Sherman arrested for DUI

[NoGain]

You literally posted that you drive intoxicated and you feel safer driving buzzed. The ONLY reason you feel safer is because of the alcohol.

My brother was killed by an intoxicated driver such as yourself 8 years ago. Quit making excuses for dumb behavior.

I bet for the 50 years you have been driving 99% of that time you have been sober (At least I would hope). Think that might be why you have had more incidents while straight? Probably not right?

No, I never said I feel safer when driving with alcohol in my system. What I said was that normally I'm an aggressive/Type-A driver when I'm completely straight, a hyper aware driver in that way. When I have any kind of alcohol in my system, I have a rule: Not one mile an hour above the speed limit, no running yellow lights and the like, 10 and 2 on the wheel, etc... When I follow my rule, it feels like I'm driving in slow motion in comparison to how I usually drive. I never want to get a DUI, hurt someone, or get pulled over when I have even one ounce of liquor in my system. So I go into what's for me ultra cautious mode.

 

[NoGain]

But, how many times did you know you shouldn’t be driving even tho none of that happened?

I said I rarely ever get blotto drunk. And if I was drunk in that way, couldn't see straight, knew I might be a danger behind the wheel, I wouldn't get behind it. But that's never been the case except for perhaps a few times growing up as a teenager/very young adult when I did some stupid stuff. I'll own that. But it's been some 45 years since then for me.

 

[86Hawk]

I actually feel safer when I'm a little buzzed.

No, I never said I feel safer when driving with alcohol in my system.

Hmmmm.....

 

[NoGain]

Hmmmm.....

When I said that, I meant I feel safer from getting pulled over than when I'm driving more aggressively when I'm entirely straight. In other words, I'm often over the speed limit and the like when I'm straight, but not when I have alcohol in my system.

Make sense now?

 

[86Hawk]

When I said that, I meant I feel safer from getting pulled over than when I'm driving more aggressively when I'm entirely straight. In other words, I'm often over the speed limit and the like when I'm staright, but not when I have alcohol in my system.

Make sense now?

The only thing I can and will say is please don't drive while intoxicated. It's not that hard. For your own safety and everyone elses.

 

[NoGain]

The only thing I can and will say is please don't drive while intoxicated. It's not that hard. For your own safety and everyone elses.

I understand your concern. That's okay. But I've been doing just fine most of my life this way.

The real problem out there are bad drivers, unaware drivers, stupid drivers. I confront them almost every time I get behind the wheel. They're dangerous.

 

[RedAlice]

I said I rarely ever get blotto drunk. And if I was drunk in that way, couldn't see straight, knew I might be a danger behind the wheel, I wouldn't get behind it. But that's never been the case except for perhaps a few times growing up as a teenager/very young adult when I did some stupid stuff. I'll own that. But it's been some 45 years since then for me.

Excellent.

 

[RedAlice]

I understand your concern. That's okay. But I've been doing just fine most of my life this way.

The real problem out there are bad drivers, unaware drivers, stupid drivers. I confront them almost every time I get behind the wheel. They're dangerous.

This is a very valid point.

 

[NoGain]

Excellent.

You cool.

 

[bigcc]

Not that it's an important factor, but he was pulled over at 4am, booked into jail at 4:30.

Where did you get your source? As far as I know, they haven't released any details beyond the initial reports and likely won't for some time.

@BlueTalon is correct. The roadside breathalyzer is optional. The one at the station is not, considered implied consent, and carries some pretty severe consequences for refusing to take it. So which one he refused is critical to his case.

If he refused a breathalyzer at the station, he's likely toast. They can reinstate his old sentence which includes 90 days in jail, consider this event a 2nd offense that carries a mandatory 45 days in jail, and he's in the pokey for half the summer, possibly lose his job at Amazon Prime. It would be incredibly stupid of him. He'd be better off trying to pass the test.

But on the other hand, Geno physically refused to take a blood test, struggled with the officers, and he got off scot-free, so who knows.

Geno portion aside, can't you refuse a breathalyzer in favor of blood draw with no legal repercussions?

If you think there's even remotely a chance of time saving you from being over/under .08,seems to me like the extra time getting to the station/being booked would absolutely be worth it.

But again I really don't know the law around that

 

[RiverDog]

Geno portion aside, can't you refuse a breathalyzer in favor of blood draw with no legal repercussions?

If you think there's even remotely a chance of time saving you from being over/under .08,seems to me like the extra time getting to the station/being booked would absolutely be worth it.

But again I really don't know the law around that

Yes, I think that you can, or at least you could in the past. It used to be that you could ask for your doctor/lawyer to be present during the sampling, but I think they've done away with that provision.

In any event, the delaying tactic is not always successful. The court knows the science, that except in rare cases, alcohol is processed by the liver at a rate of .016% per hour no matter how big or small you are. If you delay the sampling for two or three hours then test at a .07, they'll know that you were legally drunk when the stop occurred. It's an inescapable conclusion.

 

[kidhawk]

I'm kind of in agreement with pmedic here. I drive while intoxicated. I'm rarely ever blotto drunk, but I may be near or just above the legal limit at times when I'm driving. The thing is I'm a Typa-A/alpha/aggressive driver most of the time, meaning I'm above the speed limit, taking advantage of opportunities to get ahead, going through yellow lights and all.

So when I've had a few drinks in me, I just slow down to the speed limit and drive like most of the rest of the cautious driver types; and when I do, it feels like I'm driving in slow motion. I actually feel safer when I'm a little buzzed and driving in slow motion than when I'm my usual aggressive self behind the wheel.

So when I hear of all these DUI's (never been pulled over or tested for that in my life), I find they usually are driving stupid, not taking the necessary precautions of someone who doesn't want to get pulled over and tested in such a way.

I also don’t condone driving while intoxicated and if that were the only issue here I’d be more inclined to let it play out. What I find troubling is the fact that he may have violated his probation. This is where I find it a problem that he needs help with. Knowing you are on probation and can walk away Scot free in a few weeks and still drinking and getting behind the wheel would tell me that he is either narcissistic to the point where he cares about no one else but himself or he has an issue with alcohol.

 

[bigcc]

Yes, I think that you can, or at least you could in the past. It used to be that you could ask for your doctor/lawyer to be present during the sampling, but I think they've done away with that provision.

In any event, the delaying tactic is not always successful. The court knows the science, that except in rare cases, alcohol is processed by the liver at a rate of .016% per hour no matter how big or small you are. If you delay the sampling for two or three hours then test at a .07, they'll know that you were legally drunk when the stop occurred. It's an inescapable conclusion.

Is that actually how they read it? If it is/was that's actually incorrect.

ALCOHOL METABOLISM

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Didn't mean to link to that portion of the study, but if you scroll around you can read that there are numerous factors that can play into alcohol metabolism.

EDIT: I think you're right about doctor/lawyer present, but you can still ask for a blood draw in general can't you? Still takes more time going from point of arrest, to the station, to get through the entirety of booking, to a blood draw

 

[pmedic920]

Geno portion aside, can't you refuse a breathalyzer in favor of blood draw with no legal repercussions?

If you think there's even remotely a chance of time saving you from being over/under .08,seems to me like the extra time getting to the station/being booked would absolutely be worth it.

But again I really don't know the law around that

In Texas if you refuse a sobriety test in the field including breathalyzer or not, you automatically get your license suspended for a year (I THINK, maybe 6 months) regardless of the outcome from blood work.

If they suspect you of DUI and you refuse, they will get a warrant for blood draw.

Having said that, it depends on where you are and what agency pulls you over.

DPS (department of public safety) State Troopers and your phucked.

Local and/or Sheriff departments and it’s a crap shoot.

 

[bigcc]

In Texas if you refuse a sobriety test in the field including breathalyzer or not, you automatically get your license suspended for a year (I THINK, maybe 6 months) regardless of the outcome from blood work.

If they suspect you of DUI and you refuse, they will get a warrant for blood draw.

Having said that, it depends on where you are and what agency pulls you over.

DPS (department of public safety) State Troopers and your phucked.

Local and/or Sheriff departments and it’s a crap shoot.

Quoting for future purposes of not getting banned by avoiding censors using "phucked"

Jokes aside, I don't know if you meant state patrols generally or just in Texas, but sherm was arrested by Washington state patrol, not a local king county officer.

Ex-Seahawks star Richard Sherman arrested by Washington State Patrol for suspected DUI

Former Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman was arrested early Saturday morning for suspicion of DUI, according to the Washington State Patrol.

komonews.com

 

[RiverDog]

Is that actually how they read it? If it is/was that's actually incorrect.

ALCOHOL METABOLISM

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Didn't mean to link to that portion of the study, but if you scroll around you can read that there are numerous factors that can play into alcohol metabolism.

EDIT: I think you're right about doctor/lawyer present, but you can still ask for a blood draw in general can't you? Still takes more time going from point of arrest, to the station, to get through the entirety of booking, to a blood draw

Yes, there are a number of factors that can influence the burn rate of alcohol in humans. Gender is one, heart rate another. They used to say that breathing heavy would help reduce your BAC as about 10% of the alcohol is processed by the lungs, but I've since heard that's BS.

But my understanding is that there's not a lot of wiggle room, that the .016% per hour is pretty constant amongst adult men, at least constant enough to conclude they were above the threshold a couple hours earlier. Additionally, the BAC is just one piece of evidence. If it shows that you've been drinking, they can charge you with a DUI regardless of whether or not you tested over the threshold.

As far as blood samples vs. breathalyzer, I think you're correct, that you can request a blood sample. Additionally, I think you can request that a vial be drawn and sent to a testing lab of your choosing. For example, I use LabCorp for my blood screen that checks for various stuff like cholesterol, glucose, et al.

Back to the thing about Geno's incident. He truly did luck out. At the time, they had a huge backlog of cases that caused a year's delay in the processing of his sample. Also, the refrigerator they were using to store his sample in broke down, and although they were confident that the samples were not corrupted, combined with the huge backlog, it would have opened them up to litigation over their handling of the samples. That's one of the reasons why the prosecutor decided to drop the charges. He's not going to unzip his fly in a high-profile case like that one.

 

[RiverDog]

In Texas if you refuse a sobriety test in the field including breathalyzer or not, you automatically get your license suspended for a year (I THINK, maybe 6 months) regardless of the outcome from blood work.

All states have similar laws.

If they suspect you of DUI and you refuse, they will get a warrant for blood draw.

That's true here. It's called implied consent. That's what they did in Geno's case. They called a judge who issued a search warrant.

Having said that, it depends on where you are and what agency pulls you over.

DPS (department of public safety) State Troopers and your phucked.

Local and/or Sheriff departments and it’s a crap shoot.

That's a technicality that's easily overcome. If you get pulled over by a city cop outside their city limits, they immediately call for a sheriff or state patrol from the appropriate jurisdiction to come to the scene. The city cop can't conduct a search or do much investigating, but they can detain you until a LE from within the jurisdiction and with the proper authority arrives.

My BIL had this happen to him a few years ago. He got pulled over and was demanding that the cop give him a roadside breathalyzer test, but the cop refused because he was a city cop outside his jurisdiction and couldn't administer it until the sheriff arrived.

In WA, I believe that all DUI cases and other major traffic infractions go to the appropriate county jail/courthouse, that the cities aren't involved except for making the arrest.

 

[bigcc]

Yes, there are a number of factors that can influence the burn rate of alcohol in humans. Gender is one, heart rate another. They used to say that breathing heavy would help reduce your BAC as about 10% of the alcohol is processed by the lungs, but I've since heard that's BS.

But my understanding is that there's not a lot of wiggle room, that the .016% per hour is pretty constant amongst adult men, at least constant enough to conclude they were above the threshold a couple hours earlier. Additionally, the BAC is just one piece of evidence. If it shows that you've been drinking, they can charge you with a DUI regardless of whether or not you tested over the threshold.

As far as blood samples vs. breathalyzer, I think you're correct, that you can request a blood sample. Additionally, I think you can request that a vial be drawn and sent to a testing lab of your choosing. For example, I use LabCorp for my blood screen that checks for various stuff like cholesterol, glucose, et al.

Back to the thing about Geno's incident. He truly did luck out. At the time, they had a huge backlog of cases that caused a year's delay in the processing of his sample. Also, the refrigerator they were using to store his sample in broke down, and although they were confident that the samples were not corrupted, combined with the huge backlog, it would have opened them up to litigation over their handling of the samples. That's one of the reasons why the prosecutor decided to drop the charges. He's not going to unzip his fly in a high-profile case like that one.

A lot of good points here, I'd forgotten they can still charge you even under the limit. I also didn't know any of that about geno's sample, thanks for explaining that, pretty interesting, lucky guy.

 

[Cyrus12]

Free Sherman!

 

[cymatica]

He got pulled over for going 79 mph, what an idiot. Must have had a good buzz going amplifying that pompous attitude