Mark Few arrested for DUI

[tommy]

Technically, I think refusing the field sobriety test is fairly standard legal advice. There is very little incentive for the individual to perform the tests.

I don't know about in other states, though I bet it's the same as here, but here in California that would be an inaccurate statement. A refusal to perform the tests or to give a sample of blood, breath, or urine is not only itself admissible in court, but the penalties if convicted of the DUI with the additional "refusal" allegation, go up substantially. When you get a driver's license, you sign something called "implied consent" in which you essentially promise to give a sample if requested, and if you refuse, you acknowledge and agree to the additional consequences.

Driving with a BAC of .08% or more is DWI (actual proof of impairment is not required). One can also be convicted of DWI where the BAC is more or even less than .08% by showing the driver was appreciably mentally or physically impaired while driving.) So, the DA has a two pronged cause of action to prove DWI. I think if there is evidence of BAC of .10% or more (and it almost always is that high when testing has been done), the DA would be well advised not to proceed on the impairment prong because by the time the evidence is in, the jury starts to believe it is necessary to prove impairment, which is far harder to prove than a generated test result.

Here it is routine for the prosecutor to charge both the Driving Under the Influence as one count in the case and then Driving with .08% or Higher BAC as the second count. Unless it is a "refusal" case, in which case of course there is no second count as there is no proof of the BAC. But when there is a sample given, that result is used in conjunction with the other evidence in the case -- such as manner of driving, alcohol on the defendant's breath, bloodshot eyes, unsteady gait, slurring words, plus his performance on the field sobriety tests, to prove that he was impaired for the DUI count in addition to the BAC results being used for the second count, which again is Driving with .08% or higher.

A poster or two was kind of pooh-poohing the consequences of a DUI conviction. Here the fines are quite heavy -- and more so if it's not your first conviction -- plus the mandatory alcohol education program one must attend, plus sometimes additional programs, plus a driver's license restriction or suspension from DMV, plus court fees etc. It's no joke. And it shouldn't be.

[Acymetric]

I don't know about in other states, though I bet it's the same as here, but here in California that would be an inaccurate statement. A refusal to perform the tests or to give a sample of blood, breath, or urine is not only itself admissible in court, but the penalties if convicted of the DUI with the additional "refusal" allegation, go up substantially. When you get a driver's license, you sign something called "implied consent" in which you essentially promise to give a sample if requested, and if you refuse, you acknowledge and agree to the additional consequences.

The implied consent applies only to the official breathalyzer (or whatever the actual name is) reading at the station/jail (or a request for a blood draw). If you refuse that test, in NC you lose your license for a year regardless of whether you end up convicted or not. Probably similar in CA and elsewhere, as you mentioned.

There are no penalties for refusing field sobriety tests in California or North Carolina, so you are mistaken on that point (or possibly you are just confusing the official tests with the field sobriety tests).

[tommy]

The implied consent applies only to the official breathalyzer (or whatever the actual name is) reading at the station/jail (or a request for a blood draw). If you refuse that test, in NC you lose your license for a year regardless of whether you end up convicted or not. Probably similar in CA and elsewhere, as you mentioned.

There are no penalties for refusing field sobriety tests in California or North Carolina, so you are mistaken on that point (or possibly you are just confusing the official tests with the field sobriety tests).

Right. I misstated that. The penalties are for refusing the blood, breath, or urine, not for refusing the FST's.

[Steven43]

I’m surprised that there’s so much interest in an incident of a coach getting a DUI, particularly one who has no connection to Duke or the ACC, as far as I know.

I guess it speaks volumes about the current dearth of compelling Duke basketball storylines.

[cspan37421]

I think the emphasis is wrong in the post above. It categorically does not matter that the specific choice to drive may have been made after he was in a state where he was less likely to make sound decisions. He voluntarily put himself in that state, and the consequences of doing so were entirely predictable before he did. The responsibility is his, and his alone, for allowing that to happen. Period. He gets no "credit" for his reduced abilities at the time.

Further, the last sentence should not emphasize the need for enforcement. It is the INDIVIDUAL who needs to be the responsible agent. They owe a duty to society at large.

I beg to differ, in that what you write appears to me to be a false dichotomy (or -ies), but I believe going further into it is not likely to lead to an agreed-upon conclusion. Do take heart though that I certainly don't feel any other person or society at large is responsible for the incident - Few is. (or is that, Few are?)

[bundabergdevil]

I’m surprised that there’s so much interest in an incident of a coach getting a DUI, particularly one who has no connection to Duke or the ACC, as far as I know.

I guess it speaks volumes about the current dearth of compelling Duke basketball storylines.

You mean like Coach K’s imminent swan song?

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I’m surprised that there’s so much interest in an incident of a coach getting a DUI, particularly one who has no connection to Duke or the ACC, as far as I know.

I guess it speaks volumes about the current dearth of compelling Duke basketball storylines.

If it wasn’t a top tier coach of a recently very successful and squeaky clean program, it probably wouldn’t be getting any attention. But it’s Mark Few.

And we do play GU in a few months.

So…

[Steven43]

If it wasn’t a top tier coach of a recently very successful and squeaky clean program, it probably wouldn’t be getting any attention. But it’s Mark Few.

And we do play GU in a few months.

So…

Well okay, I guess that makes a bit more sense.

But you’ve got to admit there ain’t a whole heckuva lot of compelling stuff going on in the Duke basketball world at the moment. It’s the lull before the storm.

[dukelifer]

I’m surprised that there’s so much interest in an incident of a coach getting a DUI, particularly one who has no connection to Duke or the ACC, as far as I know.

I guess it speaks volumes about the current dearth of compelling Duke basketball storylines.

If a team has aspirations for a National Championship- they will likely be seeing the Zags. They are the team to beat and Few is their coach. The Zags are big time right now.

[tommy]

Well okay, I guess that makes a bit more sense.

But you’ve got to admit there ain’t a whole heckuva lot of compelling stuff going on in the Duke basketball world at the moment. It’s the lull before the storm.

I think what Jon Scheyer is getting done on the recruiting trail is a pretty compelling story …

[Acymetric]

Any excuse to avoid talking about football...

[Steven43]

I think what Jon Scheyer is getting done on the recruiting trail is a pretty compelling story …

Well yeah, but we’ve already talked in-depth about all three of those recruits. Not much left to say at this point. Just waiting on number four, if there is a fourth.

Until then it’s more Mark Few and Duke Football!

Sorry, Acy, I posted before I had read your comment.

[johnb]

3 or 4 official drinks in an hour can get an adult man to 0.12.

Depending on the pour, that could be 2 real-life drinks.

Two real-life drinks can be delivered in one order at a happy hour, especially if it’s a Mark Few who’s entered a sports bar.

If he drinks a few drinks every night, he might not have felt impaired at all. If tested, regular drinkers can function fairly well/ok at 0.1, whereas neophytes would be drunk and wobbly.

As for punishment, I’d say he’s already been shamed, which is bigger than community service, a fine, or whatever license restriction he gets.

Having said that, I never drive after drinking, which is easy for those who live in NYC. When I see bars in other places, I’m perpetually confused as to the math: people routinely drink > 3 drinks, and the parking lots are full.

My take-home message is to stay alert on the road, especially after 7 pm.

[Steven43]

When I see bars in other places, I’m perpetually confused as to the math: people routinely drink > 3 drinks, and the parking lots are full.

Ahh, therein lies the rub!

I’ve never quite figured that one out either.

[brevity]

TMZ: Gonzaga's Mark Few DUI Arrest Video: Coach Argued With Cops, Refused Orders

Few -- who told cops he was on his way home to Spokane from his vacation house -- initially refused to get out of his car when cops ordered him to ... and he then continuously stuffed his hands in his pockets despite officers telling him to keep them away from his shorts.

Later during the stop, Few refused to do any field sobriety tests -- claiming they were "totally subjective," and adding that previous injuries wouldn't allow him to do the tests properly.

Throughout questioning, Few grabbed his phone multiple times and attempted to call his attorney -- only to have cops tell him to put the device away.

Few told officers he had been swerving because he was trying to control the dogs in his car -- and he said emphatically that he believed he was okay to drive.

I don't buy it. He should have claimed that he was taking a nap, and his giant dogs were driving the car.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

TMZ: Gonzaga's Mark Few DUI Arrest Video: Coach Argued With Cops, Refused Orders





I don't buy it. He should have claimed that he was taking a nap, and his giant dogs were driving the car.

You don't buy it. I don't care. I'm much more concerned with the players on the court.

[jv001]

You don't buy it. I don't care. I'm much more concerned with the players on the court.

I'm more concerned about Few driving from Idaho to Washington under the influence of alcohol and the lives that could have been affected by his driving.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I'm more concerned about Few driving from Idaho to Washington under the influence of alcohol and the lives that could have been affected by his driving.

Yes. Of course. But I don't see the point in continuing to litigate this situation. It happened. It is out there. He sounds regretful and contrite.

The video looks bad - he's far from contrite.

I don't see the point in continuing to bring it up. If Gonzaga decides to change their take on the situation, fine. If not, okay.

Should we demand more accountability from Few? Or the university? Not my monkeys, not my circus.

[budwom]

We could form our own temperance society and get this out of our system.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I'm more concerned about Few driving from Idaho to Washington under the influence of alcohol and the lives that could have been affected by his driving.

Upon reflection, my initial response was crappy. I apologize.

I'm in the minority, but there's an entire genre of things that I find it distasteful to discuss. Celebrity crime is definitely one.

You are absolutely correct that being that level of inebriated on a highway is wildly irresponsible.

I'll shut up about it now. There's no good in defending Few in this situation.