Because the risks to the public are MUCH greater for DUI than for a random shooting, shouldn't the punishment for DUI be much harsher?
John: Good one -- "guns are evil." You're kidding, right?

My child is in Drivers Education class and I've tried to search this answer on the internet. I'm confused and can't find the exact name. Thank you.
Thank you, "Dream Police".

I have a job interview at ross and i hear they do a background check. I have several misdemeanors/infractions on my record (i live in CA if that matters)...nothing major, no theft at least. Just one dui, one marijuana possession, one "alcohol possession at a beach, park, public area" conviction, and a resisting arrest. Will all of these show up on the screening you think? Would they frown upon this sort of behavior?

I was recently arrested for DUI/speeding. I have a valid OH CCW license, and the loaded firearm was locked in the glove box.

The officer asked just before the field sobriety test if I had my weapon "on me", and I told him no. I refused the field test, and as I was being handcuffed, told him that the weapon was locked in the glove box. I haven't been charged with an offense yet, but the report will go in front of a prosecutor. What are the possible repercussions here?

I understand you shouldn't be driving high on pot but lets say you get pulled over and the officers suspects you're high as a kite but doesn't smell it in the car.

There's no roadside test and testing for pot in general doesn't work because of the I did it a week ago excuse. In these instances I understand they can do a sobriety check but even if the individual fails there's still no physical evidence.

In court for a traditional DUI if the individual fails the sobriety check the actual breathalyzer is the physical evidence.

Is it possible for a prosecutor to get a DUI conviction for being high on marijuana if the defense has a lawyer as well.

Basically if with a competent defense attorney are there any scenarios where a prosecutor could successfully beat the defense? The big given there's no physical evidence other than a failed sobriety check but as I understand that in itself is meaningless without any additional evidence such as a breathalyzer.

How could prosecutor win this case against a competent defense attorney knowing there's no physical evidence?
"If you fail a field sobriety test that is good enough to convict"

I don't think so. For a normal DUI they need the breathalyzer to back it up... My scenario involves a good defense attorney, I think s(he) would tear that up.
The blood test would be meaningless, could have smoked pot a week ago.

Prose a scenario that a defense attorney or anyone with knowledge of the law could not refute
Is the answer there's no possible way to have a solid case in one of these scenarios?

The failed checkpoint could be a result of cold medication as a previous answer states.
Blood tests are meaningless in proving DUI at the time... despite if it tests concentration. Also I believe it's illegal to do blood tests or anything involving needles.
Blood tests at the time of the infraction are illegal and it would be an after the fact test if court order... this would prove nothing since it wasn't during the time of the infraction.
I have to consent to a blood test, without my consent there's nothing. You don't get the option of blood testing without my consent, who in their right mind would allow this invasive test to be done?

I have a really great writing teacher that says that the USA's DUI limit law is ridiculous and should be raised. He uses ancedotes such as his friends getting pulled over but could walk in a straight line and touch his nose. Personally, I think he is wrong because I feel so many people can barely drive SOBER, to raise the DUI limit is encourging more people to DUI. What do you think? He also says that police only lowered it so they can catch more people to meet quota. I told him, he should not attack the law, but attack the person enfocing it. You? He is a writing teacher teaching SAT class. Teaching 14-17 years olds.
oh.. and by the way.. he drives DUI too. And when i tried to rebuttle him with deaths and etc, saying that the law is there for a reason, he said that "if you want to go live in Nazi Germany, go RIGHT AHEAD." which really offended me because he just called me a NAZI. and i'm asain. then he said, "hey, i'm 37 and your 15. I know more than you." he makes me REALLY super mad and i told him, even though the thinks he can drive w/ 10 beers in him, he cannot make the judgement for everybody else and since he DOES have 10 beers in him, he probably thinks he can, but actually can't.
MAY I HAVE YOUR AGES PLEASE?

I'm a teen who recently moved to the state of CT. I live in a somewhat affluent town, and here, the idea seems to be that if you don't get caught with drugs, you're fine. But I'm curious because it affects so many of my new friends who go driving while "under the influence"...what are the penalties for getting caught and receiving an under-age DUI (driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol) in this state? What if you are also caught high or drunk in a car, but you were not the one driving it? Do you receive the same consequences as the person who was?

I'm on informal probation (no probation officer) for an alcohol DUI. I have less than a year remaining. I was just pulled over and the officer found that I had a "suspended license." The reason for this was that I changed insurances and my new insurance agency hadn't informed the DMV yet. This caused it to come up suspended because in order to drive in California, you must be insured. Also, I got a ticket for possession of marijuana that was an eighth or less. I have a court date next month. I'd love to know what to do in the mean time and what I could expect in court. I've already cleared up the insurance stuff...

I'm on informal probation (no probation officer) for an alcohol DUI. I have less than a year remaining. I was just pulled over and the officer found that I had a "suspended license." The reason for this was that I changed insurances and my new insurance agency hadn't informed the DMV yet. This caused it to come up suspended because in order to drive in California, you must be insured. Also, I got a ticket for possession of marijuana that was an eighth or less. I have a court date next month. I'd love to know what to do in the mean time and what I could expect in court. I've already cleared up the insurance stuff...

What do you think about these laws in other countries:
In Australia, the names of intoxicated drivers are sent to the local paper and are printed under the heading: “He’s drunk and in jail”.

In Malaysia, the driver is jailed. If he is married, his wife is jailed, too.

In South Africa, the penalty is a ten-year prison sentence and the equivalent of ,000 fine, or both.

In Turkey, drunks are taken ten miles from town by the police and forced to walk back under escort.

In Norway, the penalty is three weeks in jail at hard labor and one year loss of license. With a second offense within five years, the license is revoked for life.

In Russia, the license is revoked for life.

In England, drunk drivers face a one-year suspension of license, a 0 fine, and one year in jail.

In France, there is a three-year loss of license, one year in jail, and a ,000 fine.
Got this info here:
http://www.uni.edu/studyabroad/guide/alcoholdrugs.htm
Here is an example of the penalties in the U.S. for the state of Arizona:
First Drunk Driving Conviction (Minimum Consequences)
0 fine (0 + 80% surcharge) PLUS another 0 for a "DUI Assessment" and up to 10 days in jail. Drivers license will be suspended from 90-360 days depending on the circumstances.

Second Drunk Driving Conviction (Within 5 Years of the First-Minimum Consequences)
0 fine (0 + 80% surcharge) PLUS another ,250 for your 2nd "DUI Assessment and up to 90 days in jail. Drivers license will be revoked for one year. You will also have to install (at your expense) a interlock ignition device in all of your vehicles. The vehicle will not start unless you blow into the device and prove that you have not consumed any alcohol.

Third Drunk Driving Conviction (Within 5 Years of the First two = Aggravated DUI)

50 fine (0 + 80% surcharge) PLUS a 0 DUI assessment PLUS a 00 aggravated DUI assessment. A third drunk driving conviction within 60 month of the first two DUI's is considered an "aggravated DUI" in Arizona. The violation of the aggravated DUI law is a felony punishable by 4 months in prison plus mandatory drug and alcohol screening. Mandatory attendance for counseling. Your driver's license will be revoked for 3 years and you will also have to install (at your expense) a interlock ignition device in all of your vehicles. The vehicle will not start unless you blow into the device and prove that you have not consumed any alcohol. Your car may be forfeited to the state and sold (The money goes to the state).

It seems that we could be tougher when it comes to DUI what do you think?Do we need to become tougher or do you think the laws are appropriate