Postby dolfan » October 23rd, 2008, 8:42 am
The law is against driving under the influence of alcohol, not driving after drinking alcohol. That's why there are limits on BAC, which limits define what "under the influence" is, not simply whether there is a BAC at all. And, the other method of proving DUI than BAC is field sobriety. In this case, this court believed that the police officer didn't establish "driving under the influence" with sufficient proof of enough failure of field sobriety indicators. My point was simply that it takes more than proof of drinking alcohol before driving to rightly convict for DUI. And, apparently here, the only thing that could be proved was consumption before driving. That, alone, is not criminal.
Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven. (David Lipscomb, On Civil Government, 72).