Yet another DUI...ish question.

EdFred

EdFred

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
30,651
Location
Michigan
Display Name
Display name:
White Chocolate
But hey, I'm not unregistered, so there's no hiding here.

I just got issued my Michigan Concealed Pistol License (yes it is a license not a certificate) and I may not carry concealed while under the influence with penalties as follows.

BAC of .02 - .07 = State civil infraction, $100 fine, and up to 1-year CPL license revocation.
BAC of .08 - .09 = 93-day misdemeanor, $100 fine, and up to 3-year CPL license revocation.
BAC of .10 or more = 93-day misdemeanor, $100 fine, and permanent CPL license revocation.

So, let's say for whatever reason I blow a .03 while I'm carrying and driving (yes, Listerine will show up at that level if recently used). Is this necessary to report to the FAA?
 
Hmm, good question. I'm going to hazard a guess "no" because it's an infraction.
 
I want to know how the cop was able to issue a citation (not the jet) with you standing there schnockered with a loaded weapon, presumably with a 300 round clip and a bad attitude.
 
If you operate a vehicle that soon after using mouthwash you are not responsible enough to operate a car, own a gun, fly an airplane, or breathe oxygen. Now go die you worthless reckless scumbucket/sarcasm.
 
Well, as always have your day in court.

Carry this: http://www.walgreens.com/store/c/listerine-cool-mint-antiseptic-mouthwash/ID=prod4267062-product

along with your piece. When you get stopped, and you have to blow, you blow a .03, and are given a civil infraction. Show the 'arresting' officer your bottle, with the cap seal open, and then when you get to court, and the cop is on the stand:

You: "Officer Barney, when you infracted me, did I show you a mouthwash product?"
Barney: "Yes."
You: "Was the cap cracked, and several ounces missing from the bottle?"
Barney: "Yes."
You: "Are you aware of studies(holds up manila folder) showing that recent use of mouthwash products can adversely affect your BAC device?"
Barney: "No."
You: "You should be."
DA: "Objection."
Judge: "Sustained."
You(smirking): "Oh - desperately sorry. No more questions of this witness."
 
JOhnH said:
I want to know how the cop was able to issue a citation (not the jet) with you standing there schnockered with a loaded weapon, presumably with a 300 round clip and a bad attitude.
Click to expand...

Same way it happens every day somewhere: In the end the snockerie, his attitude and the goldenrod copy of the citation leave in one direction, and the cop and the weapons and clip go the other.
 
docmirror said:
Well, as always have your day in court.

Carry this: http://www.walgreens.com/store/c/listerine-cool-mint-antiseptic-mouthwash/ID=prod4267062-product

along with your piece. When you get stopped, and you have to blow, you blow a .03, and are given a civil infraction. Show the 'arresting' officer your bottle, with the cap seal open, and then when you get to court, and the cop is on the stand:

You: "Officer Barney, when you infracted me, did I show you a mouthwash product?"
Barney: "Yes."
You: "Was the cap cracked, and several ounces missing from the bottle?"
Barney: "Yes."
You: "Are you aware of studies(holds up manila folder) showing that recent use of mouthwash products can adversely affect your BAC device?"
Barney: "No."
You: "You should be."
DA: "Objection."
Judge: "Sustained."
You(smirking): "Oh - desperately sorry. No more questions of this witness."
Click to expand...

What studies?
 
EdFred said:
21.6% alcohol. Won't show up on a blood test, but can on a breath test.
Click to expand...
Not unless you swish and swallow just to be clear. Could see it now on next weeks poor young slug who got a DUI being upset with us because he got drunk off drinking a couple of bottles of Listerene(though that is quite gross) and now is blaming us because they used the BAC as the confirmation.
 
bnt83 said:
:D Congrats! Michigan require you to sit through a class then go shoot like NE?
Click to expand...

Got to the gun shop at 7:30am Saturday morning. Talked about gun safety for 2.5 hours. Then maybe an hour of range time. (About 100 rounds fired from 7ft to 21ft from varying positions) another hour of class time. Lunch break, then 3 hours with a lawyer about legalities, then another 2.5 hours of psychological aspect and awareness. I pretty much slept through the last part as I'd been through all that before with the hand to hand combat instruction I did. Then a written exam. Left about 6:30pm.
 
douglas393 said:
Not unless you swish and swallow just to be clear. Could see it now on next weeks poor young slug who got a DUI being upset with us because he got drunk off drinking a couple of bottles of Listerene(though that is quite gross) and now is blaming us because they used the BAC as the confirmation.
Click to expand...

Swallowing is not required to show an erroneous reading.
 
docmirror said:
I'm not doing your homework for you young man. ;)
Click to expand...

;)

But the instruments used to determine a BAC for court these days can't be tricked into picking up residual alcohol located in your tummy or north of your neck. Or more accurately they won't issue a reading at all if residual alcohol is detected. The ones used on the side of the road...have to be more careful with those.

Actually yes I'm sure there are studies quibbling with this. Lots of money out there on the street.
 
alaskaflyer said:
;)

But the instruments used to determine a BAC for court these days can't be tricked into picking up residual alcohol located in your tummy or north of your neck. Or more accurately they won't issue a reading at all if residual alcohol is detected. The ones used on the side of the road...have to be more careful with those.

Actually yes I'm sure there are studies quibbling with this. Lots of money out there on the street.
Click to expand...

Which are the ones they use....well....on the road.
 
EdFred said:
Got to the gun shop at 7:30am Saturday morning. Talked about gun safety for 2.5 hours. Then maybe an hour of range time. (About 100 rounds fired from 7ft to 21ft from varying positions) another hour of class time. Lunch break, then 3 hours with a lawyer about legalities, then another 2.5 hours of psychological aspect and awareness. I pretty much slept through the last part as I'd been through all that before with the hand to hand combat instruction I did. Then a written exam. Left about 6:30pm.
Click to expand...
11 hours??!! Holy crap. They should give you a few boxes of ammo as just compensation for blowing a whole day.

When I took my CCW permit training in North Carolina, it was about 5-6 hours max, including range time.
 
nddons said:
11 hours??!! Holy crap. They should give you a few boxes of ammo as just compensation for blowing a whole day.

When I took my CCW permit training in North Carolina, it was about 5-6 hours max, including range time.
Click to expand...

There was a lot of people that had DUMB questions which extended the class by about an hour or so.
 
nddons said:
11 hours??!! Holy crap. They should give you a few boxes of ammo as just compensation for blowing a whole day.

When I took my CCW permit training in North Carolina, it was about 5-6 hours max, including range time.
Click to expand...

In Virginia, I just showed my DD-214 and was done.
 
EdFred said:
Be easy enough to do your own study for this fictional court case.
Click to expand...

Whether it would be easy or not is not the issue. It seems to have become popular for people to make claims, and then when they are asked to back them up, they say "do your own research." It seems backwards to me, because people make so many claims of all kinds on the Internet, that no one could possibly have time to research them all. Are we then obligated to simply accept them all? I don't think so.

There is also the practical matter, that a person who has actually seen the evidence probably has a better idea of where to find it than someone who has not. For the latter, it can be like looking for a needle in a haystack.
 
Palmpilot said:
Asking others to do research to prove your claim is a good way to have your claim not taken seriously. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't mind. It's a web forum. So what if I lose your serious take on it? When I'm in front of a jury of my peers, all I need is one. One juror who is thinking 'there but for the grace of god go I'.

Additionally, it's not up to me to prove anything. It's up to the DA to do the proving. So, in this case, let them do the homework on how to prove a negative(the mouthwash DIDN'T give a false positive reading).

Good way to get a not guilty to me, and that's what we're after. :yes:
 
alaskaflyer said:
What studies?
Click to expand...

Wikipedia entry on breathalyers mentions a couple such studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathalyzer
"On the other hand, products such as mouthwash or breath spray can "fool" breath machines by significantly raising test results. Listerine mouthwash, for example, contains 27% alcohol. The breath machine is calibrated with the assumption that the alcohol is coming from alcohol in the blood diffusing into the lung rather than directly from the mouth, so it applies a partition ratio of 2100:1 in computing blood alcohol concentration—resulting in a false high test reading. To counter this, officers are not supposed to administer a PBT for 15 minutes after the subject eats, vomits, or puts anything in their mouth. In addition, most instruments require that the individual be tested twice at least two minutes apart. Mouthwash or other mouth alcohol will have somewhat dissipated after two minutes and cause the second reading to disagree with the first, requiring a retest. (Also see the discussion of the "slope parameter" of the Intoxilyzer 5000 in the "Mouth Alcohol" section above.) This was clearly illustrated in a study conducted with Listerine mouthwash on a breath machine and reported in an article entitled "Field Sobriety Testing: Intoxilyzers and Listerine Antiseptic" published in the July 1985 issue of The Police Chief (p. 70). Seven individuals were tested at a police station, with readings of 0.00%. Each then rinsed his mouth with 20 milliliters of Listerine mouthwash for 30 seconds in accordance with directions on the label. All seven were then tested on the machine at intervals of one, three, five and ten minutes. The results indicated an average reading of 0.43 blood-alcohol concentration, indicating a level that, if accurate, approaches lethal proportions. After three minutes, the average level was still 0.020, despite the absence of any alcohol in the system. Even after five minutes, the average level was 0.011.
In another study, reported in 8(22) Drinking/Driving Law Letter 1, a scientist tested the effects of Binaca breath spray on an Intoxilyzer 5000. He performed 23 tests with subjects who sprayed their throats and obtained readings as high as 0.81—far beyond lethal levels. The scientist also noted that the effects of the spray did not fall below detectable levels until after 18 minutes."
​
 
Palmpilot said:
Whether it would be easy or not is not the issue. It seems to have become popular for people to make claims, and then when they are asked to back them up, they say "do your own research." It seems backwards to me, because people make so many claims of all kinds on the Internet, that no one could possibly have time to research them all. Are we then obligated to simply accept them all? I don't think so.

There is also the practical matter, that a person who has actually seen the evidence probably has a better idea of where to find it than someone who has not. For the latter, it can be like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Click to expand...

I can make up a fictional study for a fictional court case rather easily.
 
EdFred said:
So, let's say for whatever reason I blow a .03 while I'm carrying and driving (yes, Listerine will show up at that level if recently used). Is this necessary to report to the FAA?
Click to expand...

When you are driving after recent use of Listerine, put the gun on the dashboard. You are no longer exercising your 'privilege' to carry concealed.

Check your state laws of course, however in NC this would be just fine.
 
dell30rb said:
When you are driving after recent use of Listerine, put the gun on the dashboard. You are no longer exercising your 'privilege' to carry concealed.

Check your state laws of course, however in NC this would be just fine.
Click to expand...

In Michigan it is not. You may drive between legally between .02 and .07 (assuming you don't have a CDL), however the gun has to be locked in the trunk and unloaded with the ammo separated from the weapon. If you do not have a trunk, the gun must be unloaded and locked in a compartment (or or portable safe) also separate from the ammo. The ammo need not be locked in the trunk or the compartment.

This also goes for anyone who does NOT have a CPL - regardless of BAC.
 
Last edited:
Jim Logajan said:
Wikipedia entry on breathalyers mentions a couple such studies:
Click to expand...

To answer both your post and Ed's question - those studies seems to be somewhat old to me:

Instruments such as the Intoxilyzer 5000 also feature a "slope" parameter. This parameter detects any decrease in alcohol concentration of 0.006 g per 210 L of breath in 0.6 second, a condition indicative of residual mouth alcohol, and will result in an "invalid sample" warning to the operator, notifying the operator of the presence of the residual mouth alcohol. PBT's (Portable Breath Testers), however, feature no such safeguard.
Click to expand...

It isn't infallible. Which is why IMHO (despite the per se laws in much of the nation) the whole body of evidence should be considered and not the result of one scientific instrument.

Of course none of this answer's Ed's question as to what the FAA would think of all of this :dunno: :D
 
Last edited:
"Dere was a significant odor of alkehal on his breat." (that's funny, cause I was drinking my Listerine).

"Da poipetraytah(not citizen) appeared intoxicated." (No, I'm just a very happy guy, always am, I love nature, and driving and the po-lees, this court, that judge, even the prosecutor! "hi over there"!)

"He failed da standahd field sobriety test". (are you kidding me? I danced like Fred Astaire, while singing in the rain)

It's all a matter of subjectivity except the chemical BAC test. The state/local(cops) are biased to see what they are trained to see.
 
docmirror said:
I don't mind. It's a web forum. So what if I lose your serious take on it?
Click to expand...

Would you care to venture a guess at what percentage of Web forum readers automatically believe the average unsourced claim?

When I'm in front of a jury of my peers, all I need is one. One juror who is thinking 'there but for the grace of god go I'.

Additionally, it's not up to me to prove anything. It's up to the DA to do the proving. So, in this case, let them do the homework on how to prove a negative(the mouthwash DIDN'T give a false positive reading).

Good way to get a not guilty to me, and that's what we're after. :yes:
Click to expand...

:confused:

I thought the question was what would someone have to report to the FAA. I've never heard of there being jurors in an FAA enforcement proceeding.

And if an attorney were presenting that argument to the FAA or NTSB on my behalf, I would want them to cite the study if it existed.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Would you care to venture a guess at what percentage of Web forum readers automatically believe the average unsourced claim?



:confused:

I thought the question was what would someone have to report to the FAA. I've never heard of there being jurors in an FAA enforcement proceeding.

And if an attorney were presenting that argument to the FAA or NTSB on my behalf, I would want them to cite the study if it existed.
Click to expand...

No, as I said prev "don't care". If you rely on my legal advice on a web forum, you deserve everything you get in terms of jail time.

Now, from post 10: Well, as always have your day in court. . You can take any enforcement action to court, including in most places a jaywalking ticket, or a parking ticket. Stop rolling over for this bullspit 'civil action/enforcement' crap. If the state wants to collect more money, do it through tax revenue, don't do this chickenspit kind of stuff. Gum up the system with your day in court. If you lose, you can appeal, if you lose that, appeal again until you get yourself the right venue, or the other side folds it's cards and declines prosecution.

The whole 'civil infraction' crap has got to stop. You are either guilty of a crime, or you are not. It's really that simple.
 
EdFred said:
But hey, I'm not unregistered, so there's no hiding here.

I just got issued my Michigan Concealed Pistol License (yes it is a license not a certificate) and I may not carry concealed while under the influence with penalties as follows.

BAC of .02 - .07 = State civil infraction, $100 fine, and up to 1-year CPL license revocation.
BAC of .08 - .09 = 93-day misdemeanor, $100 fine, and up to 3-year CPL license revocation.
BAC of .10 or more = 93-day misdemeanor, $100 fine, and permanent CPL license revocation.

So, let's say for whatever reason I blow a .03 while I'm carrying and driving (yes, Listerine will show up at that level if recently used). Is this necessary to report to the FAA?
Click to expand...


No IMO since A) It's Infraction hence not criminal. B) There is no arrest or conviction C) It's not moving or motor related offence/violation.
 
alaskaflyer said:
To answer both your post and Ed's question - those studies seems to be somewhat old to me:
Click to expand...

If the way breathalyzers has changed, then the age of the studies would be relevant. Assuming the Wikipedia entries are legit (I'm not interested enough to go see if they are real) then the onus on finding contrary studies now falls on anyone who disputes the studies cited in that article.

But it seems reasonable to me to believe that, yes, alcohol in the mouth but not in the blood stream would generate high false positives in such tests.

As a side note, but at least related to alcohol consumption, I remember an episode of Alton Brown's "Good Eats" in which he showed that the alcohol in wine or beer added to a cooking dish does not all burn off - in fact quite a bit can remain in the food. This blog entry summarizes:

http://www.bbqaddicts.com/blog/recipes/recipes-with-alcohol/
 
dell30rb said:
When you are driving after recent use of Listerine, put the gun on the dashboard. You are no longer exercising your 'privilege' to carry concealed.

Check your state laws of course, however in NC this would be just fine.
Click to expand...
People may laugh, but you are correct. In my NC CCW class, a restaurant owner said that he liked to have a glass of wine after business closed and before he went home, but he also wants to carry because of the risk of closing the restaurant after hours, and going to his car. The instructor told him that same thing: put the gun on the dash so you are not carrying concealed.
 
Jim Logajan said:
If the way breathalyzers has changed, then the age of the studies would be relevant. Assuming the Wikipedia entries are legit (I'm not interested enough to go see if they are real) then the onus on finding contrary studies now falls on anyone who disputes the studies cited in that article.

But it seems reasonable to me to believe that, yes, alcohol in the mouth but not in the blood stream would generate high false positives in such tests.

As a side note, but at least related to alcohol consumption, I remember an episode of Alton Brown's "Good Eats" in which he showed that the alcohol in wine or beer added to a cooking dish does not all burn off - in fact quite a bit can remain in the food. This blog entry summarizes:

http://www.bbqaddicts.com/blog/recipes/recipes-with-alcohol/
Click to expand...

Because since the eighties software refinements for slope parameters have presumably taken place, as have protocol changes.

It also struck me that one study produced false readings so high as to be laughable and not likely to be used in an actual testing scenario.
 
EdFred said:
But hey, I'm not unregistered, so there's no hiding here.

I just got issued my Michigan Concealed Pistol License (yes it is a license not a certificate) and I may not carry concealed while under the influence with penalties as follows.

BAC of .02 - .07 = State civil infraction, $100 fine, and up to 1-year CPL license revocation.
BAC of .08 - .09 = 93-day misdemeanor, $100 fine, and up to 3-year CPL license revocation.
BAC of .10 or more = 93-day misdemeanor, $100 fine, and permanent CPL license revocation.

So, let's say for whatever reason I blow a .03 while I'm carrying and driving (yes, Listerine will show up at that level if recently used). Is this necessary to report to the FAA?
Click to expand...
Depends on the charge and the result. If it results in a "motor vehicle action" as defined in 14 CFR 61.15, then yes, it must be reported per 61.15 within 60 days of the "action." If it results in an arrest for DUI, then it must be reported on your next FAA medical regardless of the outcome. If it results in a conviction on a misdemeanor charge, it must be reported per block 18w (History of nontraffic convictions - misdemeanor or felony) on the next FAA medical. If it results only in an "infraction" conviction and there is no DUI arrest, motor vehicle action, or misdemeanor conviction, then no FAA report is required.
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
Well, as always have your day in court.

Carry this: http://www.walgreens.com/store/c/listerine-cool-mint-antiseptic-mouthwash/ID=prod4267062-product

along with your piece. When you get stopped, and you have to blow, you blow a .03, and are given a civil infraction. Show the 'arresting' officer your bottle, with the cap seal open, and then when you get to court, and the cop is on the stand:

You: "Officer Barney, when you infracted me, did I show you a mouthwash product?"
Barney: "Yes."
You: "Was the cap cracked, and several ounces missing from the bottle?"
Barney: "Yes."
You: "Are you aware of studies(holds up manila folder) showing that recent use of mouthwash products can adversely affect your BAC device?"
Barney: "No."
You: "You should be."
DA: "Objection."
Judge: "Sustained."
You(smirking): "Oh - desperately sorry. No more questions of this witness."
Click to expand...

Guilty. Next.

Did not see any facts there to argue from.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top