The Bobcat Nation

He was arrested for a DWI. What's the difference in penalties for a DWI compared to a DUI?

longhorn_22 wrote:He was arrested for a DWI. What's the difference in penalties for a DWI compared to a DUI?

I don't know that there is a difference. I think it just is different legal wording depending on the state.

DUI- Driving Under the Influence
DWI- Driving While Impaired

Means the same thing, just called differently from State to State

mslacat wrote:DUI- Driving Under the Influence
DWI- Driving While Impaired

Means the same thing, just called differently from State to State

I'm not sure that is completely accurate. I believe some states have both a DUI (similar to Montana's DUI Per Se) and a DWI (similar to Montana's regular DUI). In MT, you can get a DUI Per Se with a BAC of > .08, even though there is no other proof you were impaired (and in fact you may not actually have been impaired). With a DUI in MT, there is proof you were actually operating a vehicle while impaired. Penalties are greater for a DUI than a DUI Per Se.

BR GRIZ wrote:

mslacat wrote:DUI- Driving Under the Influence
DWI- Driving While Impaired

Means the same thing, just called differently from State to State

I'm not sure that is completely accurate. I believe some states have both a DUI (similar to Montana's DUI Per Se) and a DWI (similar to Montana's regular DUI). In MT, you can get a DUI Per Se with a BAC of > .08, even though there is no other proof you were impaired (and in fact you may not actually have been impaired). With a DUI in MT, there is proof you were actually operating a vehicle while impaired. Penalties are greater for a DUI than a DUI Per Se.

OH FINE! Get all technical on my butt will you!!!!

Geezuz, JJ Redick busted while driving drunk...better?

BR GRIZ wrote:

mslacat wrote:DUI- Driving Under the Influence
DWI- Driving While Impaired

Means the same thing, just called differently from State to State

I'm not sure that is completely accurate. I believe some states have both a DUI (similar to Montana's DUI Per Se) and a DWI (similar to Montana's regular DUI). In MT, you can get a DUI Per Se with a BAC of > .08, even though there is no other proof you were impaired (and in fact you may not actually have been impaired). With a DUI in MT, there is proof you were actually operating a vehicle while impaired. Penalties are greater for a DUI than a DUI Per Se.

That is not my understanding of per se, but I can't find anything in the Montana Code Annotated explaining per se.

mslacat wrote:DUI- Driving Under the Influence
DWI- Driving While Impaired

Means the same thing, just called differently from State to State

My professional legal understating of DUI and DWI is
If you cant stop hiccupping while talking to the officer you get a DWI
If you puke on the officers shoe when you roll down the window you get a DUI
But I received my law degree from the university of Phoenix online sooo….

Billings_Griz wrote:Geezuz, JJ Redick busted while driving drunk...better?

I'd probably be drunk if I went to Duke also. Plus the fact that knowing you will never be great in the NBA must suck.

Ok, I will take off my UNC hat and stop the Duke bashing.

rtb wrote:

Billings_Griz wrote:Geezuz, JJ Redick busted while driving drunk...better?

I'd probably be drunk if I went to Duke also. Plus the fact that knowing you will never be great in the NBA must suck.

Ok, I will take off my UNC hat and stop the Duke bashing.

It is not bashing. It is just the truth!

mslacat wrote:

rtb wrote:

Billings_Griz wrote:Geezuz, JJ Redick busted while driving drunk...better?

I'd probably be drunk if I went to Duke also. Plus the fact that knowing you will never be great in the NBA must suck.

Ok, I will take off my UNC hat and stop the Duke bashing.

It is not bashing. It is just the truth!

I wonder how Dukie Vitale is going to defend this.

Ponycat wrote:

BR GRIZ wrote:

mslacat wrote:DUI- Driving Under the Influence
DWI- Driving While Impaired

Means the same thing, just called differently from State to State

I'm not sure that is completely accurate. I believe some states have both a DUI (similar to Montana's DUI Per Se) and a DWI (similar to Montana's regular DUI). In MT, you can get a DUI Per Se with a BAC of > .08, even though there is no other proof you were impaired (and in fact you may not actually have been impaired). With a DUI in MT, there is proof you were actually operating a vehicle while impaired. Penalties are greater for a DUI than a DUI Per Se.

That is not my understanding of per se, but I can't find anything in the Montana Code Annotated explaining per se.

MCA Sec. 61-8-406 doesn't use the term "per se," which Black's defines as "by itself," but that is what most people call a violation of its provisions. Other people call it a baby DUI. A regular DUI is defined in MCA Sec. 61-8-401.

BR GRIZ wrote:

Ponycat wrote:

BR GRIZ wrote:

mslacat wrote:DUI- Driving Under the Influence
DWI- Driving While Impaired

Means the same thing, just called differently from State to State

I'm not sure that is completely accurate. I believe some states have both a DUI (similar to Montana's DUI Per Se) and a DWI (similar to Montana's regular DUI). In MT, you can get a DUI Per Se with a BAC of > .08, even though there is no other proof you were impaired (and in fact you may not actually have been impaired). With a DUI in MT, there is proof you were actually operating a vehicle while impaired. Penalties are greater for a DUI than a DUI Per Se.

That is not my understanding of per se, but I can't find anything in the Montana Code Annotated explaining per se.

MCA Sec. 61-8-406 doesn't use the term "per se," which Black's defines as "by itself," but that is what most people call a violation of its provisions. Other people call it a baby DUI. A regular DUI is defined in MCA Sec. 61-8-401.

I think your explanation of the difference is correct, but there is basically no difference in penalties and/or fines. It's a lot like pleading "no contest" it makes the defendant feel better but in the long run it don't mean S--t. But back to your main point I think "per se" and "DWI" are basically the same.

Ponycat wrote:

BR GRIZ wrote:

Ponycat wrote:

BR GRIZ wrote:

mslacat wrote:DUI- Driving Under the Influence
DWI- Driving While Impaired

Means the same thing, just called differently from State to State

I'm not sure that is completely accurate. I believe some states have both a DUI (similar to Montana's DUI Per Se) and a DWI (similar to Montana's regular DUI). In MT, you can get a DUI Per Se with a BAC of > .08, even though there is no other proof you were impaired (and in fact you may not actually have been impaired). With a DUI in MT, there is proof you were actually operating a vehicle while impaired. Penalties are greater for a DUI than a DUI Per Se.

That is not my understanding of per se, but I can't find anything in the Montana Code Annotated explaining per se.

MCA Sec. 61-8-406 doesn't use the term "per se," which Black's defines as "by itself," but that is what most people call a violation of its provisions. Other people call it a baby DUI. A regular DUI is defined in MCA Sec. 61-8-401.

I think your explanation of the difference is correct, but there is basically no difference in penalties and/or fines. It's a lot like pleading "no contest" it makes the defendant feel better but in the long run it don't mean S--t. But back to your main point I think "per se" and "DWI" are basically the same.

I don't work in this area, but my understanding is the penalties are now similar for a first offense, but for every offense after one a DUI has longer mandatory minimum jail time than a per se. I also believe this is a fairly recent change in Montana law, because it used to be that a first offense per se did not have a mandatory minimum, so you did not have to serve any jail time with a per se, but you did with a DUI.

I think you've pointed out what many people consider to be a problem with Montana's DUI laws: a prosecutor must prove impairment, of which BAC is only evidence, in order to prove DUI. A per se violation, on the other hand, is easier to prove because .08 BAC by itself is impairment, but it doesn't carry as heavy penalties. If the penalties for per se and DUI do ever become substantially the same for every offense, which many people are lobbying for, the only time you will find a prosecutor charging someone with DUI, as opposed to per se, is if there is some problem with BAC such as evidence of it being less than .08.

I didn't mean to get, as mslacat put it, all technical; I just wanted to point out that in Montana by statute we have two separate offenses and we call them both DUI, while some other states call one offense DUI and the other offense DWI.

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:

mslacat wrote:

rtb wrote:

Billings_Griz wrote:Geezuz, JJ Redick busted while driving drunk...better?

I'd probably be drunk if I went to Duke also. Plus the fact that knowing you will never be great in the NBA must suck.

Ok, I will take off my UNC hat and stop the Duke bashing.

It is not bashing. It is just the truth!

I wonder how Dukie Vitale is going to defend this.

LMAO.

BR GRIZ wrote: I don't work in this area, but my understanding is the penalties are now similar for a first offense, but for every offense after one a DUI has longer mandatory minimum jail time than a per se. I also believe this is a fairly recent change in Montana law, because it used to be that a first offense per se did not have a mandatory minimum, so you did not have to serve any jail time with a per se, but you did with a DUI.

The minimums and maximums are different but my experience is that the judge is more of a factor than statute, and per se is used more for plea agreements then anything else, becasue as you stated it's a lot easier to prove. Also they all three (DUI, per se, DWI) are factored in for those sad souls that can't figure it out and get a 4th offense which is a felony in Montana.

Billings_Griz wrote:

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:

mslacat wrote:

rtb wrote:

Billings_Griz wrote:Geezuz, JJ Redick busted while driving drunk...better?

I'd probably be drunk if I went to Duke also. Plus the fact that knowing you will never be great in the NBA must suck.

Ok, I will take off my UNC hat and stop the Duke bashing.

It is not bashing. It is just the truth!

I wonder how Dukie Vitale is going to defend this.

LMAO.

From what I heard is he was out partying with some Lacross Players and some Strippers

Ponycat wrote:

BR GRIZ wrote: I don't work in this area, but my understanding is the penalties are now similar for a first offense, but for every offense after one a DUI has longer mandatory minimum jail time than a per se. I also believe this is a fairly recent change in Montana law, because it used to be that a first offense per se did not have a mandatory minimum, so you did not have to serve any jail time with a per se, but you did with a DUI.

The minimums and maximums are different but my experience is that the judge is more of a factor than statute, and per se is used more for plea agreements then anything else, becasue as you stated it's a lot easier to prove. Also they all three (DUI, per se, DWI) are factored in for those sad souls that can't figure it out and get a 4th offense which is a felony in Montana.

You mean to tell me in Montana you have to get caught 3 times before it becomes a felony

Sorry but that is insane. Washington has gone to using these machines in the cars now of convicted DUI offenders where they have to breath into the machine to prove they are sober or the car will not start. In the beginning they found people who would have others breath for them and then drive but now they have installed a small computer camera in with the machine that takes a computer picture date and times the picture right to the Police database. The machine is pricey but the installment is payed for by the offender.

I have little tolerance for drunk drivers but I hope this is an isolated incident in JJ's life and I hope he can turn this into a positive thing.

4everacatfan wrote:
You mean to tell me in Montana you have to get caught 3 times before it becomes a felony

Sorry but that is insane. Washington has gone to using these machines in the cars now of convicted DUI offenders where they have to breath into the machine to prove they are sober or the car will not start. In the beginning they found people who would have others breath for them and then drive but now they have installed a small computer camera in with the machine that takes a computer picture date and times the picture right to the Police database. The machine is pricey but the installment is payed for by the offender.

I have little tolerance for drunk drivers but I hope this is an isolated incident in JJ's life and I hope he can turn this into a positive thing.

Montana has the Intoxalizers as well. I know 3rd offense DUIers and some 2nd offense have to have it installed, I think usually for a year, and if convicted of a felony and allowed to drive while on probation (which is in very rare cases) you have to have it for the entire time on probation.