Slick, E: you take a strategy for discouraging drinking and driving, project the implementation of it to an illogical degree, and then say it's absurd. Seems to work where they have it. And particularly with respect to teens, we should do anything that works. Another who seems to protest too much.

Sure looks like if you'e having dinner out in DC you better reserve a room too.

Perhaps when inviting guests to one's house for dinner it should be suggested that they bring their jammies too!

UPDATE: From Today's Post...

"D.C. Council members, swamped with irate calls and threats to boycott D.C. bars and restaurants, introduced emergency legislation yesterday that would override the police department's controversial and little-known zero-tolerance policy for drinking and driving."

Here's the link to the full story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101401959.html

"His gums are receeding and have the look of someone who has smoked and drank way too much."

Ugh! May be why he isn't always a part of the show? Yes, Foster Brooks was the person about whom I was thinking-thanks. Cassandra, I really don't think anyone was excusing drinking and driving. And I don't believe a glass of wine with dinner is a problem to most(how could we possibly go to Italy otherwise? ) As Prohibition taught us, people are going to drink. Let's have laws which are enforceable to keep the serious drunks and druggies out of cars.

Okay, let's get this straight,
There IS no so-called "zero-tolerance" policy in the District-period.

Officer Fair-the arresting officer, who continued to maintain this position (until yesterday that is) has been told that in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS by his Police Chief, Capt. Ramsey, who stated the following, yesterday:

"He's wrong, if he's saying that... It's not coming from me, and that's certainly no policy I've instituted. THAT'S JUST INCORRECT." "I never use the term "zero tolerance" because I don't think it describes much of anything."

The DC Code (just like every other sane criminal statute in the country) states that a driver with a blood alcohol level of .08 can be arrested and charged with DUI. A DRIVER WITH .05 BAL CAN BE ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE.

The problem arose with a 1998 amendment that said "drivers with less than .03 would NOT be presumed to be NOT intoxicated, (in other words, there could be a presumption of alcohol impairment under .03) (other states have the same language, but with a .05, not .03, level).

Officer Fair and a very few others were interpreting that amendment to mean "zero tolerance." T'ain't so.

The upshot of this brouhaha is, it will be a non-issue within a matter of weeks. Many many members of Congress got on the phone to the DC City Council to tell them to AMEND AND CLARIFY this policy so that the situation that happened to attorney Debra Bolton will NOT happen in the future. Damn right. It's idiotic that an officer would arbitrarily interpret the law the way he sees fit, rather than uphold the law the way it is written-you'd think they'd know that when these types of cases (including Norton's) were dismissed at arraignment.

Methinks the overly-earnest Officer Fair needs to find better things to do with his time instead of arresting lawyers who have a glass of wine and a .02 or .03 BAL, simply because they forgot to turn their lights on and honestly answered their questions about a drink. Like concentrate on some of many unsolved murders in the city (what is DC's homicide rate so far this year -200 or so?-well, that's a bit better!) or maybe concentrate on breaking up some of the gang networks that are on the increase in the nation's capital.

That should keep him and the rest of the power-trip officers so inclined to freely interpret "zero tolerance" just a little more gainfully and worthily employed.

And thanks, beanweb, for derailing dwoodon and his merry band of moralistic posters who think that such an inane policy could actually pass constitutional muster. It can't, and even the President of MADD (yes, MADD!) weighed in on this issue to register its disapproval: "zero tolerance was never MADD's policy." 'nuff said.

To be clear: I'm not at all against a glass (or even 2) of wine with dinner, especially if it's a good Italian red. I'm in favor of wine with good food; and I'm in favor of designated-driver dinner companions if it's really going to flow.

The "but.." here is that if you are already driving erratically or dangerously for some other reason and a trooper smells the wine on you, you may well be tested and they may consider the presence of an impairment.

The other "however..." is that if you have not eaten all day, are exhausted, have taken a prescription medication that will interact with the alcohol, etc., one glass of wine might, indeed, constitute an impairment. Add to that the lack of experience and judgment that make teens the statistical risks they are, and you can have a problem.

As to whether the DC cop was out of line: I can't say anything that wouldn't be based on info I get here and from the papers -- so maybe so and it wouldn't be the first time, by a long shot. But that doesn't mean taking a hard line on impaired driving is a bad idea.

If you haven't eaten all day, are exhausted, or have taken prescription mediciation, YOU SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING, period. Why is it only when alcohol comes into the picture that it becomes a crime? Why do people think it's OK to drive when you're exhausted, when you've taken prescription medication, etc. Why should you not be arrested for driving without sufficient sleep? And certainly you ought to be arrested for talking on your cell phone while driving!

My point was simply about the combination of alcohol with the other things, by way of indicating what might lead an arresting officer to pay attention to the presence of an apparently small amount of alcohol. And the word "impairment" can cover a multitude of things.

Some people sure get excited about this issue.

Cassandra, what on earth do you mean by "methinks...doth protest too much"?? It's not nice to accuse those who diasgaree with you of being drunk drivers themselves!

A good lesson here is to never admit to having anything to drink. It only provides the officer with evidence against you. I understand that it's also a good idea to refuse to do the field tests for the same reason.

Ummm, she didn't have her lights on. She was obviously impacted enough to forget to turn on her lights. So number one: she has had a drink which will impact her response time and two: she doesn't have her lights on so no one can see her to begin with.

She thought the parking lot attendent who brought the car to her had left the lights on.

Why not just avoid drinking and driving? The lush that I am if I can avoid driving, anyone can

> A good lesson here is to never admit to having anything to drink.

Maybe...although if the policeman smells anything on you, you could have problems.

I once got stopped in rural VA (Purcellville) and was asked if I had had anything to drink. I had one glass of wine with dinner and told the officer so. I had to do a field sobriety test which I passed...and I was sent on my merry way. It was scary, but I felt like I did the right thing by not lying to the officer (I was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint).

It was a bit like a real-life "After School Special," as my parents were in the car. My dad proclaimed that "It was just like Cops only without screaming and crying!"

I would never recommend lying to a law enforcement officer. But I would not admit to drinking in that situation. I would respectfully refuse to answer such a question.

Amazing!!!!

Some of you have no idea of the story...

Some of you didn't bother to read the story...

Dam dame is a drunk.....

Some of you guys really need to get a more reasonable hold on life... And many of you are WOMEN!!!

The national norm: "I've had 2 drinks,Officer"

Brian - you did not say "lie" and I apologize for the insinuation in my last posting.

On the other hand, I wonder if politely declining to answer the question would have yielded the same result in terms of being asked to do a field sobriety test....would they go ahead and ask you to do the test?

Greatsights, I don't see how discussing this requires the degree of knowledge you're suggesting we need. It's not brain surgery-it's a chat room and we're just chatting. Besides, you're rather politically incorrect ('dame'?) and slanderous ('a drunk'?) statement about the woman involved puts you right up there with the rest of us-just more belligerent.[-(

Declining has some "legal" implications.But during my mentor training, it was pointed out that PO's who bring in a DWI suspect, write their reports super-duper subjectively.In other words, they go out of their way to report the suspects perceived degree of sobriety, or non sobriety.Being respectful or not, declining will go against you.And, of course, the reports go straight to the judge.It is considered as part of the case, for sure.