The "Buzzed Driving is Drunk Driving" campaign by the Ad Council has been around for a while now. I watched another attorney do a DUI trial in approximately 2006, and after the jury convicted her client, one of the jurors cited that ad campaign as one of the reasons they convicted. "It doesn't matter that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant's blood alcohol level was at or above .08," this juror said, "buzzed driving is drunk driving and the defendant admitted to having three drinks so he must have been buzzed."
This is what we are up against as defense attorneys, but that is why it is important to identify and remove jurors who harbor these beliefs before the trial even starts. The ability of a juror who is hell-bent on convicting to rationalize by any means necessary notwithstanding, catch phrases like "buzzed driving is drunk driving" are some of the jury poisons that a good defense attorney must take pains to neutralize before beginning any DUI trial.
The reason it is such a poisonous ad campaign is because it is a blatant misstatement of the law.
The law in California allows people to drink and drive. Allowing this is a public policy choice inherent in making it legal to drive with a blood alcohol level of .079. Had the State wanted to make all drinking and driving illegal, it certainly could have done so, by lowering the legal limit to .01. As it stands, though, it is perfectly legal to drink and drive as long as your blood alcohol does not exceed .08 while you are doing so. The legislature chose to balance their public safety concerns with the concerns of the restaurant and bar industry, along with alcoholic beverage manufacturers and retailers, all of whom would be seriously hobbled by a law that made it illegal to drink and drive. The United States government made the same balancing calculation and adopted the same standard, .08, when it made federal highway monies contingent upon states all lowering their legal blood alcohol levels to .08. There should be no doubt that it is legal to enjoy alcoholic beverages and then drive in California or anywhere in the United States.
It is ironic, then, when that same United States government, working through the Ad Council (the campaign is funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation) insists that "buzzed driving is drunk driving." "Buzzed" is a subjective term, but it is commonly used to mean that someone feels the effects of the alcohol they have consumed. This, of course, can happen at very low -- and very legal -- blood alcohol levels. In fact, by the common meaning of the term, nearly all drinking and driving could be termed "buzzed" driving, which the government has explicitly made LEGAL.
The real problem is that there are two ways to be guilty of a DUI in California: 1. The commonly-known .08 standard; and 2. Even if there is reasonable about as to whether the driver's blood alcohol level was at or above .08, if the driver was impaired by alcohol to the point that he/she was "no longer able to drive a vehicle with the caution of a sober person, using ordinary care." With media-invented memes like "buzzed driving is drink driving" bouncing around in their heads, it is all too easy for many jurors to find people guilty of DUIs when they are, in actuality, not guilty and simply trying to drink and drive responsibly, which is their right under the law.
This is why winning a DUI case is so difficult for most attorneys. There are many moving parts and many pitfalls to making sure a jury understands not only the law and the science, but the public policy surrounding the California DUI laws. Thus, if you are being accused of a DUI in California, you need an experienced DUI attorney who can not only guide you through the system, but can also guide a jury.
