'Burn Notice' Star Busted for DUI

[Malcontent]

http://www.tmz.com/2009/07/20/burn-notice-star-torched-for-dui/

TMZ has learned Jeffrey Donovan was arrested on suspicion of DUI last Sunday, July 12th. The 41-year-old posed for a cop cam and was released several hours later.

So far, no comment from Donovan's reps.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/media/2009/07/0720_jeffrey_donovan.jpg

[hummingbird_206]

Wow, looks pretty good for a mug shot.

[whitson77]

Awww...that's too bad. I like that guy.

[marksman]

Can't tell you how annoyed I am by this.

I have a big problem with adults getting DUI's. I would go on to say I even have a bigger problem with people of some reasonable means getting arrested for DUI.

[dianebrat]

Awww...that's too bad. I like that guy.
At least unlike Lost they won't kill off his character
:D

[IJustLikeTivo]

Can't tell you how annoyed I am by this.

I have a big problem with adults getting DUI's. I would go on to say I even have a bigger problem with people of some reasonable means getting arrested for DUI.

I can't tell you how annoyed I am that people decide what happened with no facts.

[5thcrewman]

Fi will be pissed!

[Bierboy]

Fi will be pissed!

Sam probably wished Michael had given HIM the booze....:D

[Fool Me Twice]

It's all part of the plan. There's always a plan.

[aaronwt]

I can't tell you how annoyed I am that people decide what happened with no facts.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5idO_cybYnfVPNjYYFppVgAKtwwPwD99ICMGG3



"Police: Jeffrey Donovan arrested, suspected of DUI
(AP) – 17 minutes ago

MIAMI BEACH — Miami Beach police say they arrested "Burn Notice" star Jeffrey Donovan on suspicion of drunken driving.

The arrest report says an officer pulled Donovan over on July 12 after noticing that he swerved his car to avoid hitting the police car from behind. When the officer approached Donovan, he reported that the actor's eyes appeared bloodshot and watery.

The actor of the popular USA Network series was arrested after failing a field sobriety test. The arrest report says Donovan refused to take a breathalyzer test.

The 41-year-old actor, who worked alongside actress Angelina Jolie in the 2008 film, "Changeling," was released several hours later on $1,000 bail.

Phone messages left for his publicist and for a spokeswoman for USA Network were not immediately returned."

Only one reason to refuse a breathalyzer test.
Sounds like he is among the idiots like Kiefer Sutherland. Too stupid to take a cab or hire a driver.

[johnperkins21]

Only one reason to refuse a breathalyzer test.

Because they're wildly inaccurate? Or are you presuming guilt over informed caution?

[aaronwt]

Because they're wildly inaccurate? Or are you presuming guilt over informed caution?

The lawyers say if you are drunk to never take a Breathalyzer test.(at least the lawyers a coworker spent tens of thousands on with his multiple DUI offenses)
Which is pretty serious since where I live, refusal means a mandatory suspension of driving privledges for twelve months.

Refusal is also submitted as evidence in trial since the only reason to refuse is if you have been drinking.
They are inaccurate if you just took a drink and will show a higher level. But of coure you should not be driving if you were drinking hence the DUI.

Of course they also give the option of a Blood sample or
Urine sample which are both very accurate. But typically if you are driving drunk you will refuse those as well. If accuracy is a concern then taking those won't be a problem.

[IJustLikeTivo]

Because they're wildly inaccurate? Or are you presuming guilt over informed caution?

Hey, don't let facts bother you.

Was he driving badly. Sure. How drunk was he, no one knows.

[Bierboy]

Whatever happened to "presumed innocent until proven guilty"?

I'm the first to condemn drunk driving, but I'm also an advocate of the above...

[Rob Helmerichs]

Whatever happened to "presumed innocent until proven guilty"?

I'm the first to condemn drunk driving, but I'm also an advocate of the above...
That's in the eyes of the law. We are free to jump to any conlusions we like.

And in this case, I think we're on pretty firm ground presuming guilt...

[windracer]

We need a good Michael Weston voice-over for this.

"When you're a spy, you may need to drive under the influence of alcohol. The easiest way to do this ..."

:D

[Amnesia]

Refusal is also submitted as evidence in trial since the only reason to refuse is if you have been drinking.
They are inaccurate if you just took a drink and will show a higher level. But of coure you should not be driving if you were drinking hence the DUI.
(bold highlights mine). As your next sentence shows, even you realize that there is another reason to refuse. And sorry, but if you have one drink, there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't drive. There's certainly no "of course" to it.

[dswallow]

So the guy is alert enough to swerve to not hit a police car. And they punish him for it. *sigh*

I say next time ram the sucker. At least enjoy taking a bunch of lazy cops off the street for a few days.

[philw1776]

So the guy is alert enough to swerve to not hit a police car. And they punish him for it. *sigh*

I say next time ram the sucker. At least enjoy taking a bunch of lazy cops off the street for a few days.

Oh sure, go ahead. Imagine the consequences when the cops get coffee and donut sugar splashed all over their clean unis. Hell to pay man.

[Gai-jin]

It seems to me that breathalizer tests should fall under the right not to incriminate oneself. OTOH, if he failed the field sobriety test and doesn't have another good explanation for it, then I've got to figure he was impared somehow and probably shouldn't have been driving.

As for the mug shot, I wonder if it looks so 'good' because in the show he's always made to look 'bad'. It's not like we ever see him freshly showered, shaved, and dressed for a black tie party. . .

[Malcontent]

'Burn Notice' Star -- I Was Only Borderline Drunk!

http://www.tmz.com/2009/07/20/Jeffrey-donovan-burn-notice-dui-arrest-drunk/

"Burn Notice" star Jeffrey Donovan is going to have a rough time in court -- it's not exactly an airtight defense in a DUI case to argue, "I really think I'm only borderline and not too drunk."

We obtained the police report from the Miami Beach PD. The arresting officer wrote he first noticed Donovan after hearing "a loud tire screech behind me." The cop said he saw Donovan's car swerve left to avoid hitting the police car.

When Donovan finally stopped, he didn't serve himself well when he said, "Sorry, I didn't see the red light or your stopped car."

The officer says he smelled a strong odor of alcohol, asked Donovan if he had anything to drink and got this answer: "I had three drinks at the Fontainebleau."

Donovan flunked a field sobriety test and was taken into custody. That's when he said, "The only mistake I made tonight was drinking Benadryl with 3 glasses of wine."

[johnperkins21]

The lawyers say if you are drunk to never take a Breathalyzer test.(at least the lawyers a coworker spent tens of thousands on with his multiple DUI offenses)
Which is pretty serious since where I live, refusal means a mandatory suspension of driving privledges for twelve months.

Refusal is also submitted as evidence in trial since the only reason to refuse is if you have been drinking.
They are inaccurate if you just took a drink and will show a higher level. But of coure you should not be driving if you were drinking hence the DUI.

Of course they also give the option of a Blood sample or
Urine sample which are both very accurate. But typically if you are driving drunk you will refuse those as well. If accuracy is a concern then taking those won't be a problem.

I didn't see where the article said he refused a blood or urine test either (though urine tests are also inaccurate). The only accurate test is a blood test.

And the reason to refuse a breathalyzer is because not only is it inaccurate, but in most cases you can't challenge the results. However, virtually every time the accuracy of them has been tested, they've failed miserably. So the only reason to refuse a breathalyzer test is not because of guilt, but because of how inaccurate they are and the difficulty of fighting the results.

I'm not arguing that he was sober, or that he was in the right to be driving, but without a blood test we have zero clue as to what his BAC was. If he took a urine and breathalyzer test we'd still have no clue as to his actual BAC because they're simply poor methods of measuring it.

If he didn't think he was over the limit, he was smart not to take the breathalyzer. If he refused to take any sort of BAC test, including a blood test, then you can assume some level of guilt and there are penalties in place for people who refuse all forms of testing.

[Snappa77]

It is innocent until proven guilty....in a court of law.

Joe and Jane Q Public's opinion is a different matter.

I'm not gonna be a jury on a trial that is probably never gonna happen so my $0.02 is I am very disappointed and pissed about this. Don't know why it is sofa-king hard to not get behind a wheel when your intoxicated.

The officer says he smelled a strong odor of alcohol, asked Donovan if he had anything to drink and got this answer: "I had three drinks at the Fontainebleau."

Donovan flunked a field sobriety test and was taken into custody. That's when he said, "The only mistake I made tonight was drinking Benadryl with 3 glasses of wine."

Pathetic.

[marksman]

I can't tell you how annoyed I am that people decide what happened with no facts.

Yeah you are right. Less than half of people arrested for DUI were actually drinking and driving.

I definitely should wait for the facts to come in, because so many DUI cases go through an entire trial.

How about I say I am disappointed this guy was irresponsible enough to put himself in a position where he could get arrested for DUI.

I have to admit I am still amazed in 2009 how many people just get bent out of shape when anyone suggest that people should not drink and drive at all, like it is the craziest and most unreasonable thing every put in front of them.

[Rob Helmerichs]

I have to admit I am still amazed in 2009 how many people just get bent out of shape when anyone suggest that people should not drink and drive at all, like it is the craziest and most unreasonable thing every put in front of them.
Which attitude, of course, is largely why drunk driving is such a problem in this country.

[Amnesia]

I have to admit I am still amazed in 2009 how many people just get bent out of shape when anyone suggest that people should not drink and drive at all, like it is the craziest and most unreasonable thing every put in front of them.Well, what are you suggesting? That if someone has a beer then they shouldn't get behind the wheel for what? 24 hours? More? A week?
What about if they have 1/2 an oz of alcohol? What about less?

Certainly you're not suggesting that if someone ever drinks alcohol that they should never again be allowed behind the wheel of a car, so it's just a question of how much they're allowed to drink vs. how long you think they should stay out a car, right? And that's just what current laws say. Perhaps your numbers would be a little more draconian, but it's a matter of degree, not a matter of kind...

[5thcrewman]

Sucks to have a low BMI

[aaronwt]

(bold highlights mine). As your next sentence shows, even you realize that there is another reason to refuse. And sorry, but if you have one drink, there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't drive. There's certainly no "of course" to it.

With any drinking there should be no driving. That way you will not even have a chance of getting a DUI. Or just don't drink at all.

[Rob Helmerichs]

Well, what are you suggesting? That if someone has a beer then they shouldn't get behind the wheel for what? 24 hours? More? A week?
What about if they have 1/2 an oz of alcohol? What about less?
I think if somebody has a beer and then drives so erratically they almost hit a police car, they deserve what they get.

This notion in our society that people are entitles to drink and drive causes a lot of trouble, damage, death, etc. It just boggles my mind that somehow taking mind-altering drugs and then driving is OK as long as your mind is altered in moderation.

[aaronwt]

Well, what are you suggesting? That if someone has a beer then they shouldn't get behind the wheel for what? 24 hours? More? A week?
What about if they have 1/2 an oz of alcohol? What about less?

Certainly you're not suggesting that if someone ever drinks alcohol that they should never again be allowed behind the wheel of a car, so it's just a question of how much they're allowed to drink vs. how long you think they should stay out a car, right? And that's just what current laws say. Perhaps your numbers would be a little more draconian, but it's a matter of degree, not a matter of kind...

At least allow 2 hours minimum before driving for each 12oz beer or 1/2 oz of liquor. So if you have three then you cannot drive for six hours. this is what I do. although it would be extremely rare for me to drive. Typically if I drink anything I will not be driving. But on the off chance I do drive, I will not get behind the wheel until at least 2 hours pass for each drink I had. No exceptions.

I would rather not take any chances. Even with one drink you are going to be slightly impaired even if you think you are not. And after seeing an idiot coworker, in the 90's, spend tens of thousands on lawyers and fines for getting pulled over after drinking several times, it's pretty obvious just the monetary consequences aren't worth it. Not to mention the risk of harm to someones life.
The coworker did beat a couple of times he was charged with DUI, but he spent so much money, and he was still convicted once. Plus his insurance bill was sky high.
The risk is just not worth it to any sane person. And judgment should be easy. Even if someone drink half a case a beer they should still be lucid enough to realize not to drive. I know in high school when I drink like that, I was not stupid enough to drive after drinking. You would think a person that is supposedly an adult would have the common sense to know not to drive, but apparently many people do not.

[dswallow]

I think if somebody has a beer and then drives so erratically they almost hit a police car, they deserve what they get.

This notion in our society that people are entitles to drink and drive causes a lot of trouble, damage, death, etc. It just boggles my mind that somehow taking mind-altering drugs and then driving is OK as long as your mind is altered in moderation.
Perhaps the reason is that we should be comfortable with punishing people for what they do, not what we think they might be able to do.

Swerving in and out of lane? Ticket 'em for improper lane changing, if their behavior is sufficiently poor. Crashed into something? Ticket 'em. Injured or killed someone? Ticket 'em. Drove home without incident? No ticket.

Such a simple concept.

[Kamakzie]

Thing that ticks me off about drunk drivers is that a lot of times when they do cause an accident. They will survive but their victims don't.

[MikeCC]

Perhaps the reason is that we should be comfortable with punishing people for what they do, not what we think they might be able to do.

Swerving in and out of lane? Ticket 'em for improper lane changing, if their behavior is sufficiently poor. Crashed into something? Ticket 'em. Injured or killed someone? Ticket 'em. Drove home without incident? No ticket.

Such a simple concept.

In general, Doug, I agree with you. The nanny state can be far too intrusive.

"We'll arrest you for your own good."

However, the presumed activity here is driving while impaired, not drinking. Sure, the officers could also cite Mr. Donovan for unsafe lane change, and that they may; but it was the lane change that caught the officer's attention to Mr. Donovan's alleged impairment.

The state legislatures have enacted alcohol-driving laws because the results of impaired driving put lives and property at risk. The laws are not to protect the driver from his own folly; the laws are to protect the rest of us.

That is exactly the same reason pilots are barred from drinking before flying.

It is also the same idea behind a minimum age requirement before getting a driver's license.

Look, any sort of restrictioon is going to be arbitrary. This sixteen year old is way too immature to let drive; that fifteen year old has been driving around the ranch for years and is a solid driver. That adult male gets impaired with half a beer, this guy here isn't affected with several.

But the idea here is we are not protecting them from making mistakes. We are protecting ourselves from the consequences of the mistakes.

Would you seriously suggest that an officer cite a driver like Mr. Donovan with unsafe lane change, and then let him go?

If so, could you live with yourself if the driver then struck someone?

Or should the police take Mr. Donovan in, perhaps overnight, until he is no longer impaired?

The law has always recognized that there are actions people may take that can endanger others; and the law has always prohibited or restricted those actions.

In this case, it is not a matter of personal freedoms, it is a matter of personal responsibility.

[Rob Helmerichs]

Perhaps the reason is that we should be comfortable with punishing people for what they do, not what we think they might be able to do.

Swerving in and out of lane? Ticket 'em for improper lane changing, if their behavior is sufficiently poor. Crashed into something? Ticket 'em. Injured or killed someone? Ticket 'em. Drove home without incident? No ticket.

Such a simple concept.
I could go for that, as long as there's a massive multiplier for alcohol or drug use. Like automatic one-year license suspension.

[retrodog]

I'm sure he was kidnapped and drugged by management. He had just escaped and was trying to get away from them.

He needs to leave Miami. Everybody there is out to get him.

[ElJay]

I have to admit I am still amazed in 2009 how many people just get bent out of shape when anyone suggest that people should not drink and drive at all, like it is the craziest and most unreasonable thing every put in front of them.

I have some friends who take drunk driving pretty casually and it freaks me out. Too many people are still stuck a few decades back when it comes to this issue.

Swerving in and out of lane? Ticket 'em for improper lane changing, if their behavior is sufficiently poor. Crashed into something? Ticket 'em. Injured or killed someone? Ticket 'em. Drove home without incident? No ticket.

Such a simple concept.

Yeah it's all pretty simple until that "injured or killed someone" thing pops up. We had a soccer mom here that was a repeat DUI offender, got the tickets you prescribed over a number of years. Then one night she killed a couple of people on her most recent violation when she drove drunk down the wrong way on the highway. She's lost her license for a decade and is locked up for eight years. Two people lost their lives because of her decision, and they had no choice in the matter.

The DUI laws are about what people are doing right then and there. There is a prescribed limit to a person's blood alcohol content level and surpassing it while driving is illegal. It seems many traffic laws out there seem to be all about preventing what "could" happen. (Speed limits, traffic signals, state vehicle inspection requirements, etc) Driving 130mph in a 55mph zone might not be considered dangerous until a car driving 55mph is rear-ended by the speeding person.

[dcheesi]

I think if somebody has a beer and then drives so erratically they almost hit a police car, they deserve what they get.

This notion in our society that people are entitles to drink and drive causes a lot of trouble, damage, death, etc. It just boggles my mind that somehow taking mind-altering drugs and then driving is OK as long as your mind is altered in moderation.I take a medication that has the standard "may cause drowsiness" boilerplate attached to it. For me there is absolutely no drowsiness effect. But if we take your statement to its logical conclusion, I should be prosecuted for operating heavy machinery while taking it.

Just because I'm taking a substance that could theoretically leave me impaired, doesn't automatically mean that I am impaired.

[Amnesia]

Just because I'm taking a substance that could theoretically leave me impaired, doesn't automatically mean that I am impaired.And let's not forget lack of sleep. Studies have shown (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lack-of-sleep-affects-doc) that pulling an all-nighter can leave you just as impaired as being legally drunk. So perhaps we should ticket everyone who can't prove that they got 8 hours of sleep?

[MikeCC]

Just because I'm taking a substance that could theoretically leave me impaired, doesn't automatically mean that I am impaired.

If we still take your example, and you assume you are unimpaired to drive, and yet you still have an accident, could the medication have had some factor?

Perhaps.

Is your prescribed medication regulated and prohibited from use while driving? If it is not, then citations for impaired driving are unlikely.

HOWEVER, and this is an enormous however...

If a blood test shows the presence of a drug that could cause impaired reaction and or judgement, you can bet that any personal injury attorney worth his or her bar exam will go after you for not only compensatory damages, but look to you for punitive damages, too.

That's never paid by insurance, only you. Punitive damages are the result of willful and reckless conduct, not negligence. The argument would be you knew it could cause drowsiness, yet you willfully and recklessly drove anyway.

And arguments about lack of sleep raise the same issue: you may not be cited for driving will intoxicated, but you can still cause a horrible accident because of poor reflexes or judgement.

So be careful out there.

And for God's sake, if you have even a sliver of a doubt about your driving, DON'T. It is not a sign of weakness to have someone else drive. It is a sign of someone wise and mature enough to protect himself and others.

[Havana Brown]

I just started watching this show when they had a marthon a couple weeks ago and am really enjoying it. Too bad about this guy. Ever since a someone I know was busted for DWI a couple months ago I don't ever drive even after one drink. I either walk home (local watering holes are pretty walkable from home) or have the kid pick me up.

While I'm on the subject of the show, what's the deal with the yogurt? Is it like the pineapple in Psych? If this has already been discussed can someone point me in the right direction?

[windracer]

While I'm on the subject of the show, what's the deal with the yogurt?
From an interview with Matt Nix (http://www.thedeadbolt.com/news/104838/mattnix_interview.php):
THE DEADBOLT: What’s the story behind the yogurt that we see Michael eating?

NIX: What’s the story on all of the yogurt? It’s funny, people think it’s a big mystery and I sort of want to indulge that. But really, it was a combination of things. In the pilot, I wrote in the bit about the yogurt and getting the yogurt from the fridge so he could have, when breaking into a place, doing something so as to make your break-in seem more innocent and doing something that appears incompatible with your behavior, which was based on some real techniques. And so I just threw out - "He grabs something from the fridge, maybe a yogurt." And then when they were shooting it, Jeffrey had the yogurt and then he decided he wanted to eat the yogurt in the scene and we thought that was funny, and so he ate the yogurt.

Then when I was working on the first episodes of the series, he needed to have something in his refrigerator. What does he have in his refrigerator? Well, we know he likes yogurt. And then the writer of the second episode, Alfredo Barrios, thought that was funny and so he threw a yogurt into his episode. And once you get a yogurt in a pilot and two episodes, man, you gotta keep going. So it becomes - it’s just sort of fun. At the same time, I will say that it was inspired by some research that we did, or actually discussions that I had with Michael Wilson [consulting producer]. The essence of which is that operatives do find themselves in circumstances where they need cheap sources of healthy protein. Michael Wilson’s preferred source of cheap protein was canned tuna fish. So Michael could just as easily have been a tuna fish man, but we made him a yogurt man.

[dswallow]

And let's not forget lack of sleep. Studies have shown (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lack-of-sleep-affects-doc) that pulling an all-nighter can leave you just as impaired as being legally drunk. So perhaps we should ticket everyone who can't prove that they got 8 hours of sleep?

And then there's talking on a cell phone while driving; putting on lipstick; or even eating.

We should punish people harshly for killing or injuring someone while driving based on the cause of the incident, not based on some loosely related measurable level of some substance in one's bloodstream.

If one want's to tout "personal responsibility"; how about placing such personal responsibility on everyone interacting in public. Someone who runs out into the middle of the street and is struck and killed by a driver who was drinking heavily is dead because they ran out into the middle of a street. They may possibly have survived if the driver who hit them had quicker response times, but the onus is on the person who ran into the street to not do so, not on the driver using the street in accordance with all traffic signs and lights and markings.

But there's just too much money to be bade by the nannies these days to even dream about the idea of personal responsibility having anything to do with day to day life anymore.

[Havana Brown]

Thanks Windracer! :)

[MikeCC]

If one want's to tout "personal responsibility"; how about placing such personal responsibility on everyone interacting in public. Someone who runs out into the middle of the street and is struck and killed by a driver who was drinking heavily is dead because they ran out into the middle of a street. They may possibly have survived if the driver who hit them had quicker response times, but the onus is on the person who ran into the street to not do so, not on the driver using the street in accordance with all traffic signs and lights and markings.



You are absolutely right. Negligence can be (and often is) found in the actions of both parties in an accident.

I was an insurance adjuster for many years, and if all the facts are exactly as you outline in your example, the majority of the negligence would be upon the pedestrian.

In some states, this would bar any recovery by the pedestrian. In those states, if one party's actions was more responsible than the other, then that party could not recover anything.

There are different laws on comparative negligence in many states: from pure comparative, in which each party can recover to the extent of the other party's negligence; majority comparative, in which the party more at fault cannot recover; to no fault, in which bars suits against the other party, and has the injured person seek recovery from his own insurance.

(As an aside, no fault laws were proposed to help cut down on lawsuits, or so the argument went. It would not surprise anyone, would it, if I told you that did not work out that way...)

The point is, alcohol does not automatically mean actual negligence. It does however, create a prima facia case of possible negligence. The physiological effects of alcohol are undisputed. To defend a case involving alcohol, you have to show how those efects are not relevant, or at least, not as important, as other facts in the causation.

That said, we have certainly gone far afield from our lament that Jeffery Donovan was cited for driving while impaired.

[Bierboy]

And then there's talking on a cell phone while driving...

...and don't get me started on TEXTING while driving....I see WAY too much of that...

[needo]

I personally don't care if he was drinking and driving. It's not going to stop me from living my life or watching/enjoying Burn Notice.

[marksman]

I love when people try to bring up other things that might cause people to drive poorly when it is pointed out how stupid it is to drink and drive.

Obfustucate much? It is one of the lamest defenses possible. It is not relevant. We are talking about why people drink and drive, how responsible adults should choose not do so, and anyone claim it is in any way shape or form somehow difficult to not drink an drive are lazy, stupid or both.

Notice how none of those things have anything to do with people texting while driving, or wearing make up while driving. I would also add that texting while driving is not a temporarily permanent and non-removable impact on someone's ability to drive. Obviously lack of sleep falls into the same category, but not really the discussion. Because people abuse vicodin should we legalize Heroin?


It is like saying we should not want to punish people for murder because other people get run over by trains.

It still cracks me up in a bad way that any logical adult would condone drinking and driving for any reason in 2009.

[5thcrewman]

I better watch out. If I have a glass of wine and get a Sulfite allergic reaction I have my wife break out a Benadryl for me from her pillbox.

[Amnesia]

I love when people try to bring up other things that might cause people to drive poorly when it is pointed out how stupid it is to drink and drive.People do that in order to illustrate the absurdity of zero-tolerance policies for drinking and driving.

The whole point of your zero-tolerance is to reduce auto fatalities, right? You don't have some kind of moral issue with alcohol itself? Well then, if you're so adamant about stopping anyone getting behind the wheel if their reaction time is impaired even slightly by alcohol, then you should also be equally stringent about people who drive under other impairments.

Why aren't you?

[whitson77]

Is the brand of Yogurt that he eats a real brand? I think it is like Brennan's or something.

[MikeCC]

People do that in order to illustrate the absurdity of zero-tolerance policies for drinking and driving.

The whole point of your zero-tolerance is to reduce auto fatalities, right? You don't have some kind of moral issue with alcohol itself? Well then, if you're so adamant about stopping anyone getting behind the wheel if their reaction time is impaired even slightly by alcohol, then you should also be equally stringent about people who drive under other impairments.

Why aren't you?

Well, I am.

People that drive while sleepy are stupid. Period. No question. Get off the damn road before you kill somebody.

Using a phone while driving? Are you slow or just clueless? Are people who use phones and drive just so self-centered that they need to risk other's lives just so they can keep in touch? Are they so important that the world can not get along without their instructions for the short time they are behind the wheel?

"Hands-free" phone use is no really better; it just gives the driver a false sense of security about his attention to the road.

And texting while driving? Do people really have to work at being morons, or are these things born naturally to them? If only we can stop these people from breeding.

Stupidity has been said to be the only crime that is a truly a capital crime; do something stupid often enough, and eventually you'll kill yourself.

But for God's sake, imbeciles, don't take anybody else with you. Just aim your car at a brick wall and floor it.

Godspeed.

[philw1776]

Perhaps the reason is that we should be comfortable with punishing people for what they do, not what we think they might be able to do.

Swerving in and out of lane? Ticket 'em for improper lane changing, if their behavior is sufficiently poor. Crashed into something? Ticket 'em. Injured or killed someone? Ticket 'em. Drove home without incident? No ticket.

Such a simple concept.

Once usefull MADD has leveraged the nanny state prevent any risk at any cost to freedom mentality and won't stop until any drinking is outlawed. Now we have sobriety checkpoints where without cause citizens are stopped and inquisitioned. Yes, that gets drunks off the road that might kill a family but at the price of Constituional protections against unreasonable search.

That said, shame on Jeffrey should what appears to be so, true. It's not right to jeapordize others for your convenience.

[Johncv]

At least unlike Lost they won't kill off his character
:D

Those “actors” were showing up at the set drunk and after several warnings, they were fired. A DUI by any actor is a “serious” offense. What if Jeffrey Donovan had killed himself or worse killed another person. Studios, producers and others invest time and money into doing this show. Jeffrey Donovan will get the “dressing down” he deserve.

One more thing, ALL actors can be replace, even stupid ones.

[Amnesia]

Jeffrey Donovan will get the “dressing down” he deserve.For being suspected of a DUI? Perhaps the producers will wait to see if he's guilty. Crazy idea, I know...

[Bierboy]

...Obfustucate much? ....

...only in the privacy of my own bunk and until i go blind....

[harrinpj]

I haven't read the whole thread but in the beginning people were complaining about why he shouldn't have the right to refuse to take the breathalyzer. I've always thought that since driving a car is a privilege and not a right that if you refuse the breathalyzer that privilege gets revoked. Basically, when you get the driving license you agree to this. Am I wrong?

[Jon J]

...only in the privacy of my own bunk and until i go blind....Do you wear glasses? ;)

[dswallow]

I haven't read the whole thread but in the beginning people were complaining about why he shouldn't have the right to refuse to take the breathalyzer. I've always thought that since driving a car is a privilege and not a right that if you refuse the breathalyzer that privilege gets revoked. Basically, when you get the driving license you agree to this. Am I wrong?

I believe what's going on here is that people are arguing about whether that law is actually "right" or not, not that that is or isn't the law.

[Waldorf]

I believe what's going on here is that people are arguing about whether that law is actually "right" or not, not that that is or isn't the law.

Then there are those of us that have actually seen the code inside those "approved" breathalyzers. Yikes. If you were stone-cold sober and never had a drink in your life you should still refuse.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/14/1758234

[justapixel]

It's all part of the plan. There's always a plan.

FTW. :D

I'm such a hypocrite. I'm not a fan of drunk drivers, but he looks hot. :D

[IJustLikeTivo]

Then there are those of us that have actually seen the code inside those "approved" breathalyzers. Yikes. If you were stone-cold sober and never had a drink in your life you should still refuse.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/14/1758234

The actual analysis is pretty scary:

http://www.dwi.com/new-jersey/state-v-chun

I spent 15 years as a programmer and I understand how that happens but the consequences are so serious that it shouldn't be allowed here.

[cheesesteak]

The actual analysis is pretty scary:

http://www.dwi.com/new-jersey/state-v-chun

I spent 15 years as a programmer and I understand how that happens but the consequences are so serious that it shouldn't be allowed here.
I skimmed the article. Does it say more than it's just sloppy code? Does it say that the code gives inaccurate real world results?

[windracer]

Does it say that the code gives inaccurate real world results?
Sure:
2. Readings are Not Averaged Correctly: When the software takes a series of readings, it first averages the first two readings. Then, it averages the third reading with the average just computed. Then the fourth reading is averaged with the new average, and so on. There is no comment or note detailing a reason for this calculation, which would cause the first reading to have more weight than successive readings. Nonetheless, the comments say that the values should be averaged, and they are not.
3. Results Limited to Small, Discrete Values: The A/D converters measuring the IR readings and the fuel cell readings can produce values between 0 and 4095. However, the software divides the final average(s) by 256, meaning the final result can only have 16 values to represent the five-volt range (or less), or, represent the range of alcohol readings possible. This is a loss of precision in the data; of a possible twelve bits of information, only four bits are used. Further, because of an attribute in the IR calculations, the result value is further divided in half. This means that only 8 values are possible for the IR detection, and this is compared against the 16 values of the fuel cell.

[Jonathan_S]

I skimmed the article. Does it say more than it's just sloppy code? Does it say that the code gives inaccurate real world results?It didn't really address the accuracy of the code when the device is working more-or-less correctly.

(OTOH with the number of ways it appears to "correct" for bad self-test values or use unverified assumptions or assume all hardware must be working it seems that you've got no way to tell if it's operating as expected or if it's off in la-la land)

[Just_Chris]

I wonder how this will affect (effect? I never get them straight) Sam and his Mojitos...

[Waldorf]

I wonder how this will affect (effect? I never get them straight) Sam and his Mojitos...

Good effects can affect the user in a positive way. Most of the time, effect is a noun and affect is a verb.