trooper_3.JPG
Washington State Patrol Trooper Tony Brock puts a woman through field sobriety tests in Seattle's Ballard neighborhood. She was later arrested for DUI. (Photo: KIRO Radio/Brandi Kruse)

DUI limit really more of a guideline for state troopers

BY Brandi Kruse  on October 3, 2012 @ 11:13 am (Updated: 3:20 pm - 10/3/12 )

On a Friday night in the Ballard neighborhood of Seattle, Trooper Tony Brock pulls a woman over for driving without headlights. As he approaches the vehicle, he detects a strong smell of alcohol.

The woman fumbles for her driver's license and struggles to unbuckle her seatbelt when Trooper Brock asks her to exit the truck.

"How much have you had to drink tonight?"

"Six beers," says the woman.

"Do you feel like you're OK to drive?"

"I do," she responds, telling him her last drink was 45 minutes ago.

Trooper Brock proceeds to put the woman through a series of field sobriety tests.

He moves his pointer finger side-to-side as she attempts to follow it with her eyes. He watches as she takes nine steps, carefully putting one foot in front of the other while counting the steps out loud. He asks her to recite her alphabet from the letter "b" to the letter "n," then asks her to count from 58 to 72.

Without blowing into a breathalyzer to determine her blood alcohol level, the woman is arrested for driving under the influence.

"Even if she was not over a .08, it's obvious she's affected by the alcohol she was drinking," said Trooper Brock. "Even if I took her back to the office and she blew a .07, she would still be being booked into the King County Jail for DUI."

While roadways across Washington state are spotted with signs that remind drivers of the "legal limit," and warn "over the limit, under arrest," driving under the influence can often be a crime of opinion for troopers who believe you are too impaired to be behind the wheel.

"I [couldn't] care less about what they blow; if they're below the legal limit, at the legal limit or five times the legal limit," said Trooper Brock, who is member of the Washington State Patrol's Target Zero Team. Their goal is to reduce deaths on the roadway.

"I don't worry about what's going to happen six months or a year down the road in court," he said. "I know when I go home every single shift that if I took someone off the road, I'm 100 percent positive they were not supposed to be driving a car."

Under state law, someone can be arrested for DUI if a trooper or officer determines they were "affected to an appreciable degree" by alcohol or drugs.

"We do get clients that come into this office that are dumfounded, for lack of a better term, as to why they're even sitting in our office if their blood alcohol level was below the legal limit," said William Kirk, a DUI defense attorney with Cowan Kirk Gaston.

He said the government has contributed to confusion with signs and slogans reinforcing the "legal limit."

In cases where a defendant's BAC was under the legal limit, the prosecution must rely on the testimony of the trooper or officer who made the arrest.

"The evidence that a person was impaired to an 'appreciable degree' will be based upon the trooper's opinion, and therefore it becomes a crime of opinion and the weight that a jury attaches to that opinion is critical to whether or not a conviction is obtained," said Kirk, who has never had a client convicted of DUI with a BAC under .08.

"I personally have never had that happen," he said. "But I have heard of it happening and I have heard of some very talented DUI lawyers having it happen to them, so it is possible."

While troopers like Tony Brock have the responsibly of proving such cases, he said he understands that not everyone he arrests will ultimately be convicted of DUI. Many plead to lesser crimes such as reckless driving or reckless endangerment to avoid trial.

Brandi Kruse, KIRO Radio Reporter
Brandi Kruse is a reporter for KIRO Radio who is as spontaneous and adventurous in her free time as she is on the job. Brandi arrived at KIRO Radio in March 2011 and has already collected three regional Edward R. Murrow awards for her reporting.
More Local News
Top Stories

  • Otherworldly
    Amazon has new plans for huge biospheres on its new campus

  • One
    Microsoft calls its new Xbox 'truly intelligent TV'

  • Skillet Spreads
    Seattle's Skillet Street Food and its creator are growing way beyond the Airstream
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (52)


  • Add A Comment

  • shark75 wrote...
    Wow, provocative headline, No?
    October 3, 2012 12:07 pm
    sorry, couldn't resist...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ElenaT wrote...
    If you don't want a DUI
    October 3, 2012 12:08 pm
    and you really feel fine to drive, don't do the field sobriety tests or blow into the portable breathalizers. You're just giving them evidence to use against you in court. The field tests are subjective and the portable breathalizers are not scientifically calibrated. You are free to refuse them, and if the trooper doesn't think he or she will have a good case, they will let you go. If the trooper really believes you are too impaired to drive, they will arrest you and bring you back to the station. Let them without fighting or saying anything. If you really are over the limit, the only evidence they will have is the scientifically calibrated machine back at the station. It's much easier to negotiate a plea deal without a pile of negative information about your behavior.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Elena, your legally right, BUT>................
    October 3, 2012 4:14 pm
    Don't count on your rights against self incrimination totally protecting you. Some officers may cite you for failure to cooperate and they can skew evidence any way desired. EG: stay 100% in your lane passing a parked car and you passed 'dangerously close' but if you've moved over a couple of inches you've 'passed very wide'. ... The 2nd best thing you can do if stopped is as the officer immediately 'as I under arrest?' and if not, respectfully decline the tests.

    Of course the FIRST best thing to do is not drive after even your first drink. If for no other reason than after 2 you start getting guttsy.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ElenaT wrote...
    I didn't say
    October 4, 2012 7:34 am
    they would totally protect you. I said if you have had a couple drinks and are in fact capable of driving safely, trying to "prove" to the officer that you are fine by jumping through their hoops will backfire. If you have had a few drinks and are NOT fine to drive, just respectfully go back to the station and make it clear that you understand your rights. The stupidest thing to do is a field sobriety test, regardless of your BAC.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    @ Elena - did you miss the FIRST best thing to do?
    October 4, 2012 8:47 am
    Depending on your body weight and/or mass 'a couple drinks' could push you past that .08.

    But, really, why not ride with a non-user? or take a cab? .... In the long run, even a cab every night is cheaper than fighting a DUI - even if you win in court.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ElenaT wrote...
    Maybe you never
    October 4, 2012 11:42 am
    ever not once ever drink and drive ever. 90% of us do occassionally drive after having some drinks, and most of us aren't impaired when we do it. Since you're so much better than everyone else, you don't need this information. I still feel compelled to share it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Elena, of course I did.
    October 4, 2012 1:34 pm
    But I finally gave up driving for a while so I could continue drinking.

    Now, no longer a user, I can drive any time without fear of blue lights. ................. But, you'll likely never take my advice. When I was younger, I wouldn't either.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ElenaT wrote...
    Um.
    October 4, 2012 3:31 pm
    My 60 year old parents often take us all out to dinner and we all have wine then drive home perfectly unimpaired. This information is valuable to them as well. I am sorry you had problems with alcohol when you were younger, but I am not directing this towards alcoholics. Plenty of "grown ups" still have drinks when they go out to their fancy grown up places like restaurants and musicals.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Nickatnyt wrote...
    The correct phrase.
    October 3, 2012 12:09 pm
    Is 'I could NOT care less'. Think about the meaning of 'I could care less'.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • stumanu wrote...
    Thank you Nickatnyt!!
    October 3, 2012 12:42 pm
    I am glad someone agrees with me on this often used statement. Doesn't anyone listen to the words they use? Dumb question....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Roark wrote...
    Dui limits
    October 3, 2012 12:17 pm
    I sat on a jury in a DUI case. There is no way a jury will convict a person who didn't blow over the legal limit. These arrests with below legal limits are illegal and should be stopped. This is harassment of the public.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • 1digger wrote...
    Limit or no limit, it's the drivers responsibility to not drink & drive.
    October 4, 2012 7:23 am
    Below the limit or not, she clearly was not coherent enough to even turn on her lights endangering everyone around her so the amount of alcohol influenced her capabilities. Anyone in that condition ought to be removed from behind the wheel, no ones life is worth splitting hairs on the limit as each person is going to have different tolerances. I pity the victims of a DUI driver that has a jury that takes your misguided view; they cannot get back what they lost and you ensure that the DUI driver can repeat without consequence.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    ElenaT
    October 3, 2012 12:18 pm
    You have been busted for DUI in the past!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ElenaT wrote...
    I was arrested
    October 3, 2012 1:45 pm
    twice and blew under both times. The first time I was a month away from being 21, so was charged with being a minor driving over a .02 (not a DUI) and had an excellent lawyer, so just a deferred Neg 2 that went to nothing a year or two later. The second time I played my cards exactly right and wasn't charged. I was only arrested because I had a previous arrest and refused to do the field sobriety tests. Cost a lot to get my car home, and I was sleepy at work the next day, but the trooper liked and respected me and I just got a speeding ticket (that I totally deserved.)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Concerned US Citizen wrote...
    Elena T
    October 3, 2012 12:32 pm
    Excellent advice!!! No I have never had a DUI but know lawyers and have been told to NEVER do field tests under any circumstances for just what happen in this case.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ElenaT wrote...
    I have advice
    October 3, 2012 1:58 pm
    about how to mess up the calibrated tests without being detected, so that they can't be used in court, but I'm not sure it's legal to post it here ;) Fortunately I haven't had to use (or plan to use)any of this great advice lately, but I tell everyone I know. I don't condone driving drunk, but I know the headaches of court. The advice I have is for borderline people who didn't do anything that would implicate them for driving drunk, i.e., they were pulled over for a broken tail light or something. If you're weaving all over, or wildly varying speeds, or caused an accident, you're going to get charged with a DUI because they have that on camera (and you're an idiot who shouldn't be on the road).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • myopinion wrote...
    3 Things
    October 3, 2012 12:41 pm
    One is the legal limit is the legal limit. It is not the purview of the WSP or anyother police force to harass the public, if someone is uner the legal limit they are just that under the legal limit. Police enforce laws not make up their own that ultimately cost me money via the court system. Even if someone pleads guilty to a lesser charge it all comes down to money. Currently lawyers will cost you about 10,000 grand. And you have not even gone to trial yet. Two. It is illegal to refuse a breath test in this state if you refuse a breath test your license is suspended for 1 year AUTOMATICALLY wheather or not you are convicted or not. You can refuse the soberiety test though, why do you think cops that get stopped dont do the test. The idea is by the time they get a judge on the phone to issue a a warrant the alcohol has been motabolized by your body. Third. and I hate to admit it, but I agree with AJ.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cash wrote...
    How much less do you care?
    October 3, 2012 12:45 pm
    I do not have a problem with under the "Perse legal limit" as long as there is evidence the driver was unable to control their vehicle or if there was a crash. I do have an issue with it if you are stopped for having a defective headlight. I have a huge issue with how our current court system handles evidence in these cases and allow the violatior's to escape punishment while making defense attorny's rich...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • notmygov1 wrote...
    But of course
    October 3, 2012 12:46 pm
    He could care less what they blow its all about revenue for the state dems.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • froggy wrote...
    Those that think they aren't impaired...
    October 3, 2012 1:15 pm
    are the drivers that are the most dangerous. Also, how many of those who are stoppped with alcohol limits below the "legal" limit but who have been using marijuana as well. Combining drugs produces a condition known as potentiation, in otherwords, it multiplies the effects. So, just because a person isn't a "legal" drunk, they could still be too impaired to be driving. We'll be seeing a lot more of that if marijuana is legalized. And what about the problem with cops drinking on duty? Where the he-- is the proof of that? That is a garbage statement and an insult to all of the officers doing good work.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }