My life has been destroyed because of DUI and the money grabbing authorities empowered by the actions of MADD.I am just a blue collar worker,never killed or hurt anyone,but enjoy a couple beers after work...now I do not work because of the outrageous laws imposed by MADD. I am not an alcoholic,and THAT is NOT denial. I believe that now they are trying to create an alcohol free America,back to the prohibitionist years

I saw on the news just two days ago that laws are being drawn up about talking on cell phones and texting while driving. How did I know that sooner or later it would come to this? Easy. A friend of mine got ran down on his motorcycle by a teenager....he was in his 50's...and she received no ticket , nothing!! The news says it is an epidemic,and actually had a mother on who's child was killed by someone on a cell phone...and the news anchor even said what she wanted to do was similar to MADD. I do not want to lose my freedoms to special imterest groups,and as you well know,we have already lost alot. I cannot drive anymore because of incidents that happened almost 30 years ago that were added on to my charges. I already paid my duties to those charges almost 30 years ago , and in a different state....why should I pay more now??

Make the roads safer is all they tout and cry to the people in power.Save the children from these awful atrocities.If they wanted safe roads,if they want to save the children,perhaps they should keep them off the streets.Because sooner than later,everything we know and take for granted now will be outlawed because someone's child got hurt or killed so they think NO ONE should be able to do that anymore..and they will make sure it gets known.

I should not have to live the way THEY want me to live. Freedom of choice,unconstrained by overzealous laws is how I like to live.Yes , we need law,however,why should I be crucified for making a bad choice?
Damn right I am damadd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

I was out with my fiancé’ celebrating Cinco Demayo on May 5th of this year in Phoenix, AZ and was the designated driver all night. On the way home we decided to stop at a strip club around 12:30 AM, and within a 45 minute time span I had 2 drinks of Hennessy, straight up. We left the club around 1:15 AM, and were pulled over by a motor cycle cop at 1:20 AM. As he approached the window of the vehicle I could sense beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was going to attempt to get me for a DUI. The first thing he told me was that he pulled me over for speeding, which I couldn’t dispute because I didn’t check the speedometer before I pulled over. The officer asked for my license and registration and asked me if I had anything to drink. I admitted that I had 2 drinks, and he asked me to step out of the vehicle. He administered 3 field sobriety tests, and during the course of these tests he was doing many things to distract me, and his tone of voice was very loud and demanding. After he didn’t give me any feed back to let me know if I passed or failed the tests, he whipped out a breathalyzer and asked me to blow into it. Up until that point I fully cooperated with him, but due to his demeanor and the way he was being so forceful and rude I refused to blow in the breathalyzer, so he immediately arrested me and I was transported to a DUI van.

Now before I get into the discussion of what happened in the DUI van I’d like to express my opinion on the rights of US citizens under the United States Constitution. The search and seizure clause under the fourth amendment has been destroyed. The due process clause of the 14th and 5th amendments have been destroyed, as the police no longer have to video record field sobriety tests or time spent in the DUI van. If the police officer says you failed the sobriety tests you have no proof to dispute this, whether it is true or not true. DUI laws have become so strict that the burden of the proof of innocence has been shifted from the state to the defendant. The definition of legally intoxicated started at .15, was lowered to .10, and now is currently at .08. How many people know that there is a DUI offense that states if you are impaired to the slightest degree you receive the same punishment as a DUI with a blood alcohol concentration level of .08 or higher? I didn’t know about this new law until I was charged with 2 dui offences in one shot (Can you say double jeopardy?). Impaired to the slightest degree means that you could have one sip of alcohol, get pulled over by a cop, take the field sobriety tests, and if the cop says you failed you could be charged with a DUI and be perfectly sober. Everyone would like to see individuals who choose to drink too much, become legally intoxicated, and for whatever reason think they can drive a vehicle safely, not be allowed to drive. But for the sake of everyone’s rights under the United States Constitution, US citizens should be free to travel anywhere they please, and do whatever they please as long as they don’t infringe on the life, liberty or property of another citizen. That being said, it is not against the law to drink, and then drive, but it’s against the law to drink, become legally intoxicated, and then drive. Perfectly innocent US citizens are being charged with DUI’s, not to protect the public from drunk drivers, but to generate as much revenue as possible for city governments and for Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and state legislatures to exercise power. Oh yeah, and MADD generates approximately 50 million dollars in donations, and pays out about 12 million dollars in salaries every year.

Ok, back to what happened when I was transported to the DUI van. I really didn’t want to let these people draw my blood, because I knew I wasn’t drunk or impaired to the slightest degree. I was in the DUI van with the officer who arrested me, and the officer who drew my blood. I was told that if I didn’t willingly allow my blood to be drawn, a search warrant would be faxed to a judge, who was on standby; the search warrant would be signed on the fly, and faxed back to the DUI van. This process takes less than 5 minutes. At that point the officers can call for backup, hold you down, taser you and do whatever they need to do to forcefully draw your blood to have it tested. This really seemed crazy and unconstitutional to me, but I have heard of people being killed by police when they don’t cooperate, and I really didn’t feel like dying that day, so I let them take my blood after they made it perfectly clear that I was not leaving that DUI van until my blood was drawn! I was also informed that if a search warrant had to be issued my driver’s license would be suspended for one year. I was later informed by the MVD that even if you refuse to submit to the field sobriety tests your driver’s license would be suspended for one year. The police officer informed me that I had the right to refuse before he started each of the field sobriety tests, but never mentioned that my driver’s license would be suspended for a whole year if I refused. I found out later that the breath test is inadmissible in court, and they were going to forcibly draw my blood anyway whether I submitted to the breath test or not.

I was treated so unfairly during the entire process that I decided to fight the 2 DUI offenses I was charged with, no matter what the consequences. At this point I didn’t care if I was given the death penalty. What I found to be really sad, is when I attended my first court appearance almost all the other individuals charged with DUI offenses pleaded guilty, because they thought they had no chance of receiving a fair trial, due to the DUI laws being so strict. Well, here are the 2 DUI offenses I was charged with:

Driving While Impaired to the Slightest Degree, A.R.S. §28-1381

(A)(1) It is unlawful to drive, or to be in actual physical control, of a vehicle while under the influence of any intoxication liquor, any drug, or any combination of liquor or drugs. It is not necessary to be “drunk.” The State is only required to prove that a person’s ability to operate their vehicle was impaired “to the slightest degree.”
Driving With an Blood Alcohol Concentration of .08% or Above, A.R.S. §28-1381

(A)(2) It is unlawful to drive, or to be in actual physical control, of a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of .08% [.04% if commercial vehicle, A.R.S. §28-1381(A) (4)] or higher within two hours of driving or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. The blood alcohol concentration must be a result of alcohol consumed either prior to driving or while driving, or being in actual physical control. Both of these offenses carry the exact same punishment.

The bad part regarding your driver’s license is that as soon as the officer decides to administer the field sobriety tests you are issued an Admin Per se, and your license is suspended for 3 months, no matter if you’re found not guilty, if you are brave enough to have a trial by jury.

I was found not guilty of both DUI offences after the evidence was heard by a jury of my peers. Although the officer lied multiple times while under oath, no video recordings of the field sobriety tests or time spent in the DUI van were available the jury still found me not guilty. One thing the judge continuously stressed to the jury is that it is not against the law to drink and then drive.

The DUI laws have been made so strict, and being impaired to the slightest degree does really mean that it is virtually against the law to drink and then drive! The public just hasn’t been informed of this yet.

Thank you,

BR - Phoenix, AZ
BAUDDL – Brother Against Unconstitutional Drunk Driving Laws

Hello
I'm a victim of the zealots attempting to corrupt this already way corrupt way of infringing on citizen constitutional rights.

I would like to suggest that the site divide complaints and ideas into states? I'm no programmer but it seems like a cool suggestion.

I'm the person who has been wrongly convicted due to ingesting prescription opiate pain medication and thus...DUI'ed. I rolled my vehicle while attempting to miss hitting an animal on the roadway...it was a possum or skunk but ....listen to this... while at was at my preliminary hearing, the DA made a remark to my attorney, stating this " oh yes, the deer in the headlights defense, hahaha" Well when my attorney, a hired not provided attorney, laughed along with the DA, I could have puked.

I had expressed to my attorney that I would like a jury trial and that if possible to retain the 'other' of 2 judges we have appointed to our court of common pleas, in Mifflin county, Pennsylvania (it's a rural farming community, with 'good ol' boys police). Well in the end, after almost a year, when I went to trial ,my attorney stated to me that I would be 'fried' at jury trial and of course the hearing would be in front of the judge who I recommended not to be brought before...what is a common lay person suppose to do???? Local and state government gets my money as will as the as###le lawyer who was a good boy and represented me as he was instructed by uh, uh... THE DA and JUDGE and any other b/s/ minions employed in this sorry shi# county. I got what I did NOT deserve...fines incarceration and more time to wail until I am GRANTED THE PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING AGAIN.

Incidentally, due to harassment and illegal stops in this county, where I reside, I was pulled over 6+ times over 4 years due to not having a valid drivers license (suspended due to no insurance and I've been a profiled target by local police ever since this is also another issue that is abused by law officers. I believe, no proof, that my vehicle had a GPS tracking or lo-jack device illegally placed somewhere on it)

I'm so angry at the system, I don't know what to do or where to go. I've written my representatives as well as sent letters to the attorney gen of Pennsylvania with no response but form letters that refer me to b.s. agencies that don't even deal with what issues and situations I'm presenting.

I was so glad to find this advocacy site !!!! I am willing to help in any way possible , let me know.

Good luck and THANK YOU.

JM - DUI'ED IN PA