing their evidence outweighed the prosecution’s evidence, as a matter of law.

Neither seems very likely to me. I must be missing something.

* * * * * * * * *

P.S. Regarding the "last drink" defense, I once went to a seminar where one of the presenters advised us to always keep a bottle of vodka in the car and, if pulled over, to chug some in full view of the police and spill a bunch on our clothes. He was only half joking. I think.; 12/16/06, 12:01 PM
Gray said...: "I only had two beers" -- it's the "two-beer" defense to drunk driving.
Are you going to believe that or the breathalyzer? It's a serious question in Canada.

Well, it's a serious question in Queens, NYC, too. To sad that no tests were performed on the five detectives. A double standard for the cops?
You can bet your life on that. Really.
:-[; 12/16/06, 12:37 PM
Bissage said...: nathan,

Thank you very much for your response.

Two points. First, You couldn't see it, but when I typed the words "tossed the presumption of innocence out the window", I was waiving my arms in the air and pantomiming the classic, open mouthed, with-all-due-respect-your-honor-you-can't-be-serious face.

Second, pursuant to your good advice, it looks like I'll have to find another use for that bottle of vodka. Heh.; 12/16/06, 1:39 PM
JorgXMcKie said...: I agree that the MADD crowd has gone NUTS.

Having said that, we really do need to keep repeat offender drunken drivers off the doggone roads.

My brother was a long-time state trooper in a rural area. He got to know the local drunks who drove really, really well because he ticketed them so regularly and they got off easily (or totally before the DUI laws got toughened) just as regularly. Most, if not all of them continued to drive drunk until: a) they had a wreck and killed themselves; b) they died; c) they finally did something bad enough to get locked up; or (rarely) d) quit drinking. Being arrested just didn't stop anyone.

Also, he got the "I only had two drinks (beers), officer" all the time. His reply was, "What were they served in, buckets?"

He rarely ever, before the Breathalyzer Law was imposed bothered to try to ticket anyone who wasn't all but falling down drunk because it wasn't worth his time.

TW: ismgszrt. The sound a drunk makes when trying to insist he "only had two beers."; 12/16/06, 1:46 PM
Ann Althouse said...: I once heard a guy -- in a hospital emergency room -- asked by doctors if he'd been drinking, answer: "No. Couple of six-packs."; 12/16/06, 2:14 PM
Anonymous said...: It was beer- Beer's not drinkin'!

That said, is there another instance where the punishment is set up for incase SOMETHING happens, like DUI laws?

I can stand outside a bank all day long with a gun in my pocket and a mask in my hand, and not be charged with bank robbery.

Yet if I am found with a car key in my pocket and liquor on my breath, thats a DUI.

Maybe we need MABR- mothers Against Bank Robbery! ;?); 12/16/06, 5:41 PM
Kev said...: "I agree that the MADD crowd has gone NUTS."

No argument here. I discussed this a few years ago, in a post about a pair of Texas House bills that would have required "keg registration" and prohibited the sale of alcohol to anyone between midnight and 6 a.m. on their 21st birthday:

"I have no doubt that Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is behind a lot of this, and it's really hard in a way to bash on MADD; it's kind of like kicking a puppy. I too am against drunk drivers (to the point where I've wrestled keys away from people in the past), but it seems like MADD won't be satisfied until everyone stops drinking altogether. Am I wrong here? Isn't there a middle ground somewhere, or does the government have to get this involved to properly solve this problem? It just seems like the responsible people are being punished for the transgressions of a few..."

Both of those bills failed, by the way.; 12/16/06, 6:01 PM
muthu said...: Alcohol is a important factor in traffic road accidents.Driving with drunk is dangerous and drivers with high blood alcohol content are at greatly increased risk of car vehicular accident deaths.
-------------------
muthu

California Dui; 9/17/08, 11:38 AM