One for the Defense

The Immaculate Conception of Alcohol via the Crim Law Blogspot. Not sure this would fly as a OWI defense, folks. Though it could play havoc with the reasonable doubt issue. A side note: Things are getting a tad ridiculous on the OWI political front, however. I was unaware that a new movement is now being formed to take the BAC from .08 to .05. MADD in Canada is pushing it full-force, while MADD in the US is starting on it for repeat offenders, and RID wants it to be .05 for OWI with .02 for anyone who ever had a prior OWI. Say goodbye to the glass of wine with dinner: according to this chart, I personally at 110 lbs would probably be close to .05 if I had one glass of wine over the period of an hour.



Personally, I don't have a problem with removing drunk drivers from the road, nor do I have a problem with establishing a level of BAC at which one is considered legally impaired. But let's keep it high enough to ensure impairment is more than slightly sub-par. It seems to me this correlates with the "no accident" mentality I'm seeing in tort law. It's my personal pet theory that lawsuits are growing for things like tripping on a perfectly visible curb, or getting hit with a piece of insulation being loaded onto your truck by a Menard's employee, after being told to move by the employee because you were in the way and could get hit by it, as are the rough facts in one of today's opinions in the Iowa Court of Appeals. That has led to a growing perception that whenever something bad happens, it is someone's fault. If you choose to dive into someone's fenced, locked pool after drinking and break your neck, it's their fault for not having a better fence. Well, in all this media I'm seeing a trend toward reporting "alcohol involvement" in collisions whether or not the alcohol was actually a contributing factor in the accident. And, of course, drinking was banned out at the Res based on the number of drownings, despite there being no evidence to link any of the drownings with alcohol consumption. I find that odd. Some are speculating that we're headed toward a new prohibition, see here, here, and here. I may be on the unpopular side socially on this issue, but I agree with Eric Peters:

"However, there is no evidence that minimal BAC levels of .06 or less — which are reached after a normal-sized person has had a single drink, no more — correlate with a greater likelihood of having an accident as a result of diminished capacity.



It's one thing to lock up the person who is weaving all over the road — quite another to arrest a person at a sobriety checkpoint simply because he has trace amounts of alcohol in his blood.



The anti-drunk-driving groups have done a great service in helping to enlighten the general public — and make it socially unacceptable to drive while drunk. But knowing when to say "when" applies just as equally to social and legal policy. Just because we went on a bender in the past doesn't mean neo-Prohibitionism is the answer today. Reasonable people favor reasonable laws.



And that should satisfy all but the crazies — who should be kept away from the levers of power regardless."