Mike Gundy seemingly admitting to driving under the influence "a thousand times in my life" in defense of star player's DUI arrest.

[Hates Monikers]

Yeah, used to be 0.10 all over the place and then everyone made it 0.08.

Yes, it's up to the states, but in about 2000 Congress required states to lower the limit to 0.08 or risk losing federal highway funds. Minnesota didn't want to, and we were one of the last states to make the change. Rep. Tom Rukavina famously said at the time, "On the Range, we wake up at .08."

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Despite (significantly) reduced reaction times, reduced cognition and ability to multitask, reduced vision and hearing senior citizens 70+have lower accident rates than young people.

So, it isn’t just being intoxicated, it’s being an intoxicated AND reckless driver AND having some psychological traits, poor judgment, speeding and so on. It’s maybe not PC to say so but most people “a little tipsy” are still…relatively safe (don’t get me wrong, nobody driving with a BAC over 0.8 has acceptable reaction time or multitasking ability), while a bad driver who is “a little tipsy” is a true menace but is probably a (little less) scary and dangerous driver even when sober. Going further there are those that drive through buildings, or down the wrong side of the street, or pass out driving. Deeper issues.

Personally I’ve had more run-in’s and near misses with people on their cell phones at 8 AM driving to work/school. My reflexes are good. I’m not sure if the latest data on distracted versus DUIare in but they can’t be good. Accident rates are up, methinks.

 

[denguegopher]

Despite (significantly) reduced reaction times, reduced cognition and ability to multitask, reduced vision and hearing senior citizens 70+have lower accident rates than young people.

So, it isn’t just being intoxicated, it’s being an intoxicated AND reckless driver AND having some psychological traits, poor judgment, speeding and so on. It’s maybe not PC to say so but most people “a little tipsy” are still…relatively safe (don’t get me wrong, nobody driving with a BAC over 0.8 has acceptable reaction time or multitasking ability), while a bad driver who is “a little tipsy” is a true menace but is probably a (little less) scary and dangerous driver even when sober. Going further there are those that drive through buildings, or down the wrong side of the street, or pass out driving. Deeper issues.

Personally I’ve had more run-in’s and near misses with people on their cell phones at 8 AM driving to work/school. My reflexes are good. I’m not sure if the latest data on distracted versus DUIare in but they can’t be good. Accident rates are up, methinks.

Looks like they can have similar effects. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ab...KTRcPDHzsU3uULFZpBeU0CHbDnlwOb2WW4DwLuIsYdXyA

 

[denguegopher]

Refusing the test at the station isn't an automatic DWI, it's a violation of Minnesota's implied consent law. (Which is based on the idea that, when you apply for a DL in Minnesota, you are consenting to being tested if suspected of driving under the influence.) The result of refusing a field test like a breathalyzer is that you may be arrested on suspicion of DWI and you will be taken "downtown" to be tested. You have the right to consult with a lawyer if you wish before testing.

Requesting to speak to a lawyer before you are arrested should not impact whether you are arrested, but I am sure that, as a practical matter, that does sometimes happen. Most often, it probably just speeds up the process since the officer planning to arrest you may delay that arrest as long as possible to continue to gather information. Once you ask to talk to a lawyer, and are no longer giving up information, the arrest occurs. That might make it seem like the request prompted the arrest, but in those circumstances you were probably going to be arrested at the end of the communication anyway.

Thanks. This is what I have seen on police shows. So I had the sequence of events correct, but perhaps not the cause and effect.

 

[WilliamsArenaGuy]

not defending drunk driving - but putting in cultural context:

in rural areas, what Gundy is talking about used to be routine. when I was in my late teens and early 20's, my buddies and I would spend nights just driving around and drinking - 4 or 5 guys in a car with a case of beer, tooling around on back roads, just BS'ing.

the cultural attitude was different. then times changed - more attention was given to drunk driving and the penalties for getting arrested got a lot stronger. and the guys in my social circle got older and most of us tried to act more like adults.

but - back in the day, in a rural setting, people would have 4 or 5 beers or mixed drinks, and drive home from the local bar every night of the week. that is what Gundy is talking about.

That's called Road Trippin'

The #1 pastime where I grew up.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

OK - found this on a law firm's website. this firm apparently handles a lot of DWI cases.

According to Minnesota Statute § 169A.51, any person who drives or operates a motor vehicle in the state consents to a chemical test of their breath for the purpose of determining if they are under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. This is known as “implied consent.”

Essentially, if you are suspected of driving while intoxicated (DWI), and you refuse to take a breath test, you can be penalized. Under Minnesota’s implied consent law, you could face civil and criminal penalties for refusing to take a chemical DWI test.

Currently, the penalties for a first-time refusal include:

• One-year license revocation
• Up to $3,000 in fines
• Maximum of one year in jail

You should also know that refusing to take a breath test could result in a separate gross misdemeanor charge—which is typically more serious than a first-time DWI offense. For this reason, it may not be in your best interest to refuse. With the help of a defense attorney you may be able to challenge the outcome of your breath test.

While the state’s implied consent law previously included breath, blood and urine tests, the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that a search warrant is required for DWI blood tests. The court stated that “Blood draws are serious intrusions into the human body that implicate a person’s most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy”—which goes against our Fourth Amendment rights.

For this reason, police are now required to obtain a warrant before testing a suspected drunk driver’s blood. This means that you cannot be penalized for refusing to consent to a warrantless blood draw. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court did uphold the constitutionality of warrantless breath tests, which means that you can still be penalized for refusing to take a breath test after a DWI arrest.

 

[mngg11]

Just so you guys are aware, the breath test isn't the little portable thing LEOs carry in their car, it's the intoxilyzer machine at the station or jail. If you're there, you've already been placed under arrest for suspicion of dwi and refusal to submit to the real breath test is a second crime. The little portable unit gives LEOs a baseline but they've already assessed whether they're going to arrest you for dwi at that point, it basically helps tell them if your intoxication is alcohol or a controlled substance and whether a breath test or a warrant for blood are the preferred testing option.

Officers are trained to assess whether to arrest on the eye and balance tests before they get anywhere further. Part of the implied consent process following arrest puts an arrestee in the position to be able to consult with a lawyer to decide if they'll test or not befofe any testing occurs. A lawyer will never tell a person not to test because they'd be telling that person to commit a crime under state law and they'd lose their license to practice if they did so. And if one refuses a test regardless, they'll get taken up to the ER for a blood draw based off of a search warrant. It's a lose lose situation to drink and drive, there's no workaround to a DWI unless the officer has no probable cause for the stop or no probable cause to get you out of your vehicle to do field sobriety or no probable cause based off the FST results and arrests you anyways. Incompetence or time delay are the only ways you beat a dwi arrest.

 

[hungan1]

Nothing good happens after midnight. Unfortunately, many college parties are just warming up.

 

[cheeseheadgophfan]

Yes, it is "literally" how much alcohol is in your bloodstream. But the factors I mentioned impact how quickly that alcohol enters and exits your bloodstream. So two 45 year-old men who each weigh 200 pounds and each consumed six shots of Cuervo an hour ago may not have the exact same BAC. Especially if one has an empty stomach and the other is an experienced drinker with low grade liver failure who just came from an all you can eat buffet. Their bodies will each eventually process all of that alcohol, but that rate that the alcohol is processed is not identical and, therefore, their BAC at any one point in time may not be the same.

Another issue with your overly simplistic analysis is that you, like the online calculators, assume that the alcohol consumption is linear. For example, if our two 45 year-olds consumed their six shots of tequila between noon and 3pm, but one had all six shots by 12:30 and the other took one at noon and then five more at 2pm, they would not have the same BAC at 3:30pm.

I don't know where you got your law degree, but you should give it back. Food or lack of food does not impact your BAC. Otherwise, a blood test and a breath test would yield different results and they don't. And my "simplistic" analysis doesn't assume anything. Once you start drinking, your blood automatically dissipates the alcohol at a rate of .015% per hour. Thus, your example in your 2nd paragraph is correct, but not because of your reasoning. It's science, not simplistic.

 

[cheeseheadgophfan]

Refusing the test at the station isn't an automatic DWI, it's a violation of Minnesota's implied consent law. (Which is based on the idea that, when you apply for a DL in Minnesota, you are consenting to being tested if suspected of driving under the influence.) The result of refusing a field test like a breathalyzer is that you may be arrested on suspicion of DWI and you will be taken "downtown" to be tested. You have the right to consult with a lawyer if you wish before testing.

Requesting to speak to a lawyer before you are arrested should not impact whether you are arrested, but I am sure that, as a practical matter, that does sometimes happen. Most often, it probably just speeds up the process since the officer planning to arrest you may delay that arrest as long as possible to continue to gather information. Once you ask to talk to a lawyer, and are no longer giving up information, the arrest occurs. That might make it seem like the request prompted the arrest, but in those circumstances you were probably going to be arrested at the end of the communication anyway.

Your first paragraph is wrong again. The implied consent part is correct. However, there is no breathalyzer on scene. The officers can ask you to take a PBT if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that you are intoxicated. That comes from their observations of your driving, your behavior/speaking and your performance on field sobriety tests. If you refuse to take the tests, they can place you under arrest. If, based on all of those things, they place you under arrest and transport you to the station, they can than ask you to take a breathalyzer test. You can always refuse this test, but that is where the Implied Consent law comes into play.

 

[Dave H]

There's a reason the Gophers haven't won a B10 title in Men's basketball or football since 1982.

So if we condoned Drunk Driving we would win more? I am good with our record then...

 

[Dave H]

None of that is true. Food consumed, your drinking history, etc has nothing to do with your BAC...it might impact how you physically feel after consuming alcohol or how you perform on field sobriety tests, but BAC is literally how much alcohol is in your bloodstream. The only variables are how much you weigh and how long a period of time you've been drinking that day.

Plenty of factors figure in and yes food consumed is one of them. (I have taken alcohol training every year since 2005) For example, diet pop mixed with alcohol will get you drunk quicker statistically than regular pop because of how the body reacts to the artificial sweeteners or whatever. Diet pop forces your body to empty the stomach contents which allows for faster alcohol absorption. Study was actually confirmed by the U of M.

And the "training" we do is sponsored by the State of Minnesota so it is not some rinky dink BS deal.

 

[cheeseheadgophfan]

Plenty of factors figure in and yes food consumed is one of them. (I have taken alcohol training every year since 2005) For example, diet pop mixed with alcohol will get you drunk quicker statistically than regular pop because of how the body reacts to the artificial sweeteners or whatever. Diet pop forces your body to empty the stomach contents which allows for faster alcohol absorption. Study was actually confirmed by the U of M.

And the "training" we do is sponsored by the State of Minnesota so it is not some rinky dink BS deal.

I don't understand what you're saying......are you trying to insinuate that drinking diet pop and food consumption will lower your BAC? That's completely false. Does drinking diet pop and consuming food reduce the effects of alcohol on a body? Perhaps. "Diet pop mixed with alcohol will get you drunk quicker statistically than regular pop....." is perhaps a true statement because of how "drunk" you might feel, but the alcohol in your blood is what it is....

 

[GopherTheJugular]

but the alcohol in your blood is what it is....

You need to stop confusing alcohol in your stomach with alcohol in your blood. The difference between the two situations is what people are trying to explain to you.

 

[GopherTheJugular]

Now driving under the influence of other substances is essentially being given a free pass and at an epidemic level.

Feel free to offer up solutions. As far as I know, there's no way to tell if a person is under the influence of marijuana or not (it seems obvious that's what you're referring to, mj). So just because they find it in a person's blood, how do you know that person didn't consume it a week or two ago?

I think they can do some field tests to get an idea or not on if they think the person is high on weed, but I don't think anything definitive exists to give an exact number, like we have for alcohol.

 

[disco]

I don’t think you are following the trends in this country if you think it is no big deal. The laws have tightened and enforcement is at an all time high.

Now driving under the influence of other substances is essentially being given a free pass and at an epidemic level.

Woodbury Tim just doesn't like those dirty hippies using "other substances."

 

[pharmacygopher]

I don't understand what you're saying......are you trying to insinuate that drinking diet pop and food consumption will lower your BAC? That's completely false. Does drinking diet pop and consuming food reduce the effects of alcohol on a body? Perhaps. "Diet pop mixed with alcohol will get you drunk quicker statistically than regular pop....." is perhaps a true statement because of how "drunk" you might feel, but the alcohol in your blood is what it is....

Gastric emptying has a direct impact on BAC and peak BAC. Many factors, including food, impact gastric emptying and therefore BAC

Observations on the relation between alcohol absorption and the rate of gastric emptying.

Alcohol (ethanol) is absorbed slowly from the stomach and rapidly from the small intestine, and the rate of its absorption depends on the rate of gastric emptying. When gastric emptying is fast, the absorption of alcohol is fast. When gastric emptying ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

I don't know where you got your law degree, but you should give it back. Food or lack of food does not impact your BAC. Otherwise, a blood test and a breath test would yield different results and they don't. And my "simplistic" analysis doesn't assume anything. Once you start drinking, your blood automatically dissipates the alcohol at a rate of .015% per hour. Thus, your example in your 2nd paragraph is correct, but not because of your reasoning. It's science, not simplistic.

Food absolutely impacts the rate of absorption of alcohol into your system and thus your BAC at any specific point thereafter. (See pharmacygopher's post above.)

Blood and breath tests actually do not always yield identical results. But they are two methods of trying to measure the BAC of the same person at the same time and therefore are irrelevant to a conversation about how different people process the same amount of alcohol.

Your body does not automatically dissipate alcohol at a rate of .015% per hour. That is a typical rate and used as rule of thumb to provide estimates, but, believe it or not, not every single person on the planet processes alcohol at the exact same rate.

Your first paragraph is wrong again. The implied consent part is correct. However, there is no breathalyzer on scene. The officers can ask you to take a PBT if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that you are intoxicated. That comes from their observations of your driving, your behavior/speaking and your performance on field sobriety tests. If you refuse to take the tests, they can place you under arrest. If, based on all of those things, they place you under arrest and transport you to the station, they can than ask you to take a breathalyzer test. You can always refuse this test, but that is where the Implied Consent law comes into play.

You are correct, I used "breathalyzer" because it was the term used in an earlier post and because it is the more commonly used description of the field test by the general public, but I should have been more precise.

 

[WoodburyTim]

Woodbury Tim just doesn't like those dirty hippies using "other substances."

disco has untreated depression and a crappy life, so he feels entitled to drive around under the influence of marijuana endangering families and children.

 

[WoodburyTim]

Feel free to offer up solutions. As far as I know, there's no way to tell if a person is under the influence of marijuana or not (it seems obvious that's what you're referring to, mj). So just because they find it in a person's blood, how do you know that person didn't consume it a week or two ago?

I think they can do some field tests to get an idea or not on if they think the person is high on weed, but I don't think anything definitive exists to give an exact number, like we have for alcohol.

You are absolutely right. There is no way to tell. Talk to law enforcement. Constantly showing up to accidents with spaced out disinterested drivers but they pass breathalyzers, so it gets tough.

 

[disco]

disco has untreated depression and a crappy life, so he feels entitled to drive around under the influence of marijuana endangering families and children.

You thought reefer madness was a documentary, didn't you? Probably fear your daughters hooking up with some evil jazz musician or something.

 

[WoodburyTim]

You thought reefer madness was a documentary, didn't you? Probably fear your daughters hooking up with some evil jazz musician or something.

Nah, I drink and smoke weed, but like most good people don’t drive around and do it. Don’t worry disco, I’ll keep paying my taxes so you can afford weed and a car.

 

[mngg11]

Feel free to offer up solutions. As far as I know, there's no way to tell if a person is under the influence of marijuana or not (it seems obvious that's what you're referring to, mj). So just because they find it in a person's blood, how do you know that person didn't consume it a week or two ago?

I think they can do some field tests to get an idea or not on if they think the person is high on weed, but I don't think anything definitive exists to give an exact number, like we have for alcohol.

There are a number of LEOs on the road trained as Drug Recognition Experts, whose job is to help regular LEOs who have someone stopped under suspicion of driving under the influence determine which drug that person is under the influence of if alcohol is not a factor. Not being able to detect alcohol is not the be all end all that will allow someone to get away with a controlled substance DWI, either. Even if a DRE isn't around to help, an officer can make a determination to hook someone if they appear too fucked up to drive, and get them in for a blood draw via search warrant. You don't need proof without a reasonable doubt to arrest, just probable cause, which isn't a huge bar, and all officers are now trained to look for cues and reasons to be able to arrest on non-alcohol related violations.

Also, when people say stupid shit like offenders on drugs get away with dwis all the time because it's undetectable, it's entirely untrue. They get arrested and released after their initial hearing because the blood has to get sent in to the BCA for testing, and the BCA is backed up worse than an Italian plumber who had a 7 cheese lasagna for dinner in terms of their testing times unless it's a CVO/CVH driving complaint. The only time someone is getting held on a DWI for a substantial amount of time is if another person was hurt or killed as a result of their driving, and even then the autonomy judges have to determine release options, bail levels, etc, is ridiculous. Some judges absolutely suck, and they're the reason for a lot of the repeat offense issues we have.

 

[mngg11]

You are absolutely right. There is no way to tell. Talk to law enforcement. Constantly showing up to accidents with spaced out disinterested drivers but they pass breathalyzers, so it gets tough.

This is entirely untrue and you're pulling shit from your ass because you have some kind of axe to grind

 

[disco]

This is entirely untrue and you're pulling shit from your ass because you have some kind of axe to grind

100% true. I don't like the increased amount of weed I smell while driving around because I don't like intoxicated drivers either, but I think we generally know what Tim's axe to grind is.

 

[PMWinSTP]

I don't know where you got your law degree, but you should give it back. Food or lack of food does not impact your BAC. Otherwise, a blood test and a breath test would yield different results and they don't. And my "simplistic" analysis doesn't assume anything. Once you start drinking, your blood automatically dissipates the alcohol at a rate of .015% per hour. Thus, your example in your 2nd paragraph is correct, but not because of your reasoning. It's science, not simplistic.

Alcohol Facts | Alcoholic Beverage Control

www.abc.ca.gov

Alcohol Metabolism

Absorbing Once alcohol is swallowed, it is not digested like food. First, a small amount is absorbed directly by the tongue and mucosal lining of the mouth. Once

www.bgsu.edu

Absorption Rate Factors // Rev. James E. McDonald, C.S.C., Center for Student Well-Being // University of Notre Dame

We are here to serve students' life long well-being.

mcwell.nd.edu

The Effects of Drinking on an Empty Stomach

Drinking alcohol on an empty stomach can worsen the side effects of alcohol consumption and bring them on faster than usual. Learn more about the effects of alcohol on your body and the role of food.

www.healthline.com

 

[WoodburyTim]

100% true. I don't like the increased amount of weed I smell while driving around because I don't like intoxicated drivers either, but I think we generally know what Tim's axe to grind is.

You guys are right. I think driving under the influence is bad. So yes that is my axe to grind. Kind of sad that the idiots don’t like it.

 

[cheeseheadgophfan]

Alcohol Facts | Alcoholic Beverage Control

www.abc.ca.gov

Alcohol Metabolism

Absorbing Once alcohol is swallowed, it is not digested like food. First, a small amount is absorbed directly by the tongue and mucosal lining of the mouth. Once

www.bgsu.edu

Absorption Rate Factors // Rev. James E. McDonald, C.S.C., Center for Student Well-Being // University of Notre Dame

We are here to serve students' life long well-being.

mcwell.nd.edu

The Effects of Drinking on an Empty Stomach

Drinking alcohol on an empty stomach can worsen the side effects of alcohol consumption and bring them on faster than usual. Learn more about the effects of alcohol on your body and the role of food.

www.healthline.com

Are you trying to prove exactly what i was saying? If so, thank you.

 

[Unregistered User]

That comes from their observations of your driving, your behavior/speaking and your performance on field sobriety tests.

Never consent to a field sobriety test.

During a show I used to do on Twitch and internet radio, we had a local Hopkins cop on as a guest. I picked him up drove home to the show, and he was with me for over four hours, and he knows I only had water or Gatorade for the entire time, as a matter of fact, I had not had an alcoholic beverage for more than a week leading up to the show.

During the show the conversation went to what to do if you get pulled over for suspicion of DWI, and we talked a lot about the field sobriety test, so I asked him to test me on air…and I failed. He said my performance was enough to take me in for a blood test,etc.

But again, you do not have to consent to that test. If you refuse the PBT (preliminary breath test), you will be brought to the station for a blood test.

 

[Word]

Never consent to a field sobriety test.

During a show I used to do on Twitch and internet radio, we had a local Hopkins cop on as a guest. I picked him up drove home to the show, and he was with me for over four hours, and he knows I only had water or Gatorade for the entire time, as a matter of fact, I had not had an alcoholic beverage for more than a week leading up to the show.

During the show the conversation went to what to do if you get pulled over for suspicion of DWI, and we talked a lot about the field sobriety test, so I asked him to test me on air…and I failed. He said my performance was enough to take me in for a blood test,etc.

But again, you do not have to consent to that test. If you refuse the PBT (preliminary breathe test), you will be brought to the station for a blood test.

This explains it well.

What Happens If You Refuse A Preliminary Breath Test In Minnesota? | Max Keller

Find out what happens if you refuse a preliminary breath test in Minnesota. Call DWI defense lawyer Max Keller for legal assistance. (952) 913-1421.

kellerlawoffices.com