Nevada Law Enforcement

[Royd 0]

Quote

$177 for doing 89 mph in a 65. $350 for an open container.(passenger) What's wrong w/ this picture? Town. Gold Mine, Nevada. One lady is the judge, jury and executioner.

You're lucky to even be posting.

People get swallowed up in small town Nevada.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Drinking while driving is really not defendable.

Sure it is. What is the difference between chugging one beer in the parking lot of the DZ and then driving to the pizza joint and having that same beer while driving to the pizza joint?

As long as you are not intoxicated and remain under the legal blood alcohol limit, what in the hell is wrong with drinking a beer while driving?

Personal responsibility? There are no positives to drinking while behind the wheel and obvious negatives. Chugging one and then immediately driving isn't really much better, even if it fits into the scope of the laws. A responsible person would do neither.

It's a big difference from someone having pizza and beer at the joint and then driving home afterwards, provided the consumption is within reason. Even waiting just 10 or 20 minutes, you can accurately assess your condition and suitability to drive. You will only get more sober as you go. This is not true for the chug and drive, or the drink and drive.

Why are all these laws in place? Because too many people are dying and groups like MADD have worked aggressively to continuously up the ante.

[Scoop 0]

Quote

Being in posession of your car keys whilst in your car with the engine off is also considered drinking and driving.

We havce a similar offence in the UK called 'drunk in charge of a motor vehicle' but its rarely enforced unless it is considered the person will drive. If I found someone really drunk in their car sleeping it I've either told them to put the keys in the boot so its obvious they have no intention of driving and noone could really argue they were 'in charge' or I have confiscated the keys and got another patrol to drop them off later. I also had a good arrest out of it though. A guy had drove all the way home, then fallen asleep in his car outside his house he nearly made it! Unfortunately for him I spotted him and he was nicked. Rightly so too. He was 4 times over the limit

Alot of offences sound like a piss take and they can unfortunately be abused. There original foundings were as a catch all where existing law failed like in my example. He wasn't driving but he had been, so why should he get away with it?

BTW your traffic law sounds a lot harsher than ours and some of your cops sound lke they have no element of discretion from what I read. THey just identify (often petty) offences and ticket them. THe common sense approach to policing is sadly going out the window

[Amazon 7]

Quote

In Wyoming passengers can drink.

Hmm So you are saying its ok for Dick Cheney to be drinking as long as someone else is driving.. on the way to go hunting....scary

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

THe common sense approach to policing is sadly going out the window

It's being forced out the window by a litigious society. With the lack of personal responsibility, a cop can do the "right" thing and wake up the guy and have him put the keys away and then let him sleep it off in the back seat.

Cop leaves, the guy wakes up and drives and crashes into a tree.

The guy sues the cop and wins.

This might be as much of a reason for cops ticketing petty offenses as other things like a community trying to collect ticket revenue and cops that are just jerky about pissy stuff.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[skycop 0]

Exactly,
Many years ago we did get creative in dealing with people. I've taken keys away, had drunks sleep it off in their cars etc., unfortunately those days are long gone.
I've been sued for giving someone a break (not related to the above situations). Now because of this I no longer give this particular break, and this has cost jail time for folks that usually woundn't get jail time.
Sorry state of affairs really, the civil court system has turned into a quasi lottery.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Cheers John... It's a strange logic though, isn't it? Because if the driver had been drinking it would show up on a Breathaliser Test.

I totally agree with that. I don't think it should matter whether there's an open container in the car....only if the driver is over the legal limit. If ya' want to have a beer on the way home from work, it shouldn't be against the law, imho, unless your BAC is over the legal limit in your state. But, unfortunately, it is. Having an open container in the car is a separate issue from drunk driving, at least in AR.

indeed since in many states the way the 'open container' law is written it is also applied to empty containers... even in the back bed of your trunk...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[SkyjunkySean 0]

wow ! just read this whole thread & yours seems to be the only remotely responsible responce. in Cali we have a .08 limit anything under & you can be cited for "driving while impaired".much lesser offense thatn dui. Hada buddy killed by a guy who blew a .06 . Drinking & driving is stooooopid & Irresponsible. now I welcome the raining down of inflammatory comments. to which I will reply in advance wait till someone you care about is either killed by or kills somoene because there was booze in the car.

[Lindsey 0]

to which I will reply in advance wait till someone you care about is either killed by or kills somoene because there was booze in the car.

Many of us have lost people we loved because of drunk drivers. However, people aren't usually killed because of booze in the car, but because of people driving impaired.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[akarunway 1]

Quote

to which I will reply in advance wait till someone you care about is either killed by or kills somoene because there was booze in the car.

Many of us have lost people we loved because of drunk drivers. However, people aren't usually killed because of booze in the car, but because of people driving impaired.

Now I'll respond after reading all. I WAS THE PASSENGER. She was the DD on a long drive. Private vechicle. But. If I were in a commercial vechicle ie: tour bus ,taxi, etc. OK. So explain the reasoning to me. And the cop did give us a break. Only wrote us up for 14 over mph.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

to which I will reply in advance wait till someone you care about is either killed by or kills somoene because there was booze in the car.

Many of us have lost people we loved because of drunk drivers. However, people aren't usually killed because of booze in the car, but because of people driving impaired.

That misses the point. The legislative intent behind an open container law is to create as many obstacles to a person having easy access to alcohol (a "quick sip") while in the act of driving. As I said above, it's a balancing of social interests. In other words, the legislators have decided that the fact that this may also inconvenience mere passengers who'd like to drink while riding is less important than the benefit gained by impeding drinking while driving.

[ExAFO 0]

I took one swig of Nyquill for a cold one winter when I was 19. Hit an icy patch, nearly got hit for a zero tolerance DUI charge, had I not given the cop the business card for the CPD Sergeant that lived next door to me... He told me to park the car and walk, and have my family pick it up.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

to which I will reply in advance wait till someone you care about is either killed by or kills somoene because there was booze in the car.

Many of us have lost people we loved because of drunk drivers. However, people aren't usually killed because of booze in the car, but because of people driving impaired.

That misses the point. The legislative intent behind an open container law is to create as many obstacles to a person having easy access to alcohol (a "quick sip") while in the act of driving. As I said above, it's a balancing of social interests. In other words, the legislators have decided that the fact that this may also inconvenience mere passengers who'd like to drink while riding is less important than the benefit gained by impeding drinking while driving.

I do get your point, but I think that having a beer in the car shouldn't be illegal. What should be illegal (and is) is driving intoxicated. A person having a beer while driving home from work is no more impaired than a person who just had a beer at the bar and then drives home. Neither should be illegal, imho, unless that beer puts the driver's BAC over the legal limit in that state.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I do get your point, but I think that having a beer in the car shouldn't be illegal. What should be illegal (and is) is driving intoxicated. A person having a beer while driving home from work is no more impaired than a person who just had a beer at the bar and then drives home. Neither should be illegal, imho, unless that beer puts the driver's BAC over the legal limit in that state.

I get your point, but having a beer or two while driving just seems completely idiotic whether you get buzzed on it or not. Beer's effects go away with time - having one WHILE driving pretty much takes away the rules on how long to wait until driving, etc.

AND, anyone that feels they need a drink during their drive has a MUCH higher chance of being an abuser.

And, since having an open container in the car (under current laws) is a hit on the driver's record and not the passenger's, then drinking as a passenger is just a crappy thing to do to a friend who's driving regardless of whether it's 'right' or not. It ranks right up there with bringing drugs secretly into a friend's house.

This whole thread is just a pile of crap except that it explains why the rest of us have to have so many extra laws because a few people just don't have any sense at all.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,120]

>What should be illegal (and is) is driving intoxicated. A person
>having a beer while driving home from work is no more impaired than a
>person who just had a beer at the bar and then drives home.

I agree - but - it makes enforcement a lot harder. If you can legally drink in your car, then the argument "I was perfectly sober driving home, but those beers I had just before I was pulled over got into my system while the cop was talking to me" gets used. It's already a common defense, but often impractical due to time frames (i.e. if you weren't drinking in the car, then you must have had X hours to absorb the alcohol already.)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>What should be illegal (and is) is driving intoxicated. A person
>having a beer while driving home from work is no more impaired than a
>person who just had a beer at the bar and then drives home.

I agree - but - it makes enforcement a lot harder. If you can legally drink in your car, then the argument "I was perfectly sober driving home, but those beers I had just before I was pulled over got into my system while the cop was talking to me" gets used. It's already a common defense, but often impractical due to time frames (i.e. if you weren't drinking in the car, then you must have had X hours to absorb the alcohol already.)

"Heck Officer that alcohol reading was from the 3 beers I chugged right here in front of you while you were checking your computer. You saw it, you're the witness. But I wasn't driving and I just put my keys in the trunk."

What the hell, why not just have a couple with the cop right there?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lindsey 0]

I get your point, but having a beer or two while driving just seems completely idiotic whether you get buzzed on it or not. Beer's effects go away with time - having one WHILE driving pretty much takes away the rules on how long to wait until driving, etc.

There aren't any rules about how long to wait until driving as far as I'm aware. But if you have several drinks, then you certainly should wait so that your body has time to metabolize what you have ingested so that you are not intoxicated when you do drive.

It doesn't *seem* idiotic to me.

AND, anyone that feels they need a drink during their drive has a MUCH higher chance of being an abuser.


I think that anyone who feels they need a drink at all has a higher chance of having a problem with alcohol than a person who doesn't feel that need. I'm not sure than a person enjoying a beer on the way home from work would raise his likelihood of being an abuser. BUT, say he/she does have an alcohol problem....as long as they're not intoxicated while driving, I couldn't care less.

....because a few people just don't have any sense at all.

Hmm. Again it comes down to a person doesn't "have any sense at all" because we don't see it your way. I think that was kind of a shitty thing to say, and I think you're wrong.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Lindsey 0]

I agree - but - it makes enforcement a lot harder.

I think that's the crux of the issue right there. And that does kinda make sense, though I do think people should be left alone unless they're doing something wrong.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

the argument "I was perfectly sober driving home, but those beers I had just before I was pulled over got into my system while the cop was talking to me" gets used.

Yes, and it was an argument I myself used successfully several times as an attorney defending DUI cases, and that was in states that already had closed container laws. Example: "My client was arrested just 5 minutes after drinking a big glass of Scotch, intending just to go to his house around the corner. When he was stopped, his BAC was still no higher than 0.04, so he hadn't broken the law yet. It wasn't until he arrived at the police station for his breath test that his BAC exceeded the limit."

Since then, most states have revised their DUI laws to remove this loophole, reasoning that if you've drunk enough alcohol to put you over the legal limit, you shouldn't be allowed to dash around in a car for 15 minutes or so until your bloodstream becomes sufficiently toxic. "Drink enough to get drunk, don't drive – period." I think that's a reasonable policy.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

There aren't any rules about how long to wait until driving as far as I'm aware. But if you have several drinks, then you certainly should wait so that your body has time to metabolize what you have ingested so that you are not intoxicated when you do drive.

This is exactly why you're wrong when you say there's little difference between drinking while driving versus finishing a beer and then getting into the car.
You're getting drunker in the first case.

And I have to agree - the number of what ifs presented here show that people really do need hundreds of specific laws on alcohol, because they're not going to be sensible about it.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I do think people should be left alone unless they're doing something wrong.

So do I, in principle. But just as a pilot can get in trouble for "tolerating" certain kinds of misbehavior by skydiver passengers, I don't have a problem with a legislature deciding that a driver is "doing something wrong" by tolerating an open container of alcohol in the car he's driving.

I don't tolerate a person not wearing seatbelts in any car I'm driving. It's no harder to not tolerate them having an open container of alcohol.

[Lindsey 0]

This is exactly why you're wrong when you say there's little difference between drinking while driving versus finishing a beer and then getting into the car.
You're getting drunker in the first case.

Actually, depending on how long it takes you to drive home, you're probably drunker in the second case if you drink the same amount.....as discussed above, it takes time for alcohol to absorb.

You shouldn't be drinking enough to become intoxicated and get behind the wheel of a car....that's the best way I've heard it put, and I think that's right.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

I do get your point, but I think that having a beer in the car shouldn't be illegal. What should be illegal (and is) is driving intoxicated. A person having a beer while driving home from work is no more impaired than a person who just had a beer at the bar and then drives home. Neither should be illegal, imho, unless that beer puts the driver's BAC over the legal limit in that state.

I get your point, but having a beer or two while driving just seems completely idiotic whether you get buzzed on it or not. Beer's effects go away with time - having one WHILE driving pretty much takes away the rules on how long to wait until driving, etc.

AND, anyone that feels they need a drink during their drive has a MUCH higher chance of being an abuser.

And, since having an open container in the car (under current laws) is a hit on the driver's record and not the passenger's, then drinking as a passenger is just a crappy thing to do to a friend who's driving regardless of whether it's 'right' or not. It ranks right up there with bringing drugs secretly into a friend's house.

This whole thread is just a pile of crap except that it explains why the rest of us have to have so many extra laws because a few people just don't have any sense at all.

Wrong. Different states, different laws. No menton of my daughter or the vehicle at all on my open container ticket. All mine. Edit to add: I thought Nevada prolly didn't have open container laws. I can go rent a legal hooker but not drink a beer in a car as a passenger. Com'n folks. It all boils down to REVENUE

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

No menton of my daughter or the vehicle at all on my open container ticket. All mine.

Then in this case, I'm on your side.

I'm glad your daughter didn't get dinged for you being thirsty.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

"Heck Officer that alcohol reading was from the 3 beers I chugged right here in front of you while you were checking your computer. You saw it, you're the witness. But I wasn't driving and I just put my keys in the trunk."

What the hell, why not just have a couple with the cop right there?

And funny enough that just rarely ever happens in those places where drinking while driving is allowed as long as you are under the legal blood alcohol limit.