What Do Police Officers Look for When Searching for Drunk Drivers?

Drunk driving, sometimes called driving while intoxicated (DWI) or driving under the influence (DUI), has two meanings:

1. Driving with a blood alcohol level over the state's maximum permissible blood alcohol limit. The limit varies from state to state, from 0.08% (in 15 states) to 0.10%. The limit is even lower in many European countries, and in the United States, some states have imposed "zero tolerance" limits for young drivers. You may be considered "legally drunk" even though you do not "feel" or look as though you are under any "influence" from the alcohol.

2. Driving when your physical abilities are impaired by drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol. In the eyes of the law, it makes no difference that the drug is legal or illegal, prescription or over-the-counter. If taking that drug impacts your senses of seeing, hearing, talking, walking, and/or judging distances, you may be guilty of a drunk driving offense.

What do police officers look for when searching for drunk divers on the highways? The following is a list of symptoms in descending order of probability that the person observed is driving while intoxicated. The list is based upon research conducted by the National Highway Traffic Administration:

1) Turning with a wide radius; 2) Straddling center of land marker; 3) "Appearing to be drunk"; 4) Almost striking object or vehicle; 5) Weaving; 6) Driving on other than designated highway; 7) Swerving; 8) Speed more than 10 mph below limit; 9) Stopping without cause in traffic lane; 10) Following too closely; 11) Drifting; 12) Tires on center or lane marker; 13) Braking erratically; 14) Driving into opposing or crossing traffic; 15) Signaling inconsistent with driving actions; 16) Slow response to traffic signals; 17) Stopping inappropriately (other than in lane); 18) Turning abruptly or illegally; 19) Accelerating or decelerating rapidly; 20) Headlights off. Speeding, incidentally, is not a symptom of DUI; in some circumstances it may suggest quicker reflexes and sobriety.

The original cause for the officer's stopping you need not be related to driving under the influence. Routine detentions for equipment and registration compliance, such as cracked windshield, headlights not turned on, inoperative taillight, and so forth, maneuvering and parking violations, and many other reasons have been held by the courts to constitute sufficient cause.

Licenses are taken before conviction when a driver fails or refuses to take a chemical test. Because administrative license suspension laws are independent of criminal procedures and are invoked right after arrest, they have been found to be more effective than traditional post-conviction sanctions.

State laws making it illegal to drive with high blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) serve as the cornerstone of all efforts to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. This is the goal of alcohol-impaired driving laws. Many people think the principal goal of such laws is to arrest and punish the drivers who put everyone else at risk. But arrest and punishment of offenders is a secondary objective. The most important objective is for law to be a deterrent so that police find no alcohol-impaired drivers to arrest.

It can be estimated that as many as 2,000 alcohol-impaired driving trips occur for every arrest. Because the police cannot catch all offenders, the success of alcohol-impaired driving laws depends on deterring potential offenders by creating the public perception that apprehension and punishment of offenders is likely. Research has shown that the likelihood of apprehension is more important in deterring offenders than is the severity of the punishment. The key to creating this perception is enforcement. Merely putting strong laws on the books is not enough. Enforcement efforts must be sustained and well publicized and create a realistic threat of apprehension.

I attended the sentencing for two DUI's in Nez Perce County's magistrate court and got to see first hand the consequences of driving drunk. The two cases I observed were similar in nature and similar in the way the judge sentenced the defendants. Both defendants were male Caucasians in their mid-forties. Each pleaded guilty to the charges of driving under the influence, and therefore gave up certain rights as consequence of their plea.

In the second case, the defendant was arrested on March 14, 2007, for driving under the influence. This was not his first offense. The judge made sure the party understood the notification of penalties if he was arrested for another DUI. Since the last offense of the defendant was over five years prior to the March 14 incident, the judge ruled for withheld judgment. If the defendant was found to have had a previous withheld judgment, he would be re-sentenced and 30 days in jail would be added. The defendant was put on probation for one year, ending on April 11, 2008. Fines of $750 plus $78.50 in court costs, which is to be paid in full by May 19, 2008.

The defendant chose community service over serving time in jail. The judge suspended 48 hours of the total 72 original hours, making it 24 hours of community service to be served by the defendant. A payment of $14.40 for workman's compensation was also added. Driving privileges were suspended for one year, with the starting date of December 16, 2007. The defendant agreed to enroll in counseling substance abuse program within the next two days. And a fee of $25 a month is to be paid to the defendant's probation officer starting on or before May 5, 2008.

Sources: Business Law Textbook, 1999