Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Miles Archer

(18,837 posts)
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 08:37 PM Feb 2016

Jury Rejects Drunk Driver’s Explanation That His Booze Breath Was From Beer-Battered Fish

http://www.thedailymeal.com/eat/jury-rejects-drunk-driver-s-explanation-his-booze-breath-was-beer-battered-fish/021016

A jury in Wisconsin has rejected a drunk driver’s explanation that he smelled of alcohol during a traffic stop because of the beer-battered fish he’d eaten earlier that day.

According to a police report obtained by the Smoking Gun, the driver, 76-year-old John Przybyla, was driving with a revoked license, and was visibly intoxicated at the time of his traffic stop.

“I told John I could smell an odor of alcohol emitting from his breath and asked him how much he had to drink,” the police report reads. “John said he had not been drinking. I asked John where he was coming from and going to. John said he had been at a fish fry on STH 02 [Wisconsin Highway 28] and was going home. I asked John how much (alcohol) he had to drink and he said he wasn’t drinking and had beer-battered fish.”

The officer also noted that there was an open can of beer in the passenger’s seat.
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jury Rejects Drunk Driver’s Explanation That His Booze Breath Was From Beer-Battered Fish (Original Post) Miles Archer Feb 2016 OP
Where was the breath or blood test results? rug Feb 2016 #1
They did take a blood test afterwards. 47of74 Feb 2016 #2
Oh, I see. His blood level was .062, below the legal limit. rug Feb 2016 #3
Revoked license and beer in the car doesn't help his case much. mackerel Feb 2016 #4
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
1. Where was the breath or blood test results?
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 08:41 PM
Feb 2016

I wouldn't convict solely on a cop's alleged observations without an answer to that.

 

47of74

(18,470 posts)
2. They did take a blood test afterwards.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:28 PM
Feb 2016

The Smoking Gun article mentioned stated that a nurse did draw blood for testing purposes.

They also mentioned Mr. Przybyla wasn't too happy about having the blood drawing, and that he was going to sue them because getting blood drawn was against his religion.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Mr. Przybyla is a Catholic, and I don't know of any Catholic prohibitions against drawing blood for such purposes.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
3. Oh, I see. His blood level was .062, below the legal limit.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 09:36 PM
Feb 2016

They brought the charge because in Wisconsin a repeat offender can be charged with a .02.

He can't sue for religion but he can sue if the blood was forcibly drawn. Every state I know requires the police to issue a warning that if they refuse a breath or blood test, they can lose their license in a separate civil hearing. But they can't use force to draw blood unless they have a search warrant - for the driver's blood.

Latest Discussions»The DU Lounge»Jury Rejects Drunk Driver...