Current Events > After 4th DWI, man argues legal limit discriminates against alcoholics

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.statesman.com/news/after-4th-dwi-man-argues-legal-limit-discriminates-against-alcoholics/7M59MPAdu5WImE2s9tTuPP/

After his fourth driving-while-intoxicated conviction in 2016, a San Antonio man tried to overturn his four-year prison sentence by arguing that Texas legal limit on intoxicated driving discriminates against alcoholics.

Ralph Alfred Friesenhahn argued that the states driving limit of 0.08 blood-alcohol concentration ignores the higher tolerances that frequent drinkers have to the effects of liquor, allowing the protected class of alcoholics to be prosecuted without having to prove that they had lost control of their mental or physical abilities.

The Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals wasnt buying it, saying in an opinion issued Friday that state law does not unfairly single out alcoholics because it applies equally to all drivers.

Friesenhahn not only failed to present evidence that alcoholics are a protected class under the Americans With Disabilities Act or other federal law, he also failed to prove that the law treats alcoholics differently than other DWI defendants, said the opinion by Justice Cindy Olson Bourland.

Instead, he argues that they should be treated differently and thus fails to establish an equal-protection violation, Bourland wrote.

Friesenhahn was arrested after a single-car rollover accident along a rural Comal County road south of New Braunfels. Blood tests later indicated that he had an alcohol concentration of 0.29 more than 3 times the legal limit.

His trial lawyer, Gina Jones of New Braunfels, moved to quash Friesenhahns indictment, arguing that the legal driving limit discriminated against alcoholics, but state District Judge Jack Robison denied the request.

After Friesenhahn was convicted of felony DWI because of his prior alcohol-related convictions, Jones made the same argument on appeal, leading to Fridays 3rd Court of Appeals decision upholding Robisons ruling. Jones has not yet responded to an interview request.

Sammy McCrary, chief of the felony division for the Comal County criminal district attorneys office, said it is ridiculous and misleading to suggest that the law treats alcoholics differently.

Youre not being punished for being an alcoholic. Its the driving thats the problem, McCrary said. Its making the decision to get into a 3,000-pound vehicle after drinking.

Trial records show that Friesenhahn also was convicted for driving while intoxicated in Victoria County in 1985 and Bexar County in 1990 and 1998, McCrary said.

Although Friesenhahn argued for leniency in drunken driving laws, the trend has been moving in the opposite direction.

In 1999, the Texas Legislature lowered the states legal driving limit from a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.10 to the current 0.08, a limit eventually adopted by every state, and pressure is on to go even lower.

The National Transportation Safety Board in 2013 recommended that states reduce the legal limit to 0.05, saying the move could cut fatal accidents almost in half, and last month the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine made the same suggestion, saying studies found lower accident rates in countries that adopted the lower limit.

Last year, Utah became the first state to cut its limit to 0.05 in a law that takes effect Dec. 30.

---

Maybe just put down the bottle?
---

Was expecting Florida, got Texas...

But...yeah..

What a bunch of crap.
---

fire thief strikes again
---

Trial records show that Friesenhahn also was convicted for driving while intoxicated in Victoria County in 1985 and Bexar County in 1990 and 1998, McCrary said.

That's chilling. This guy has been driving around drunk off his ass for the last three decades and only got caught four times.
---

He's not wrong. But alcoholics aren't a protected class and keeping drunks off the road is a higher priority.

And when I say he's not wrong I mean the 0.08 limit is low for many alcoholics compared to the occasional drinker.
---

life in prison

no tolerance for scumbag lushes who drive
---

I'll go out on a limb and say even if they agreed with his argument, 0.29 would still put him safely over any reasonable limit they would ever have instated.

Most people wouldn't be conscious at that level.
---

Smh libertarians
---

having a 0.29 BAC isn't illegal. Drinking until you get a 0.29 BAC and then getting in a motor vehicle and driving is what's illegal. Like, you probably just spent like $50 on alcohol, fucking spend another $7 on Uber to get your ass home.
---

I bet I could drive at .10 better than most of the drivers on the road sober
---

ChainedRedone posted...

He's not wrong. But alcoholics aren't a protected class and keeping drunks off the road is a higher priority.

And when I say he's not wrong I mean the 0.08 limit is low for many alcoholics compared to the occasional drinker.

Most places impose a zero tolerance law afte the first DUI. So even .1% gets you another DUI. Im not agreeing with this guy I support the drinking limit laws Im just saying.
---

Well he tried
---

Anyone with 4 DWI/DUIs should be hung.
---

Fuck him. I don't get drive above the speed limit just because my car is safer and handles better than someone else's 20 year old vehicle.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

Fuck him. I don't get drive above the speed limit just because my car is safer and handles better than someone else's 20 year old vehicle.

It wouldn't be worth trying to enforce but if they had tiered license plates to account for shit like this, it would be nice, that said, just because your vehicle is safe at higher speeds doesn't mean other people can react fast enough.
---

The guy is a moron, but he does have a point. For someone who knows how to hold their liquor, you can still drive safely as a 0.08.

At 0.29, he has no excuse.
---

Someone saying you can drive safely at 0.08 shouldn't be throwing glass houses.
---

I'm guessing .08 is like 2-3 vodka tonics? I barely even get buzzed off that, never mind impaired.

But I've never tried a breathalyzer so I don't even know how many drinks it takes me to get to .08
---

thronedfire2 posted...

I'm guessing .08 is like 2-3 vodka tonics? I barely even get buzzed off that, never mind impaired.

But I've never tried a breathalyzer so I don't even know how many drinks it takes me to get to .08

It depends on your tolerance. You could drink enough and not feel anything since its your normal and you might think youre ok to drive but youre really well over the limit and still not fit to drive. Id say an alcoholic would have that type of tolerance.
---

thronedfire2 posted...

I'm guessing .08 is like 2-3 vodka tonics? I barely even get buzzed off that, never mind impaired.

But I've never tried a breathalyzer so I don't even know how many drinks it takes me to get to .08

That's pretty much it. I actually do have a Breathalyzer that one of my friends got me as a birthday gift one year, and it's really not a lot. I'll hit that after ~2.5 scotches in an hour.
---

The Admiral posted...

The guy is a moron, but he does have a point. For someone who knows how to hold their liquor, you can still drive safely as a 0.08.

At 0.29, he has no excuse.

This.
---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

I bet I could drive at .10 better than most of the drivers on the road sober

... which is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to people driving drunk and putting others in danger
---

The Admiral posted...

thronedfire2 posted...

I'm guessing .08 is like 2-3 vodka tonics? I barely even get buzzed off that, never mind impaired.

But I've never tried a breathalyzer so I don't even know how many drinks it takes me to get to .08

That's pretty much it. I actually do have a Breathalyzer that one of my friends got me as a birthday gift one year, and it's really not a lot. I'll hit that after ~2.5 scotches in an hour.

And honestly most people shouldn't be driving if they've had more than 2 drinks.
---

frozenshock posted...

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

I bet I could drive at .10 better than most of the drivers on the road sober

... which is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to people driving drunk and putting others in danger

Id bet money it's true though
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Someone saying you can drive safely at 0.08 shouldn't be throwing glass houses.

The whole house?
---

The fact that he was arrested after rolling his car over (no other cars involved) with a BAC of 0.29 basically makes him lolworthy for trying to fight against this
---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

Id bet money it's true though

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/motr/when-it-comes-to-driving-most-people-think-their-skills-are-above-average.html
---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

frozenshock posted...

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

I bet I could drive at .10 better than most of the drivers on the road sober

... which is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to people driving drunk and putting others in danger

Id bet money it's true though

Better than most drivers doesnt mean youd be a good and alert driver while drunk. Youre trying to say that most people are so bad that youd still be better drunk. True or not you still wouldnt be fit to drive safely. A bad driver can still be a safe driver so to speak. That shrinks significantly when youre inebriated.
---

This can only be settled via trial
---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

This can only be settled via trial

The mythbusters did it >_>. They were worse while drunk and pretty good sober.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

This can only be settled via trial

The mythbusters did it >_>. They were worse while drunk and pretty good sober.

Actually, from what I remember, Kari drove worse sober than Tory did drunk.
---

The Admiral posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

This can only be settled via trial

The mythbusters did it >_>. They were worse while drunk and pretty good sober.

Actually, from what I remember, Kari drove worse sober than Tory did drunk.

I don't have an article, but I once (some years ago) read that they did a study in Denmark or the Netherlands or somewhere and had people drive at different levels of impairment and overall, people with a few drinks in them drive better than they did sober. Somewhere like .04-.05 had the best results.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

The Admiral posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

This can only be settled via trial

The mythbusters did it >_>. They were worse while drunk and pretty good sober.

Actually, from what I remember, Kari drove worse sober than Tory did drunk.

I don't have an article, but I once (some years ago) read that they did a study in Denmark or the Netherlands or somewhere and had people drive at different levels of impairment and overall, people with a few drinks in them drive better than they did sober. Somewhere like .04-.05 had the best results.

I wouldn't personally argue that someone would drive better at 0.08, and I'm fine saying their driving will definitely be somewhat worse. But the original comment I made was that some people can still drive safely at that limit, particularly people who hold their alcohol well. This is the point the alcogolic was trying to make.

However, for many people, driving at that level is definitely dangerous.
---

spudger posted...

life in prison

no tolerance for scumbag lushes who drive

Same with the soyboys who can't put their phones down while they're driving. LIGHT EM UP
---

The Admiral posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

The Admiral posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

This can only be settled via trial

The mythbusters did it >_>. They were worse while drunk and pretty good sober.

Actually, from what I remember, Kari drove worse sober than Tory did drunk.

I don't have an article, but I once (some years ago) read that they did a study in Denmark or the Netherlands or somewhere and had people drive at different levels of impairment and overall, people with a few drinks in them drive better than they did sober. Somewhere like .04-.05 had the best results.

I wouldn't personally argue that someone would drive better at 0.08, and I'm fine saying their driving will definitely be somewhat worse. But the original comment I made was that some people can still drive safely at that limit, particularly people who hold their alcohol well. This is the point the alcogolic was trying to make.

However, for many people, driving at that level is definitely dangerous.

Yeah that's fair. Someone inexperienced shouldn't do it, but I know plenty of people who are absolutely fine at around the legal limit... and far above even, though I would never advocate that they should be able to legally drive at .20 or whatever just simply because they can safely do so and have demonstrated so on many occasions.
---