Putting drunk drivers to the test

By Eric Freeman efreeman@columbustelegram.com
Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 - 01:32:04 am CST

Editor’s note: This is the second in a series of reports that will highlight the activities of the Citizen Police Academy through it’s 14-week course. The writer is a member of the class.

COLUMBUS -- On any given Friday through Sunday from 10 p.m.-2 a.m. one in 10 of all drivers on Nebraska roads are legally impaired or driving under the influence. One in seven customers leaving a bar is DUI.

Neal Olmer, 26, failed the Standardized Field Sobriety Test, but the indications were very subtle. Only one of the 14 Citizen Police Academy participants present this week would have arrested Olmer based on indications of the tests. Four would have given him a ride home, and nine would have sent him on his way with a warning to drive carefully.

Olmer’s blood alcohol level tested with the Preliminary Breath Tester (PBT) following the sobriety tests and the student poll registered at .142 ” nearly twice the legal limit. A person is in violation of the law when the blood alcohol content reaches 0.08 of one gram per 100 milliliters of blood or per 210 liters of his or her breath.

“Seeing him with that much alcohol in his system is a surprise because he’s not behaving at all the way I would expect a drunk to behave,” said one academy participant. “He’s not falling over or stumbling all that much.”

“I wouldn’t let him drive. But, I would give him a ride home,” said another.

My reason for the lone vote to arrest Olmer was based on his failing the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) and the walk and turn portion of the standardized field sobriety tests.

HGN is the involuntary jerking of the eyes occurring as the eyes move toward the side. According to the criteria, failure of four elements of the HGN is 77 percent accurate in indicating a high probability that the subject’s blood alcohol level is at .10 or above.

Olmer, 26, and Jessi Janssen, 22, both of Columbus were enlisted by the Columbus Police Department to participate in this week’s DWI presentation.

The two arrived at the police station at 6 p.m. Olmer had five mixed drinks each with two ounces of alcohol and two mixed drinks with one ounce each for a total of 12 ounces of alcohol consumed in a two and a half hour period. Olmer had not eaten since noon the day of the demonstration.

Janssen consumed mixed drinks containing vodka mixed with Sprite for a total of eight ounces of alcohol consumed in the same period of time.

Janssen failed the eye test portion and the walk and turn portion of the field sobriety tests. Her preliminary breath test returned a .140 blood alcohol content, well over the legal limit of .08.

The class did better with her; six would have arrested her, four would have driven her home and four would have let her go with cautions to drive carefully.

“I would give her a ride home, because she looks like a good person,” one participant said.

As the class came to a close I interviewed Olmer and Janssen before they were driven home by the officers.

“I don’t feel that bad right now,” Olmer said “I know that I’m over the limit right now, and I wouldn’t normally drive like this, but if I had, too ” if there was no one else who could drive, or if my friends were worse than this ” I would drive home.”

Janssen said she and her friends take turns being the designated driver on their outings.

“I wouldn’t feel comfortable driving home like this,” Janssen said. “I really feel over the limit right now. What’s amazing to me is that you really don’t realize how little it takes to fail the breath test. It’s almost like one drink and you’re done.”

Through the evening the class heard from officers Jeremy Zywiec, Brian Hunke and Brad Wangler.

Zywiec walked us through the legalities of defining DWI, the common symptoms of alcohol impairment and the procedures and observations officers make to determine probable cause of DWI for making a traffic stop.

Hunke presented detailed information about the field sobriety tests, and Wangler discussed the classification, usage and symptoms of illegal drugs and illicit use of legal prescription drugs.

“The goal of DWI enforcement efforts is to gain voluntary compliance to the law,” Zywiec said. “It’s important to know that with a .03 blood alcohol content a person’s reaction time is slowed, at .05 they’ll begin taking risks they would not normally take, at .08 and above the legal limit has been passed and vision is impaired, and at .10 blood alcohol content a person’s coordination is quickly slipping away.”

Zywiec said the longer enforcement continue the chance increases that individuals who drink and drive will be caught.

“The general public seems to think we wait outside the bars in order to catch people driving under the influence, Zywiec said. “It’s simply not true, but if someone calls in and tells us a friend has had too much to drink and is on the way to their car, we’re going to do everything we can to prevent that person from getting in that car and driving.”

The key to the DUI charge is the person is legally impaired and directly in physical control of the vehicle.

Leave a Comment

All posts are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
   
rob g
Jan 27, 2008 10:49 AM
Most cops have the good sence to send someone home if they are a responsible person. A first time DUI penalty is way to strict and the .o8 is too low! Cops know what a DUI will cost you and most cops do not enjoy doing that to someone. If you really want to save lives DUI laws should have more creativity. If a 20 year old kid blows a 1.4 and is driving down the highway at 85 mph with 3 teenagers in the car, he should be given a very hard sentence with 6 months jail time for even a first offence. If a legal age person goes down to a 11th str. bar and is heading home 6 blocks away with a 1.1, the sentence should be very light. Current DUI laws are mostly about stopping any nightlife Columbus has left and less about safety. If safety was really the main issue don't you think there would at least be a Taxi service available in Columbus past midnight, or some kind of van service like the senior van! God knows a bar shuttle would make quite a bit more money for the city than the senior van!
For you Kenny
Jan 27, 2008 12:25 PM
Well Rob, it appears you have never lost someone you cared about to a drunk driver. You would be whistling a different tune if you had, I guarantee it! You make a ridiculous argument here. So when someone gets pulled over, they should just explain they only live 6 blocks away (so no one was in any REAL danger) - PLEASE! Based on that argument, the police should be able to use their discretion when enforcing any law - do we really want that?
jori
Jan 27, 2008 12:38 PM
Who are you trying to kid rob g. Any drunk driving is not tolerable, period.
to rob g
Jan 27, 2008 2:17 PM
Are you kidding? (1) Cops have no business playing favorites and sending intoxicated persons home instead of arresting them and taking them directly to jail. (2) The DUI penalties and threshold level you think are too harsh have been adopted in almost every state in the country. (3) Your willingness to arbitarily and capriciously discriminate on the basis of age and circumstance is laughable. (4) The Nebraska legislature could care less about Columbus' nightlife when they enacted statewide DUI laws to keep our highways more safe . (5) A taxi service for the bar crowd in Columbus is actually a great idea! Why don't you go into your own business ... that way you'll make the big money!
my 2 cents
Jan 27, 2008 3:27 PM
Anyone can start a taxi/dui van business, no one is stopping them. I am guessing it is not profitable or the insurance is just too high. Plus dealing with drunks isn't all that fun. Most people, like the article points out, think they are okay when they shouldn't be driving. I have watched sober people argue with intoxicated people to let them drive and they don't win.
rob g
Jan 27, 2008 6:45 PM
For You Kenny, Police use discretion when enforcing any law, that is a fact. The reason roads are not safe is people like you that can not take a good idea with any kind of open minded thought. I am sure you, Jori, and two cents, sit at home on Sat. night feeling sorry for yourself because you are such boring people. I will bet my life, or house, or whatever, that more accidents are caused inside the city limits by women putting on make up or someone using a cell phone. Where is your outrage there. Why not send them to jail, I will tell you why, it is because this issue is more about jealous geeks like you that sit at home on Sat. that do most of the voting, than it is about safety. It is people like you that keep the roads more dangerous than they should be. Take my suggestion and start putting intoxicated drivers who are driving wrecklessly in jail for 6 months on 1st offence and that will save more lives than any of your laws to date. I don't care if it is the prom king the day before graduation, if he is driving excessively drunk or wreckless he goes to jail for six months. Just don't give someone a $5000 fine(which is what a 1st DuI will cost when added up) for driving 8 blocks at a low safe speed while blowing a .09. And if I ever do lose someone to a drunk driver, it will be because of some wild kid that knows he can get as drunk as he wants, drive as fast as he wants and he will bond out in 2 hours on a 1st offence no matter what is level was, or how fast he was driving, or who he had in the car with him! And I will blame you for it!
For you Kenny
Jan 27, 2008 9:08 PM
Excuse me Rob? You will blame me for some kid driving drunk? For your information, my brother was killed in the city limits by a drunk driver who couldn't stop for the five year old standing on the curb. The driver wasn't some wildly drunk teen doing 70 on the highway either. Funny, he was just driving a few blocks home, which, according to your argument is completely safe. So you can blame me all you want for what you think are ridiculous laws, my family and many others have paid the price for it. And my opinion has nothing to do with how I spend my Saturday night and everything to do with keeping all drunk drivers off the road. Including you!!
$
Jan 28, 2008 8:18 AM
i would rather have a $5,000 fine than be in jail / out of work for 6 months.. that would cost me more in the long run..

i do agree though that the .08 isn't fair.. depending on the persons build/body size.. that could be one drink or 5 drinks.. not everyone is created equal.. it isn't fair to some people vs. others.. but whatever.. just run! :)
wow
Jan 28, 2008 8:19 AM
I can't believe that I'm reading what Rob has written. Apparently there haven't been enough deaths in Columbus due to DUI's for Rob. I'm pretty sure that the senate passed these laws just to close down the Columbus night life. Why don't you go ahead and start a taxi service after midnight if you think there is such a huge need for this type of service. A better bet would be to do what most people do and have a designated drive-oh I guess I wrong, you have to be drinking to have fun with friends.
amazing!
Jan 28, 2008 9:08 AM
I've noticed over time that Rob G has something to say abuot everything. I do agree that he probably hasn't ever lost anyone to drunk driving. Well I have and driving after drinking is drunk driving. If you "feel a buzz" or not.
Hey you idiots..
Jan 28, 2008 10:38 AM
You all realize that YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO ANY OF THOSE MONKEY TRICKS!!!! In fact, you are better off NOT doing them, because (1) they are going to make you blow anyway, and (2) the only give more weight for a prosecution at trial to say "Yeah, we saw him stumbling around." I repeat: DO NOT DO THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS!!! You do need to do the breath, but right before you do, request a blood test at your local hospital with your own physician. Oh, by the way: KEEP YOUR MOUTHS SHUT!!! A wiser man than me once summed up DUI's with this: "Don't walk. Don't talk. Ask for a blood test." Then call a lawyer.

And, if Rob G is who I think he is, you stink at legal reasoning even more than you do at golf. Get a clue, brutha!
Oh, by the way....
Jan 28, 2008 10:39 AM
..the cops ALWAYS do everything right! AHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH - *sniff* classic............
told_ya
Jan 28, 2008 11:51 AM
There is nothing to argue here! It should be BLACK & WHITE...if your over the legal limit (however "low" it may be according to some of you!) It's the law, we are all aware of it. So if you're over, and you stupidly chose to drive, then you should get a dui and everything that goes with it. There shouldn't be "well I would have just gave him a ride home....I would have just sent them home with a warning." COME ON!!! Police are hired to ENFORCE the LAW, not play "lets be friends" and make exceptions!
jeff
Jan 28, 2008 12:00 PM
The laws are just right, it is so simple and such a ridiculous arguement to say let's make the laws more lenient. Listen, just don't drink and drive, and especially if you only live six blocks away. That is even more idiotic and lazy. Call a cab, ask a friend that is sober, walk, sleep, anything but get into a car under the influence. And Rob, your comments only encourage drinking and driving.
Mike3
Jan 28, 2008 12:28 PM
You cannot get a blood test from your own doctor or hospital until after you go the hospital and use the officers blood kit. If you refuse blood, you automatically loose your license. Also, Rob G, you are an idiot.
First Offender
Jan 28, 2008 12:43 PM
I was pretty much a law abiding citizen until the age of 33, when I was arrested for DUI. Before that the last speeding ticket I had was in 1999. Blood\alcohol was .133. Did I think I was intoxicated? Nope. Didn't think I had that much to drink. As far as the cops hate to arrest you for DUI. Ha! The Nebraska State Patrol live for it. My officer was arrogant and was speeding while he was taking me to jail. I, of course, called him on it. Maybe not all police officers think they are above the law, but alot of them do. I am sure you are going to say that I am bitter that I got caught, but I am not. It is a lesson learned. I stay home, or I take a cab to the bar.
My sister on the other hand has not learned her lesson. She has gotten out of two DUIs. The first one she about killed herself; spent two months in the hospital. She copes with multiple health issues. The second she got after having "only one drink and then switched to diet pepsi". Must have been one strong drink because she was way over the legal limit. She should have been charged with enhanced DUI. She didn't even lose her license because at the time she was arrested she had a Texas license and when they took her Texas license, she went to the court house and got a Nebraska license. Then she ended up getting her DUI dropped down to reckless driving because of a calibration issue. She may never learn her lesson.
What I would like to know what Rob would term " a responsible person" and how would the cops determine if you were one? Is there a quiz that you would take? Maybe since I hadn't had a speeding ticket for 6 years prior I should've been able to be "sent home."
Can you honestly say that your judgement isn't impared after drinking? I am guessing that Rob was the one with the 1.1 who lived 6 blocks away from the bar. Maybe you should have walked to and from the bar that night. By the way, statistics show that most accidents occur close to home.
Unbelieveable!
Jan 28, 2008 12:53 PM
Anyone who drinks should not drive-period, end of sentence for any rational person. I am now convinced that rob g is a ten year old who does not go to school or out into public. His responses to various articles bear that out.
Cheers, no pun intended
Jan 28, 2008 4:09 PM
To First offender; excellent commentary and based on facts. Refreshing! I hope your sister learns early vs late and she and everyone else she comes in contact with is alive and well after the fact.
First Offender
Jan 28, 2008 4:52 PM
I have another story for Rob. Once upon a time a surgeon was at a party drinking socially even though he was on call that night. Low & behold his beeper went off and he had to go to the hospital. People noticed that he had been drinking and called the police. He was picked up after his surgery was over & was driving home. Now since he was a "good citizen" should he have been able to pass go and collect $200.00, or should he have gone directly to jail like he did?
Big business
Jan 28, 2008 5:02 PM
To me dui's have become big business. Think about all the money that is spent yearly to crack down on drunk drivers. Then all the money for prosecution. The money defense attorneys fatten their pockets with. It's obvious that the laws are not working. I remember way back in high school, teachers talking about one of the first affects of alcohol are impaired judgment. Most people that are arrested decide to drive because their judgment is impaired. Most probably thought they were just fine. Wouldn't it make more sense to take the impaired persons ability to decide to drive away from him or her? Mandates could be place on all automobile manufactures to place an alcohol sensor in all future vehicles. These vehicles would not start if alcohol were detected in the vehicle. I’m sure some would find ways around the sensor but would surely face harsh penalties if caught doing so.
Realist
Jan 28, 2008 5:06 PM
I would like to congratulate the telegram for once again been so dang selective on what to post because they can slander with no facts but when people post their thoughts, they do just the total opposite. You continue to amaze me on your ignorance and lack of guts to post!
Out of Town
Jan 28, 2008 11:39 PM
I for one, have pled guilty to DUI. One thing I took away from it was, you may feel fine, but the tests will show otherwise. I blew a .105, above the .08 legal limit. I did not feel that I was that unable to make it to my hotel room safely. Thus my point, even though you may be comfortable with your capabilities to drive, there is a definate feeling of over-confidence. I for one have learned that there are things you do not do. I used to think it was O.K. to have a few beers on the way home. Thing is, once you start to figure one level is fine, the level seems to increase when you don't get caught (or something worse). If you are lucky, like me, you do get caught and learn a lesson without hurting someone else. What I have learned is that even though you feel fine, that is probably not the case. If you have not ever taken a BAC test, you would be very surprised to find out what feels legal and what is not. I am posting this so people do not make mistakes that they can not take back. I was one person that thought since I was "experienced" on the drinking side of life, I could handle more than the normal citizen. After the fact (6 months of probation, hence 6 month sobriety) I have learned that I was numb to reality. I still enjoy my beer at home, and do not drive atfer having a few...although walking to the store for chips stinks! FYI, the normal penalties for 1st offense DUI are plenty stiff, it cost me over $750 fine, $1500 for a lawyer (to plead guilty), and almost $5,000 in insurance increases over three years, although I am still very thankful that nobody was hurt.
.08 is a joke
Jan 29, 2008 9:43 AM
Nice job Neil .142 you must have been trashed.

Oh wait, that is if you go off of the Highway Funding limit set by the state so Washington would give them money to build viaducts over 3rd Ave's all over the state.

At nearly twice the limit the only thing wrong with him was jerky eyes. He hardly seemed a danger to others. In lincoln they would throw him in detox.

...and yes I have lost lots of friends to drinking.
clarity
Jan 29, 2008 11:08 AM
From some of the posts on here, I think I'm finally starting to get a clearer picture of the culture of Columbus. Even though it's against the law to drive over .08, even though it has killed countless people, even though it has caused loss of jobs, marriages, families, bankrupcy people just don't want to be told to just stop before it gets to that point. I could care less if you go out and have a drink or two, but I'm sorry, is it worth going out and having an accident that could main someone for life, or kill them? Apparently to some of you-it is.
well then..
Jan 29, 2008 11:54 AM
ban talking on cell phones/text messaging.. ban putting make up on in the car, ban reading anything other than road signs and your speed (newspapers, books, maps, ect) ban talking, ban tv's in cars, take radios out of cars... all are distractions and have killed countless people, & caused loss of jobs, marriages, families, bankrupcy..

why not laws against them? they all sometimes cause a person to act with impaired judgement..

i'm not for drinking and driving, but lets be fair here.. pull up the stats on the traffic accidents that happened for other reasons than drinking... numbers are way higher than a drunk! but the news never tell you who had their seatbelt on and was killed, only those who didn't.. they never say the person dropped a smoke on the floor and bent down to get it and crossed the line to kill the other driver.. in reality.. ban driving all together if it is so dangerous! make people walk.. maybe it will cure the obesity problem as well..
Print This Story Email This Story

Hot Topics

Blogs

Calendar of Events

Photos