You could be convicted or **** and murder on comparable evidence, so I don't have a problem with credible witness testimony that someone was drinking prior to an accident. I'm not changing the rules, not am I charging anyone with destroying evidence. What I am saying is that BAC is not the sole determinant of whether someone was DUI, though it could prove either guilt or innocence. I'm just saying that a conviction for DUI should be attainable without a blood test if there's evidence to support it. In the scenario where someone who is not in fact drunk leaves the scene and therefore never has a timely blood test, the evidence he destroys could very well be that which proved his innocence.

There's a lynch mob mentality against drivers on this forum, with folks demanding long mandatory terms for accidents, leaving the scene, or DUI. I'm not a believer in that, and accept that accidents are usually just that - accidents, and don't rise to criminality. I was and am against constantly lowering the BAC limits for drivers. OTOH, I am in favor of tougher enforcement against chronic DUI offenders, those who leave the scene and have to be hunted down, and others whose actions would elevate a simple accident to criminality.

Just as you don't need a murder weapon, or even a body to convict someone of murder, you should be able to convict of DUI without a blood test result, IF other evidence supports the charge adequately. Contrary to your belief and argumentative reading of my posts, I'm more on your side than against. I don't ask anyone to assume anything, and insist on evidence to support any charge, nor do I want mandatory sentences which remove discretion from judges and overly empower prosecutors.



It already does 'score' against them. The judge/jury get to hear and weigh that evidence they just don't get assume they were in fact legally intoxicated based upon the fact they left the scene. It appears your problem is mainly that you don't like the how they decide in such cases.[/QUOTE]