View Full Version : .08 blood-alcohol level = DUI in Missouri

Jim Hunter
05-19-2001, 06:49 AM
Its in the works now, & is expected to become law, lowering the .10% standard down to .08% Here in Colorado I went to jail for blowing a .062 (It could have been the pizza but I think it was the beer) Anything here above .050 is DWAI (Driving While Ability Impaired) and DUI for .075 or above. Hey, if you were here in Colorado, surrounded by all these Donks fans, you'd be drinking too !!!!!!

05-19-2001, 07:15 AM

I do not think anyone should drink and drive.

Thinks people drive badly enough without adding alcohol to the mix.

05-19-2001, 07:19 AM
Hey Jim, can 18 year olds still by weak beer in Colo.?
It used to be that way when I lived there way back in 82-83.

Just curious, what caused them to pull you over?

05-19-2001, 07:21 AM

I don't think anyone would disagree that one shouldn't drink and drive...

I do however think .08% is extremely low, when it gets to where you can't have 1 beer with dinner, it's getting pretty rediculous.

you shouldn't drink and drive, you might spill some...

05-19-2001, 07:55 AM
Many states have had .08 for quite a while now. Washington state has been .08 for several years. Good thing Joe Seahawk isn't a Chiefs fan, or he'd be in <B>prison</B> by now!

Jim: .05 = DWAI in Donkey land? Wow. No wonder Romo sticks to "other" drugs. Don't even smell a beer before getting behind the wheel!

05-19-2001, 08:04 AM
California has been 0.8 for years. Does not take much to be illegal...just a couple of beers.

05-19-2001, 08:07 AM

I concede that my stand on drinking and driving is near the fringe.

Occasionally a fanatic.

05-19-2001, 08:43 AM
Actually figuring an estimated BAC is relatively easy. It actually takes more beer than you think to get the BAC to above 0.08 and at that level it has been shown in several tests that reaction time is significantly impaired. Actually at above 0.05 reaction time is impaired by 1 sec. It all depends on body weight, time during drinking, and a few other factors. If any of you want to know how you calculate an approximate BAC then I could tell you.

05-19-2001, 09:23 AM
Being a non-drinker (of alcoholic beverages :D ) for the last 10 years, I must admit that this law doesn't mean much to me.

However, my past experience tells me that those who want to drink and drive will still do just that. The penalty may have increased but human nature is still the same. :rolleyes:

05-19-2001, 09:32 AM
Boy, are the jails going to get even more crowded.

I recieved a DUI 11 years ago...Took ten for it not to be used against me. In Colorado, if you get two violations in 5 years time, you are doing 5 years. Mandatory.

If you get busted, you deserve it. The only drinking and driving I do now is with the remote in the potato throne.

Tomahawk 11
05-19-2001, 09:33 AM
I was just reading about this in the paper this morning. It has already passed in the house and senate in MO and is waiting to be signed by the Gov.

It has some interesting stuff attached to it. There will be a $25 fee for drunken driving arrests that will go towards spinal cord research. When you get convicted, it will require an ignition lock for the violator's car that will not unlock until they pass the attached breath test. Second time offenders will have to serve 5 days in jail or 30 days community service.

This article said that a 170 lb male will need four drinks in an hour to be at .08%. For .10, he would need 5 in an hour.

I wonder if this legislation includes boating?

05-19-2001, 09:37 AM
Tomahawk 11,
I believe that all DWI laws are the same for boating, as they are for driving a car. Which is a really good thing.

05-19-2001, 10:58 AM
So does four beers in an hour translate into two beers in 30 minutes? One beer slammed in fifteen minutes after mowing the yard on a 100 degree day? Then you find yourself in the pokey becuase you were out of twine for your weed eater. Great!?


05-19-2001, 11:26 AM
I think your trying to over simplify it. A TOTAL of 4 beers in a 1 hour time frame for the avg Person, would raise your BA to .08 Now 2 beers in 30 minutes, if that was all you drank would not raise your BA to .08, nor would 1 in 15 minutes. If that was all you drank.

The BA and the relationship to the amout of beers is a function of how fast your body can rid itself of the toxins.

Most studies have shown that the average person, who drinks 2-3 beers in a 1 hour time fraame would not have to worry about there BA being over .08 Now of course if you are very small, yes it very well might. But if you were a 275lb man, you could probely get by with 5-6, and not be over the klimit. it also depends on your health, and wheather you drink alot also.

05-19-2001, 12:01 PM
John, Are the devices the officers use really that accurate! If you had just swalloed a beer and jumped in the truck to head to the store and got stopped for whatever minutes later would the fact that the alcohol was fresh on your breath make a difference in the test? People shouldn't drink and drive let me make that clear! But why are we changing the law? Will it really make a difference? Are the current laws and applications not working? Or is this just another move in the direction of prosecuting people who haven't done any kind of damage to anyone? Last question! Can we prove that the drinking and driving laws we have in place have ever saved a life or kept an accident from happening?


Tomahawk 11
05-19-2001, 12:56 PM
I know that the current laws are the same for boating, but the new legislation had language that included boating and some that didn't. It very well could be that boating gets left out of the new legislation. I totally agree that it should be the same. I've seen some nasty stuff on the water.

I can help a little bit on some of your questions. The rules with alcohol breath testing is 15 minutes. The officer has to observe you for 15 minutes and be sure that you have not had a drink before he can administer the breath test. That the other reason for the horse and pony show (walk and turn, alphabet). Their is what is called residual alcohol on the breath which can "spike" the breathilizers. This all disapates in 10-15 minutes.

The main reason we are changing the law is a little group called MADD and their lobbyist in Wash DC. The federal gov't has threatened to take away our highway money if the state didn't lower it. Our highways already suck, so....hello .08% BAC

Of course when your BAC is lower you are less impaired. I don't have exact stats off the top of my head, but I could get them pretty quick. Most people don't even realize how impaired they are at any level (until they get pulled over). I couldn't say on the prevention stuff. I am sure that it has prevented some accidents just by people getting stopped before they wreck. I guess a way to look at it is, how much murder does our current laws prevent. Murder still occurs to a certain extent and always will. Unfortunately, probably so will drunk driving and accidents (someone touched on that earlier). Be safe driving and boating! :)

05-19-2001, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by philfree
Last question! Can we prove that the drinking and driving laws we have in place have ever saved a life or kept an accident from happening?

You know as well as I do that there is no way to answer that question. But what I do know is from personal experiance. First off, I am by no means innocent. I have driven way to many times while I was impaired, extremely impaired. Now what got me to quit doing that? At the time my job depended on me having a license, and for that fact I was scared I would get caught, therfore I quit driving while drinking. Now would I have killed or injured someone if I had continued? More than likely I would have injured myself if not others too.

Since that time I have grown older and wiser (I hope) and have seen 2 friends die from drinking & driving. 1 tru his own fault another, was killed by someone elses stupidity. I have also witnessed the nasty after effects from first hand experiance. (from Working as a Paramedic). And I know that 90% of those drunk who were involved in an accident, would swear they only had 2-3 beers. There judgement was so impaired that alot of times they had no clue what they had done.

I agree that we should make sure we enforce the laws on the books as off now, with STIFFER penalties, but we really should have ZERO tolerance for people driving impaired. Your not just putting yourself at risk, but everyone out there (my family & yours).

I'm all for personal freedom, and I don't think it's the goverments job to tell me what i can or can't do(such as seatbelts, & helmets on cycles) BUT when you endanger others then someone has to step in(police).

1 more thing, I'm not sure how all PD's do it, but around here, and from what I know of other departments, the Field tester that they use is forprobable cause only. They then ussally take you in for a BA on the Bigger machine which is more accurate. besides which you do have the CHOICE to have a blood test done. And those are 100% accurate.

05-19-2001, 03:56 PM
Oh! So we're changing the law so we can keep our Federal funding. So now the Fed. determines what our DWI laws should be. Sounds almost like blackmail to me!
I thinks it's time to go buy a bottle of Don Filpe, El Toreso to go with this beer my lovely wife bought me. And no I haven't started drinking yet! But it's about that time.

PhilFree :cool:

05-19-2001, 08:26 PM
tomahawk 11, The information in the article you read is bogus! Two drinks will put you in the slammer. The "spike" you need to be worried about is not the one on your breath, but the one that occurs 2 to 3 hours after you have stopped drinking. Besides it is the arresting officers call whether or not "he" thinks you are drunk. The BAC means nothing in court. The reason I know this is the breathilizers are supposed to be callibrated once a year. Turns out it had been 14 months since mine had been calibrated. I was told it did not matter, if the arresting officer goes before a judge and states that in his professional opinion you did not pass the FST and that you appeared to be drunk at the scene, you lose.

"There will be a $25 fee for drunken driving arrests that will go towards spinal cord research" That's funny. Just exactly who is going to keep track of that. Those people will never see a dime.

If they want to dissuade people from drinking and driving they should just tell them the truth. You WILL be charged: $250 for the setop class; $250 for the counseling; $250 for the parole officer; hundreds of dollars in court costs; hundreds if not thousands for your attorney; hundreds of dollars in insurance premiums for your SR-22; oh, and a couple of hundred dollars for reinstatement fees. If you still have a job and your wife (or husband) hasn't left you, maybe, just maybe, after a couple of years your life might start to become a little like it used to be.

In my particular case the police report states that I was weaving between the lines, not crossing any lines, just weaving between the lines. I was not pulled over for that reason. I was pulled over because my plates were improperly diplayed. That means that my Chiefs license plate border was covering up part of the month and year. This is a little trick they like to use if they can't find any other reason to pull you over. Actually the cop was lurking outside the bar waiting for someone to leave.
The state and it's law enforcement agency's are not interested in saving lives. They want to generate revenue.

05-19-2001, 08:44 PM
Sorry to hear of your bad luck, BUT if you were drinking and driving...Tough. First off a BAC does mean something in court, and had you had a compatent lawyer you WOULD have beat the charges, unless the did a blood test.
As for telling people the truth, In MO, those questions you asked are on the drivers test. Any SHOULD know what the costs are for a DWI. Maybe not the exact, but they should have a good idea IT WILL COST YOU! either in money or alot of heartache.

As for lurking outside the Bar, so be it, if you leave and are not intoxicated, then who cares? But if you are good, maybe, just maybe they can prevent someone from getting hurt or dieing.

"The state and it's law enforcement agency's are not interested in saving lives. They want to generate revenue."

Maybe some are, but most are just doing a job, that most people would not want, nor have the willingness to do. I have had the oppertunity to know & work with many Police officers, but local and state, Professionaly and personaly. and yes there are good ones and bad ones, but no more than in any other profession.

Sorry but when you are convicted of a DWI, go cry somewere else. Better yet go cry to a Father , mother, husband, wife or child of a drunk driving accident.

Also They are supposed to be calibrated every 6 months by a feild tech. IN ADDITION to be calibrated before every use.

05-19-2001, 09:55 PM
john, I am not crying, I am simply stating the facts. Don't need any sympathy, I am a big boy. My concern is that they are not interested in saving lives. Granted, there are a few cops who are out there trying to do the right thing but most are on a power trip.
Besides people in my profession, good ones and bad ones, aren't carrying firearms. I think that I have the right to expect law enforcement to do a little better job at screening potential employees than they do in most professions.
John, it is against the law for cops to hang outside a bar waiting for prey.

The point is that I had not done anything to give that cop a reason to pull me over other than leave a bar. I guess what concerns me is that everyone seems to be willing to give police carte blanc when it comes to "those dastardly drunks" and no one is willing to question there methods or motives. The check points that are set up are a perfect example. Just another case of Guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

Come on, if you really want to protect people from drunken drivers put ignition locks on all cars, randomly place policeman at local establishments, and if you are pulled over under suspicion make it a law that a blood test be given not a breathalizer.

Everthing that is done now is done primarily to produce revenue.

ken man
i know i cannot win this argument and don't really want to

Tomahawk 11
05-19-2001, 11:56 PM

What other tests did the officer give you? The alphabet, counting, walk and turn, check the eyes? The breathilizer is a verification of the FST's, you are right. What was your BAC? Were you asked to take another breath test when you got to the station? Did you refuse? Tell me about it.

If you are worried about the checkpoints then read the paper. The department must notify the public through the media I think at least a week in advance. It will tell you the general area and the beginning and ending time.

05-20-2001, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by philfree
Oh! So we're changing the law so we can keep our Federal funding. So now the Fed. determines what our DWI laws should be. Sounds almost like blackmail to me!

Yes, that is how it works...blackmail. I'll bet many of you didn't know that the Federal Government (Dept. of Justice) filed suit against the State of Missouri (Highway Patrol) because they didn't have enough minorities on the patrol and the ones that were on weren't getting promoted fast enough. INTERESTING

Missouri is the king of terrible highways. They have tried a couple of times to pass bills to creates toll roads. All of them were shot down.

05-20-2001, 06:40 AM
T-11, Yes, all of these standard test's were given. It has already been stated that alcohol affects people differently. Depending on size, weight, metabolism, etc. Yet the BAC test that is given to the majority of people does not take that into consideration. During the FST the officer will confuse you and trick you so it will go into his report that you were disoriented. They even make note of how you are dressed and your general overall appearance. At the station you are asked to take another breathilizer, normally this is 2 to 3 hours after your last drink because this is when the spike of the alcohol in your blood occurs. With the laws the way they are this is the test everyone should refuse. If you refuse they will jerk your license, you will still have to attend the setop, counseling, driving classes, all the same things happen as if you blew into that little tube. The difference is they will not have that BAC when you go to court and you can usually plea down to a lesser charge.
Check points are in the paper? I did not know that. Now that I have been honest about this incident you and others have this mental image that I am some crazed drunk driving the highways of Mo. trying to avoid checkpoints and elude capture.
About a year ago halfway between Spfd. and Nixa a checkpoint was set up. one of the people stopped was a father and his 2 year old son. Apparently the officer was suspicious and had the gentleman pull his truck onto a side road, had him get out of the vehicle tool him up to the main road and proceeded to question the man. His 2 year old son was scared because Dad had left him alone. He got out of his car seat, and walked out onto the highway looking for his father. Fortunately a couple about 6 cars back knew this family and recognized the little boy out walking on the highway and got him into their vehicle before he was injured. The father was not arrested and went back to his truck only to find his son gone. Almost 400 innocent drivers were stopped at this checkpoint that day. 2 were arrested for suspicion of DUI.
I used to read about this kind of crap happening in other countries but I never thought it would happen here.

ken man
GUILTY untill proven innocent...er...or is that the other way around

Tomahawk 11
05-20-2001, 08:14 AM
What spike are you talking about? I know that you can be "on your way up" or "on your way down". It takes the body an average of 1 hour to rid itself of .015% of the alcohol. Their are many things that can slow the process of the alcohol. Your second reading can be lower or higher depending on when your last drink (among other things.)

I used to live in Nixa. Were you by James River Sports Complex? I don't think you are a craze drunk. Everyone makes mistakes. No big deal.

05-20-2001, 08:46 AM
The thing is T-11 that there are other ways to prevent drivers who have been drinking from getting behind the wheel.
Currently it just appears to me that only a half hearted attempt is being made that will generate the most revenue and the biggest headlines.
You have heard of a coat check at restaurants. Bars have someone at the door to check ID's. How about an off duty cop to act as a key check. If through their training they can recognize a person who has had too much to drink don't give them their keys.

I just think that the idea is to save lives not to beat people into submission.

ken man
just thinks there is a better way

05-20-2001, 09:10 AM

I like the idea of having a key man at the door, but where is the line drawn. Does he have to be a sworn peace officer, or can it be any rent-a-cop that the bar hires?

Jim Hunter
05-20-2001, 10:03 AM
Hey Shakesthecat......In post #2 you asked why they pulled me over when I blew the .062..?? My tail light was burned out. They followed me for several miles prior to that & there was no problems with my driving. This was all after playing a music gig in a bar all night....(9:00 PM till !:30 AM) and of course having a beer every break. What got me was someone handed me a shot of Tequilla as I was leaving....I have a problem saying "no" sometimes. Even then I didn't feel impaired in the least and told my brother to wait with the car & I'd be right back after I blew into their machine. Who wudda thunk .......

05-20-2001, 10:30 AM
Again I think your perception is way off. Granted there are bad cops, but IF you had the oppertunity to know any, you would find that most are good people doing a really ****ty job, for which the get very liitle respect. But unfortunatly they get a bad rap from a very few bad cops.

Your right it is illegal to "park" outside a bar. BUT were should they patrol? I mean you don't look for drug activity in a church parking lot, anymore than you would DUI's outside an AA hall. Unfortunatly if they even patrol in an area, for whatever reason, someone will cry foul if they go by a bar. So whats the answer? I don't know, but what I do know is that if your busted for a DWI, then suck it up, and pay the piper.

Again a Breath test is NOT the only means. If ou are worried about the validity of the FST request a Blood test. Sorry but again I have never heard of a DWI conviction with out a Breath test that was valid, unless there were extrenous circumstances. Any good lawyer can beat 90% of DWI charges, for good or bad.

Also an SR-22 is not required for a DL reinstatment if your refuse a BA test. And diversion classes are up to the Judge.

As for your Ideas for a breath machine on cars, who's gonna pay for it? Do you really think that is an option for the public who has not had a DWI conviction?

Also Cops in Bars...LOL yea right, whats the difference in that and "Lurking" outside a bar? Because the first person they let drive, who ma not appear drunk, yet goes out and kills themself or someone else, will be sueing to high heaven.

Tomahawk 11
05-20-2001, 07:57 PM

I guess the whole responsibility thing comes into play for me here. I am not trying to preach, but sitting a cop in the bar sounds like babysitting. Some agencies won't allow for their officers to work in an establishment that serves alcohol and especially not to use state equipment. I am sure that their are some though. I actually heard of a guy that went and bought his own PBT (personal breath test) after he had gotten picked up a couple of times.

I don't really agree that the laws aren't set up to deter drunk driving. As you said the fines/court costs are expensive. That sounds like deterance to me.

What I have resolved to doing is if I want to tie one on I usually go someplace where I am going to stay all night and not have to drive or just stay home to do it. I am not a big fan of the bar scene anyway (does Nixa have any bars yet?). I realize other people are. That is fine with me, but other people's lives are at stake. If you are going to go to the bar, pace yourself and eat. It slows the process down. If you are genetically predisposed to being above .08% or .10% after 2 beers, that sucks!! You still have some time before it lowers. Of course the old stand by: designated driver/cab.

I hope I don't sound like I am preaching here. :)

Bob Dole
05-21-2001, 10:24 AM