People make mistakes...1 bad decision doesn't make the poster a bad or even irresponsible person.
I swear this isn't going to be a bash the OP reply, but really I could not let this comment go. Yes, one bad decision does make an irresponsible person, it could incidentally make someone a killer. Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.
Im actually thinking along the same lines. This whole experience really has been kind of an eye opener that I have some maturing to do. I was considering taking a year off regardless of whether the charges are dropped. What really worries me though is whether it will still haunt me even if I choose to apply later, and then again when I'm applying for licensing. I don't mind much if it takes longer, just as long as I become a doctor.
I'm sorry for your situation, but so glad that it didn't end up worse. I'm married to someone with 2, count 'em 2 DUIs !!!! (One was from before we met). The repercussions are huge. Won't go into the hairy details, since this is about helping you out. Legally, and insurance wise, it is advantageous to shoot for a wet and reckless- I don't know that it makes a difference for med school admission. Get a copy of your arrest records and whatnot. You'll be able to get a better assessment of the likelihood of getting a wet and reckless when you know your BAC and other details of the arrest. In California, the DUI is, oh what's the word?- enhanced? if your BAC is above 0.16, speeding, etc. Do a realistic assessment of your chances before you pay a lot of money for legal assistance which may be of very limited help. (This is just my opinion, and not a substitution for legal advice). As far as med school admission, the best advice will probably come from those who have been in your shoes and successfully made it to med school. Here is a suggestion: integrate DUI prevention/awareness into your EC work. There are many, many organizations to contact for this, SADD, MADD. Right now, it is Every 15 Minutes season- PM me if you want more details for that particular program.
Yes, it is if its intentional. But to deem all DUI offenders to be the same is reckless. The circumstances are all different. Consider an elderly man and woman who go out for a nice dinner and share a bottle of wine. On the way back home the man's tire blows out and he hits a pedestrian. Even though he didn't seem impaired and passed a FST, his BAC tested 0.01 over the legal limit. Now a consider a callous alcoholic who drinks at the bar every night and plans while sober to drive home drunk every night. He has 3 prior DUIs and a suspended license and he runs over a pedestrian with a 0.3 BAC (3-4 times the limit) and continues because he is too drunk to notice.
Are these two offenders the same level of scum? Don't cast judgment on others when you don't know the circumstances. Many people who get arrested for DUI never intended to drive drunk, but rather they got stuck in a situation with no other easy way home and could not make a rational decision due to their impairment. Alcohol impairment leads otherwise good people to do bad things. Unless you're advocating prohibition, then you are being ignorant.
It is every driver's responsibility to know what the legal BAC is and assumes the risk any time any amount of alcohol is consumed prior to driving. The onus is on the driver to be aware of how much is too much and too soon to drive safely, and if there is any doubt, don't risk it. Of course, many people arrested for DUI did not intend to drive impaired, but the results are the same. I see it every weekend rolling into my unit- when they make it. Intentions matter little when the end result is a 25 year old who is internally decapitated.
I don't excuse drunk driving in the least, but I have to disagree that all drunk drivers are the same level of scum. 0.02 is a lot different than 0.1.
Level of impairment varies, yes. But, we're all expected to know and follow the law. The reference to 0.02 in New Mexico refers to minors- in all 50 states the legal limit for 21+ is 0.08. For minors, the range is 0.00-0.02. States that have stricter DUI laws (such as California) have lower DUI related fatalities (compared to total traffic fatalities). I was reading an article in the paper the other day about the leniency of DUI laws and enforcement in Wisconsin, and sure enough, the NHTSA 2007 Traffic Safety Annual assessment lists Wisconsin as a state with high DUI fatality/total fatality rates.
I'm not here to justify my actions at all, and I do not appreciate the berating. I just wanted some advice on what I should do regarding my medical school plans.
I know you're not here to justify your actions. And I hope things work out well for you. I don't want you to take any of my responses as "berating".
This is my first offense. No prior DUI's or any other problems with the law. It happened in San Francisco, CA. I was not told my BAC. There were no accidents, injury, or traffic violations involved (ie speeding). The office pulled me over because he said I was swerving. I did speak to a lawyer, and he said it's difficult to tell what can be done until my court date. He did, however, say that it is possible to have it reduced to wet reckless reckless driving, which would have a significantly lower probation period, after which I could have it expunged from my record. In that case, medical schools probably would not see it, but it would come up when I apply for licensing.
Let me know what other info to provide. =) Thanks.
You should definitely get a copy of your arrest report before your court date, and before you decide to hire any lawyer. You need to know what your BAC was and if the police officer listed any factors that could be "enhancements". Do the research about what factors could alter your BAC, since that will be the only point that the attorney can argue. "Swerving" or other factors will be your word against the police officer.
This.
If you have a good enough lawyer DUI's rarely end up in actual convictions. Oh and also, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN THE BREATHALYZER!!! But that's neither here nor there...
And what's up with the dude that keeps calling DUI's a felony?
I don't know where you get this information, but DUI cases- to quote one judge/former prosecutor that I know- 98% conviction rate (in Alameda County). I also have a family member in law enforcement in SF that probably knows what the conviction rate is there. I have a feeling that it is similarly high. However...
This is from NHTS (in 1999, though):
"The major conclusions of the study are:
� There is great diversity among and within jurisdictions in what is reported as their DWI conviction rate.
� Many jurisdictions have difficulty relating DWI convictions to arrests made within a specific time frame.
� In many jurisdictions, failure to appear (FTA) in court, is a frequent problem with DWI offenders.
� Many agencies and jurisdictions choose to neither calculate nor publicize their DWI conviction rates.
� There is a quite natural tendency for agencies within jurisdictions to calculate and report that form of conviction rate which places them in the most favorable light.
We recommend that:
� When requesting DWI conviction rates, specify both the numerator and denominator, and request the raw numbers and the time period that the data are from, in addition to the calculated result.
� NHTSA should consider the true conviction rate to be the number of DWI convictions resulting from and divided by the number of DWI arrests in a given time frame. FTAs clearly would not be counted as convictions because these cases have not been adjudicated. Plea bargains
might be counted as convictions if a jurisdiction has more than one level of DWI offense and it is common practice to reduce the charge to the lower level. If a jurisdiction includes plea bargains, it should be explained clearly that the conviction rate includes these alcohol-related, plea bargained offenses.
� NHTSA should consider encouraging jurisdictions and agencies to keep detailed records on the disposition of DWI arrests so that meaningful and consistent DWI conviction rates may be developed, published and compared. Statewide case tracking systems using information from a uniform traffic citation should be encouraged as a means for maintaining such records.
We believe the lack of credible field calculations of DWI conviction rates and the inconsistent methods of calculations should remain under careful scrutiny. Furthermore, we believe that agencies such as NHTSA should publicly define how DWI conviction rates should be calculated. Only then can progress be made in identifying and correcting system deficiencies."
And it's too late after the fact, but if your breathalyzer was equivocal (close to 0.08), it might have helped you to get a blood test...... or not, but you probably would not have been worse off.