BAC when OCing vs. CCing

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

28.425k Implied Consent

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(bhzfmx551uixvkeqvqgwq5fp))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-425k

 

[DrTodd]

imported post

You can do as you want...I would not submit to a breath test, whether I had been drinking or not. No field tests, either. Then the PD needs to make a decision to either arrest me or let me go. When we go in for the official test at the station, at that point I may reconsider, but only at that time.

If they decide to pull my CPL, they better have had a reason to stop me or I fight it... kind of hard for them to prove "probable cause" with no Breath test and no field tests to back up their belief.

 

[Veritas]

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

28.425k Implied Consent

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(bhzfmx551uixvkeqvqgwq5fp))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-425k

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something:

Refusal to submit to a PBT or field test while CCing is NOT cause for CPL revocation? The law appears to be the same as if you are driving in that you can refuse PBT's and field tests, but you give implied consent (under duress of drivers license revocation) if you refuse the test at the station. Correct?

If so, then I was misinformed by someone claiming to be an expert on the subject. I was informed by this person that by accepting a CPL, you give implied consent to PBT's and field sobriety tests.

Just to claify the questions: You can refuse a PBT or field sobriety test without risk of CPL revocation, correct? It is only when you refuse the test at the police station that you face this penalty, correct? Just the same as if you were driving down the street without a CPL?

The law referenced above refers to "chemical analysis"... am I to assume there is a legal opinion on what this is? Does it explictly refer to the test at the police station? Or can a chemical analysis also encompass a PBT?

Understanding this is important to me because I do not consent to any tests or searches at the side of the road... while driving or walking. When getting my CPL, it was a tough pill for me to swallow believing that I had to submit to a PBT if I were pulled over while carrying concealed.

 

[Veritas]

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

You can do as you want...

I generally do as I want anyway.

 

[AlwaysLearning]

imported post

I have been reading and reading this thread. Everyone has made point after point. No harm no foul, carry drunk and suffer etc. morally, ethically, reasonably right or wrong? Carrying while intoxicated in Mi is illegal the members of this forum have repeatedly stated stay within the law and stay safe. The one argument that I didn't read that confuses me is proximity, everyone has danced around it, but maybe it was to obvious for anyone to state it directly and you may think less of me for stating it this way.
I have my car keys in my pocket and I am wasted. I stand up look around and make the statement " I'm outta here" the first reaction I can reasonably expect is "hey dummy let me call you a cab". My car is a long drunken stumble from where I am standing before I can actually commit a crime.
If however some jerk is calling me out and starting crap ( assuming that I am sitting at a table and he hasn't seen my gun) it is only mere seconds (no drunken stumble necessary) for me to reach, obtain, and commit said felony. Sitting in your toy room surrounded by weapons and ammunition, what is likely to aggitate you enough to load and shoot? unless of course your watching the latest Obamunism. Even at that it is only the tv that suffers.
My 2 cents

 

[DrTodd]

imported post

Veritas wrote:

SpringerXDacp wrote:

28.425k Implied Consent

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(bhzfmx551uixvkeqvqgwq5fp))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-425k

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something:

Refusal to submit to a PBT or field test while CCing is NOT cause for CPL revocation? The law appears to be the same as if you are driving in that you can refuse PBT's and field tests, but you give implied consent (under duress of drivers license revocation) if you refuse the test at the station. Correct?

If so, then I was misinformed by someone claiming to be an expert on the subject. I was informed by this person that by accepting a CPL, you give implied consent to PBT's and field sobriety tests.

Just to claify the questions: You can refuse a PBT or field sobriety test without risk of CPL revocation, correct? It is only when you refuse the test at the police station that you face this penalty, correct? Just the same as if you were driving down the street without a CPL?

The law referenced above refers to "chemical analysis"... am I to assume there is a legal opinion on what this is? Does it explictly refer to the test at the police station? Or can a chemical analysis also encompass a PBT?

Understanding this is important to me because I do not consent to any tests or searches at the side of the road... while driving or walking. When getting my CPL, it was a tough pill for me to swallow believing that I had to submit to a PBT if I were pulled over while carrying concealed.

I could be wrong... but the law states that they notify the CPL board upon your refusal. I look at this like the SOS board when it is an operating license. That being the case, with no "evidence" that I have done anything wrong other than the officer's word, I assume they would need to get a warrant to have anything other than the fact that I refused sent to the CPL Board. This "notification" would be based upon a judgment from an officer without benefit of any roadside tests. It sort of ruins the evidence stream and limits the reasonableness of bringing any charges forward or board notification; where's the evidence?

The reason that I would do this is that both the roadside tests (PBT and the physical tests of counting backwards, staring straight and following a light to test for nystigmus, etc. ) are inherently flawed. It really is a set-up, and I'll have no part of it. Chances are, at least for me, is that the officer would go to the nth degree, get a warrant based on personal "guessing", and any test at that point would be negative. It's a lot to go through to have the charges come to nothing.
Personally, if I did take the PBT I could probably get that tossed as I have GERD, which makes the PBT show alcohol in the stomach, not the blood. So even if I took the test, I would most likely have the results tossed. I would also use this as my reason w/ the board as to why I refused the roadside pbt.

There is also the issue of OC v. CC. If anyone is carrying and feels that they might be close to the .02 for CC, could they just stick the pistol in a holster outside of the clothing and therefore be OC, which is legal up to .08?? Not advocating such behavior, but it seems to be a way that the .02 threshold really becomes somewhat irrelevant as long as I am not in a car.

I weigh 240lbs. Just looking at an intoxometer, I would need to drink between 2 and 3 beers in one hour to be at .02, but 6 beers in an hour to be .08. Six beers is more than I would ever drink. So, once again, by switching to OC I have saved myself from potential problems. Especially if I wait a while before driving, because having the pistol with me in the car negates the possibility of OC.

Data taken from: http://www.intox.com/wheel/drinkwheel.asp

 

[Veritas]

imported post

I understand all that you're saying... my question though is whether or not your CPL can be suspended or revoked for refusing a PBT. The implied consent law refers to "chemical analysis"... does this include a PBT?

Or is the law on par with Michigan driving laws in that by accepting a license, you give implied consent to the test at the JAIL, but not a PBT at the side of the road?

 

[Veritas]

imported post

AlwaysLearning wrote:

Carrying while intoxicated in Mi is illegal... This is true. I, for one, am not advocating breaking any laws... I am merely arguing that some laws written and enforced violate our civil liberties. Such as charging someone with a crime when there is no victim or no damage. I'm not hip on the idea of someone ASSUMING I'm going to do something wrong and then nailing me to the wall for it when nothing has happened.

If however some jerk is calling me out and starting crap ( assuming that I am sitting at a table and he hasn't seen my gun) it is only mere seconds (no drunken stumble necessary) for me to reach, obtain, and commit said felony. This assumes, however, that you CHOOSE to break the law by pulling your firearm on someone who has "called you out". This being said, what's to say that someone has to be intoxicated in order to make a bad decision like this? What if he's just in a crappy mood? What if someone cuts him off while driving and he just snaps? What if he comes home from work early and finds his wife in bed with another man? What if someone kicks his dog? What if someone throws a brick through his window then stands there and taunts him? What if he catches someone trying to steal his lawnmower?

What I'm getting at is that PROXIMITY means nothing. At any given moment, many of us are within close proximity to our firearms. There are MANY factors in life that can lead someone to make a bad decision... intoxication is most assuredly not the only one. If we're going to start accepting laws that limit our freedoms based on "what if" scenarios (when no crime has been committed, but the "WHAT IF he does commit a crime" is the only factor), then we may as well as accept laws that make it illegal to carry a firearm at all. "What if" you make a bad decision while carrying a firearm... right?

I understand that drinking may lead to lapses in judgment... I am not arguing this. What I am saying though is that there are many other things in life that can lead to the same lapse in judgment, and charging someone for a crime when they haven't done anything wrong yet is immoral, in my opinion. IF they do something that creates a victim or damage... then make the punishments severe enough so that others will think twice about putting themselves in that situation. To charge someone with a CRIME for drinking a beer while carrying a pistol is tantamount to charging someone with a CRIME for being in a bad mood while carrying a pistol. Until they've DONE something to shirk their responsibilities, they have done nothing wrong.

Sitting in your toy room surrounded by weapons and ammunition, what is likely to aggitate you enough to load and shoot? Me? Nothing. Others may differ, though. This being said, I could be in a bar surrounded by people egging me on and trying to get me to do something stupid, and I still wouldn't be agitated enough to shoot anyone... it wouldn't matter if I were drunk or sober either.

If alcohol is really this evil liquid that makes us lose our minds and do things that we normally wouldn't do, then why doesn't some politician go after THAT? Just because someone has .08 in their blood doesn't mean they turn from being a rational law abiding citizen to a homicidal maniac. Their motor skills may be imparied... their hand/eye coordination may be imparied... they may think the opposite sex is more attractive than they really are... but it doesn't mean they suddenly want to kill someone for wrong reasons. If this were the case, then restaurants should be banned from giving forks and knives to patrons who drink with their meals. Those can be used to kill people, too.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

As long as we continue to give alcohol credit for completely controlling its users' behavior, we will continue to render irrelevant personal responsibility.

It's the same thing with drugs, though. As long as "crackheads have to rob people to get their fix", you'll give an excuse (if not a justification in the minds of some idiots) to crack users for robbing people. This, despite the fact that the evidence shows that criminals rob people, whether they are addicted to crack or not, and non-criminals don't rob people, once again whether they are addicted to crack or not. Drugs don't cause crime, criminals cause crime.

 

[AlwaysLearning]

imported post

I agree completely to the basics of your point of view. I was a bartender for years and I have seen Reasonable and Unreasonable men and women have a complete personality shift while intoxicated. I have personally witnessed people so dedicated to drinking that they wouldn't leave the barstool to use the restroom ( never ever touch a barstool:uhoh Laws are all inclusive reasonable and psychotic are all covered. Were I to be the person working in a bar with drunken open carriers I would also want to be carrying.
We here in this forum are all ( I would like to believe) reasonable people. People who deal with responsibilty and restraint everyday, I disagree with preconvicting a person of a crime they may or may not commit. I don't see any good way to deal with this situation.
I can tell you that as a bartender it was my job to not only wait tables and serve drinks it was also my job to ensure the safety of everyone in the bar. prevent or stop bar fights ect. , that aspect of the job is why I agree most. I would not involve myself in any way until violent intent was displayed (standing and yelling, throwing things, or actual physical contact)
want to say more but have to go to work. good luck with this I find this one of the more interesting discussions yet.