document_title: Mamma Mia! (film)

question_text: who does donna end up with mamma mia 1

question_tokens: who does donna end up with mamma mia 1

root

text: Mamma Mia! (film)

text: Plot[edit]

text: On the Greek island of Kalokairi, 20-year-old bride-to-be Sophie Sheridan reveals to her bridesmaids, Ali and Lisa, that she has secretly invited three men to her wedding without telling her mother, Donna. They are the men that her mother's diary reveals could have been her father: Irish-American architect Sam Carmichael, Swedish adventurer and writer Bill Anderson, and British banker Harry Bright. She dreams of being given away by her father at her wedding, and believes that after she spends time with them she will know which is her father.

tag: p

text: Sophie's mother Donna, who owns a villa and runs it not very successfully as a hotel, is ecstatic to reunite with her former Dynamos bandmates, wisecracking author Rosie Mulligan and wealthy multiple divorcée Tanya Chesham-Leigh, and reveals her bafflement at her daughter's desire to get married. Donna shows off the villa to Rosie and Tanya. The three men arrive and Sophie smuggles them to their room. She doesn't reveal that she believes one of them is her father, but does explain that she and not her mother sent the invitations. She begs them to hide so Donna will be surprised by the old friends of whom she "so often" favorably speaks. They overhear Donna working and swear not to reveal Sophie's secret.

text: Donna spies them and is dumbfounded to find herself facing former lovers, demanding they leave. She confides in Tanya and Rosie that she truly does not know which of the three fathered Sophie. Tanya and Rosie rally her spirits by getting her to dance with an all female ensemble of staff and islanders. Sophie finds the men aboard Bill's yacht, and they sail around Kalokairi, telling stories of Donna's carefree youth. Sophie plans to tell her fiancé Sky about her ploy, but loses her nerve. Sky and Sophie sing to each other, but Sky is abducted for his bachelor party.

text: At Sophie's bachelorette party, Donna, Tanya, and Rosie perform. When Sam, Bill, and Harry arrive, Sophie decides to talk with each of them alone. While her girlfriends dance with the men, Sophie learns from Bill that Donna received the money for her villa from his great-aunt Sofia. Sophie guesses she must be Sofia's namesake. She asks him to give her away and keep their secret until the wedding. Sophie's happiness is short-lived as Sam and Harry each pull her aside to tell her they are her father and will give her away. Sophie, overwhelmed by the consequences of raising the hopes of all three "fathers", faints.

text: In the morning, Rosie and Tanya assure Donna they will take care of the men. Bill and Harry intend to tell each other what they learned the previous night, but Rosie interrupts them. Donna confronts Sophie, believing Sophie wants the wedding stopped. Sophie says that all she wants is to avoid her mother's mistakes. Sam accosts Donna, concerned about Sophie getting married so young. Donna confronts him and they realize they still have feelings for each other. Tanya and young Pepper continue flirtations from the previous night. Sophie confesses to Sky and asks for his help. He reacts angrily to Sophie's deception and she turns to her mother for support. As Donna helps her daughter dress for the wedding, their rift is healed and Donna reminisces about Sophie's childhood. Donna admits her mother disowned her when she became pregnant. Sophie asks Donna to give her away. As the bridal party walks to the chapel, Sam intercepts Donna, who reveals the pain she felt over losing him.

text: Sophie and Donna walk down the aisle as the band plays. Donna tells Sophie and all gathered that her father could be any of the three men. Sam reveals that while he left Donna to get married, he did not go through with it, but returned to find Donna with another man. The men do not want paternity confirmed, each agreeing to be one-third of a father for Sophie. She tells Sky they should postpone their wedding and travel the world. Sam proposes to Donna. She accepts and they are married. At the reception, Sam sings to Donna and Rosie makes a play for Bill. The couples proclaim their love. Sophie and Sky sail away.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Meryl Streep as Donna Sheridan, Sophie's mother, owner of the hotel Villa Donna.
Amanda Seyfried  as Sophie Sheridan, Donna's 20-year-old daughter, Sky's fiancée.
Pierce Brosnan as Sam Carmichael, Sophie's possible father and an architect.
Colin Firth as Harry Bright, Sophie's possible father and a British banker.
Stellan Skarsgård as Bill Andersson, Sophie's possible father, a Swedish sailor and travel writer.
Dominic Cooper as Sky, Sophie's fiancé who is designing a website for the hotel.
Julie Walters as Rosie Mulligan, one of Donna's former bandmates in Donna and the Dynamos; an unmarried fun-loving author.
Christine Baranski as Tanya Chesham-Leigh, Donna's other former bandmate; a rich three-time divorcee.
Philip Michael as Pepper, Sky's best man who likes Tanya; a bartender
Juan Pablo Di Pace as Petros
Ashley Lilley as Ali, close friend of Sophie and her bridesmaid.
Rachel McDowall as Lisa, close friend of Sophie and her bridesmaid.
Enzo Squillino as Gregoris, one of Donna's employees.
Niall Buggy as Father Alex, the wedding priest.
Chris Jarvis as Eddie, a friend of Sky and Pepper.

tag: ul

text:
Benny Andersson as "Dancing Queen" piano player
Björn Ulvaeus as Greek god
Rita Wilson as Greek goddess

text: Musical numbers[edit]

text: A soundtrack album was released on July 7, 2008 by Decca and Polydor in the United States and internationally, respectively. The recording was produced by Benny Andersson. The album features sixteen musical numbers within the film, including a hidden track. The album was nominated at the 51st Annual Grammy Awards for Best Compilation Soundtrack Album for Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media. The deluxe edition of the soundtrack album was released on November 25, 2008.

text:
"I Have a Dream" – Sophie
"Honey, Honey" – Sophie, Ali and Lisa
"Money, Money, Money" – Donna, Tanya and Rosie
"Mamma Mia" – Donna
"Chiquitita" – Rosie, Tanya and Donna†
"Dancing Queen" – Tanya, Rosie and Donna
"Our Last Summer" – Harry, Bill, Sam, Sophie and Donna
"Lay All Your Love on Me" – Sky and Sophie
"Super Trouper" – Donna, Tanya and Rosie
"Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight)" – Sophie, Ali and Lisa
"Voulez-Vous" – Donna, Sam, Tanya, Rosie, Harry, Bill, Sky, Ali, Lisa and Pepper
"The Name of the Game" – Sophie‡
"SOS" – Sam and Donna
"Does Your Mother Know" – Tanya and Pepper
"Slipping Through My Fingers" – Donna and Sophie
"The Winner Takes It All" – Donna
"I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do" – Sam and Donna†
"When All Is Said and Done"  – Sam and Donna
"Take a Chance on Me" – Rosie, Bill, Tanya, Pepper and Harry
"Waterloo" – Donna, Rosie, Tanya, Sam, Bill, Harry, Sky and Sophie†
"Thank You for the Music" – Sophie§

tag: ol

text:
† Featured in the film, but omitted from the soundtrack album.
‡ Included in the soundtrack album, but omitted from the film.
§ Included on the soundtrack album as a hidden track.

text: Production[edit]

text: Most of the outdoor scenes were filmed on location at the small Greek island of Skopelos (during August/September 2007),[3] and the seaside hamlet of Damouchari in the Pelion area of Greece. On Skopelos, Kastani beach on the south west coast was the film's main location site.[3] The producers built a beach bar and jetty along the beach, but removed both set pieces after production wrapped.[3] A complete set for Donna's Greek villa was built at the 007 stage at Pinewood Studios and most of the film was shot there. Real trees were utilised for the set, watered daily through an automated watering system and given access to daylight in order to keep them growing.

text: The part of the film where Brosnan's character, Sam, leaves his New York office to go to the Greek Island was actually filmed at the Lloyd's Building on Lime Street in the City of London. He dashes down the escalators and through the porte-cochere, where yellow cabs and actors representing New York mounted police were used for authenticity.[4]

text: The Fernando, Bill Anderson's yacht (actually a ketch) in the film was the Tai-Mo-Shan built in 1934 by H. S. Rouse at the Hong Kong and Whampoa dockyards.[5][6]

text: Meryl Streep took opera singing lessons as a child, and as an adult, she previously sang in several films, including Postcards from the Edge, Silkwood, Death Becomes Her, and A Prairie Home Companion.[7] She was a fan of the stage show Mamma Mia! after seeing it on Broadway in September 2001, when she found the show to be an affirmation of life in the midst of the destruction of 9/11.[8]

text: Release[edit]

text: Though the world premiere of the film occurred elsewhere, most of the media attention was focused on the Swedish premiere, where Anni-Frid Lyngstad and Agnetha Fältskog joined Björn Ulvaeus and Benny Andersson with the cast at the Rival Theatre in Mariatorget, Stockholm, owned by Andersson, on July 4, 2008. It was the first time all four members of ABBA had been photographed together since 1986.[9]

text: Home media[edit]

text: In November 2008, Mamma Mia! became the fastest-selling DVD of all time in the UK, according to Official UK Charts Company figures. It sold 1,669,084 copies on its first day of release, breaking the previous record (held by Titanic) by 560,000 copies. By the end of 2008, the Official UK Charts Company declared that it had become the biggest selling DVD ever in the UK, with one in every four households owning a copy (over 5 million copies sold).[10] The record was previously held by Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl with sales of 4.7 million copies.

text: In the United States, the DVD made over $30 million on its first day of release.[11] By December 31, 2008, Mamma Mia! became the best-selling DVD of all time in Sweden with 545,000 copies sold.[12]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Box office[edit]

text: Mamma Mia! grossed $144.1 million in the United States and $471.6 million in other territories for a worldwide total of $615.7 million, against a production budget of $52 million.[2] It became the highest grossing live-action musical of all time, until it was surpassed by Bill Condon's Beauty and the Beast in 2017. It was also the highest-grossing movie directed by a woman, until it was surpassed by Patty Jenkins' Wonder Woman in 2017.[13]  It is the third highest-grossing film of 2008 internationally (i.e., outside North America) with an international total of $458.4 million and the thirteenth highest gross of 2008 in North America (the US and Canada) with $144.1 million.

text: In the United Kingdom, Mamma Mia! has grossed £69.2 million as of January 23, 2009, and is the ninth highest-grossing film of all time at the UK box office.[14] The film opened at #1 in the U.K, taking £6.6 million on 496 screens. It managed to hold onto the top spot for 2 weeks, narrowly keeping Pixar's WALL-E from reaching #1 in its second week.[citation needed]

text: When released on July 3 in Greece, the film grossed $1.6 million in its opening weekend, ranking #1 at the Greek box office.[15]

text: The film made $9.6 million in its opening day in the United States and Canada, and $27.6 million in its opening weekend, ranking #2 at the box office, behind The Dark Knight.[16] At the time, it made Mamma Mia! the record-holder for the highest grossing opening weekend for a movie based on a Broadway musical, surpassing Hairspray's box office record in 2007 and later surpassed by Into the Woods.[17]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: On Rotten Tomatoes the film holds an approval rating of 54% based on 179 reviews, with an average rating of 5.5/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "This jukebox musical is full of fluffy fun but rough singing voices and a campy tone might not make you feel like 'You Can Dance' the whole 90 minutes."[18] On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 51 out of 100, based on 37 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[19] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A–" on an A+ to F scale.[citation needed]

text: BBC Radio 5 Live's film critic Mark Kermode admitted to enjoying the film, despite describing the experience as 'the closest you get to see A-List actors doing drunken karaoke'.[20] Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian was more negative, giving it one star, and expressed a "need to vomit".[21] Bob Chipman of Escape to the Movies said it was "so base, so shallow and so hinged on meaningless spectacle, it's amazing it wasn't made for men".[22] The Daily Telegraph stated that it was enjoyable but poorly put together: "Finding the film a total shambles was sort of a shame, but I have a sneaking suspicion I'll go to see it again anyway."[23][dead link] Angie Errigo of Empire said it was "cute, clean, camp fun, full of sunshine and toe tappers."[24]

text: The casting of actors not known for their singing abilities led to some mixed reviews. Variety stated that "some stars, especially the bouncy and rejuvenated Streep, seem better suited for musical comedy than others, including Brosnan and Skarsgård."[25] Brosnan, especially, was savaged by many critics: his singing was compared to "a water buffalo" (New York Magazine),[26] "a donkey braying" (The Philadelphia Inquirer)[27] and "a wounded raccoon" (The Miami Herald),[28] and Matt Brunson of Creative Loafing Charlotte said he "looks physically pained choking out the lyrics, as if he's being subjected to a prostate exam just outside of the camera's eye."[29]

text: Accolades[edit]

text:
Award

Date of ceremony

Category

Recipient(s) and nominee(s)

Result

Ref.

ACE Eddie Awards

February 15, 2009

Best Edited Feature Film – Comedy or Musical

Lesley Walker

Nominated

[30]

British Academy Film Awards

February 8, 2009

Outstanding British Film

Mamma Mia!

Nominated

[31]

Best Film Music

Benny Andersson and Björn Ulvaeus

Nominated

Carl Foreman Award for Special Achievement by a British Director, Writer or Producer for their First Feature Film

Judy Craymer

Nominated

Costume Designers Guild Awards

February 17, 2009

 Excellence in Contemporary Film

Ann Roth

Nominated

[32]

Empire Awards

March 29, 2009

Best Soundtrack

Benny Andersson and Björn Ulvaeus

Won

[33]

Golden Globe Awards

January 11, 2009

Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy

Mamma Mia!

Nominated

[34]

Best Actress – Motion Picture Comedy or Musical

Meryl Streep

Nominated

Golden Raspberry Awards

February 21, 2009

Worst Supporting Actor

Pierce Brosnan

Won

[35]

Golden Reel Awards

February 21, 2009

Best Sound Editing – Music in a Musical Feature Film

Tony Lewis, Martin Lowe, Robert Houston

Won

[36]

Grammy Awards

February 8, 2009

Best Compilation Soundtrack Album for Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media

Various Artists

Nominated

[37]

Irish Film and Television Awards

February 14, 2009

Best International Actress

Meryl Streep

Won

[38]

MTV Movie Awards

May 31, 2009

Best Breakthrough Female Performance

Amanda Seyfried

Nominated

[39]

National Movie Awards

September 8, 2008

Best Musical[40]

Mamma Mia!

Won

[40]

Best Female Performance

Meryl Streep

Won

Best Male Performance

Pierce Brosnan

Nominated

Colin Firth

Nominated

People's Choice Awards

January 7, 2009

Favorite Movie Comedy

Mamma Mia!

Nominated

[41]

Favorite Cast

Mamma Mia!

Nominated

Favorite Song from a Soundtrack

"Mamma Mia"

Won

Rembrandt Awards

March 9, 2009

Best Female Actress

Meryl Streep

Won

[42]

Best International Actress

Won

Best International Film

Phyllida Lloyd

Won

Satellite Awards

December 14, 2008

Best Actress in a Motion Picture, Comedy or Musical

Meryl Streep

Nominated

[43]

tag: table

text: Sequel[edit]

text:
Because of the film's financial success, Hollywood studio chief David Linde, the co-chairman of Universal Studios, said that it would take a while, but there would be a sequel. He stated that he would be delighted if Judy Craymer, Catherine Johnson, Phyllida Lloyd, Benny Andersson, and Björn Ulvaeus agreed to the project, noting that there were still plenty of ABBA songs to use.[44]
Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again was announced on May 19, 2017, with a planned release date of July 20, 2018.[45] It was written and directed by Ol Parker.[46] It was announced that Seyfried,[47] Cooper, Streep, Firth and Brosnan would be returning.[48] In July 2017, Lily James was confirmed to portray young Donna.[49]


document_title: Drunk driving in the United States

question_text: when did drinking and driving become illegal in the us

question_tokens: when did drinking and driving become illegal in the us

text: Drunk driving in the United States

text: Laws and regulations[edit]

text: Driving Under the influence - DUI/DWI[edit]

text: For the most part, DUI or DWI are synonymous terms that represent the criminal offense of operating (or in some jurisdictions merely being in physical control of) a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol or drugs or a combination of both. The key inquiry focuses on whether the driver's faculties were impaired by the substance that was consumed. The detection and successful prosecution of drivers impaired by prescription medication or illegal drugs can therefore be difficult. Breathalyzers have been developed for the purpose of administering roadside or laboratory tests that can detect the actual level of a controlled substance in an individual's body.

text: Every state in the U.S. designates a "per se" blood or breath alcohol level as the threshold point for an independent criminal offense. This is often referred to as the "legal limit". It is a permissive presumption of guilt where the person's BAC is 0.08% or greater (units of milligrams per deciliter, representing 8 g of alcohol in 10 liters of blood).[9] Some states (e.g., Colorado) include a lesser charge, sometimes referred to as "driving while ability impaired" that may apply to individuals with a 0.05% or above, but less than the 0.08% per se limit for the more serious charge.[9]

text: Every state has a "catch-all" provision designed to cover those circumstances where the person is below 0.08%, but the person still appears impaired by definition of law. These types of "catch-all" statutes cover situations involving a person under the influence of drugs or under the combined influence of alcohol and drugs. With the advent of the legalization of marijuana, these catch-all provisions cover those prosecutions pursuing those charged with driving under the influence of drugs or even drugs and alcohol.

text: In California, this "catch-all" provision was previously found in California Vehicle Code Section 23152(a); however new statutes that were made effective on January 1, 2014, two new sections were created to make sections specifically addressing those charged with driving under the influence of drugs, (which includes prescription medications if it can be shown that those medications impaired the driver), and driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

text:
CVC 23152(a): It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle
CVC 23152(b): It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.
CVC 23152(e): It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any drug to drive a vehicle
CVC 23152(f): It is unlawful for a person who is under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug to drive a vehicle.

text: Wisconsin regards first offense drunk driving as a municipal offense, and New Jersey treats all drunk driving cases without serious injury or death as traffic violations.[10] The amount of alcohol intake to reach a BAC of 0.08% may vary with the individual's body composition and state of health. Prior to increased emphasis on drinking and driving in the 1980s, standards of 0.10%-0.15% were in place.

text: After the passage of federal legislation, the legal limit for commercial drivers is now set at 0.04%. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulation prohibits those who hold a commercial driver's license from driving with an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater. A commercial driver with an alcohol concentration of 0.02 or greater, but less than 0.04, must be removed from duty for 24 hours.[11]

text: Arizona has a 0.08% BAC limit for standard DUI, but drivers can also face more severe DUI charges like an Extreme DUI (§ 28-1382(A)(1)) for having a BAC over 0.15% or Super Extreme DUI (§ 28-1382(A)(2)) for a BAC over 0.20%.[12]

text: California, like every other state, has a "per se" BAC limit of 0.08% pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 23152(b); and based on the aforementioned federal legislation, a lower limit of 0.04% for drivers holding commercial drivers licenses (CDL). California also has a limit of 0.01% for drivers who are under 21 or on probation for previous DUI offenses pursuant to California Vehicle Code Sections 23136 and 23140. California also makes it illegal for persons who are on probation for a DUI conviction to drive with a blood or breath alcohol concentration of 0.01% or greater pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 23154. While the existence of a BAC of 0.01% or greater may not always result in prosecution for driving under the influence, it will expose such drivers to a one or two-year suspension through an administrative action by the California Department of Motor Vehicles. If that same person has a BAC of 0.08% or greater, it will prompt what is referred to as a "dual action", meaning a suspension for driving with a BAC of 0.08% or greater and a suspension for driving with a BAC of 0.01% or greater while on DUI Probation.

text: All U.S. states have implied consent laws which state that a licensed driver has given their consent to a field sobriety test and/or a Breathalyzer or similar manner of determining blood alcohol concentration. In 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States in Birchfield v. North Dakota held that both breath tests and blood tests constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, concluding that requiring breath tests is constitutional without a search warrant, however, requiring more intrusive blood tests involving piercing the skin is not, as the goal of traffic safety can be obtained by less invasive means.[13]

text: Nevada has an implied consent law, an agreement every motor vehicle license recipient must accept, that makes breath or blood testing mandatory if an officer has reasonable suspicion of impairment. Refusal is grounds for arrest and law enforcement may use reasonable force to obtain blood samples[14]

text: New Jersey has a general 0.08% BAC limit, but people can be convicted of drunk driving even when the BAC is under that limit.[15]

text: North Carolina has a general 0.08% BAC limit,[16] a lower limit of 0.04% for drivers holding commercial drivers licenses (CDL) while operating a commercial vehicle.[17] Additionally, it is illegal for anyone under the age of twenty-one (21) to possess or consume alcohol.[18]

text: Every state has enhanced penalties for refusing to submit to an Implied Consent Test pursuant to the State's Implied Consent Laws. In California, refusing to submit to a test of one's breath or blood upon being arrested for driving under the influence carries an additional punishment of a one-year license suspension pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 13558(c)(1).

text: Flying Under the Influence (FUI) and Boating Under the Influence (BUI)[edit]

text: Federal Aviation Regulation 91.17 (14 C.F.R. 91.17) prohibits pilots from flying aircraft with an alcohol level of 0.04% or more, or within eight hours of consuming alcohol, or while under the impairing influence of any drug. The same prohibition applies to any other crew members on duty aboard the aircraft (flight attendants, etc.). Some airlines impose additional restrictions, and many pilots also impose stricter standards upon themselves. Commercial pilots found to be in violation of regulations are typically fired or resign voluntarily, and they may lose their pilot certificates and be subject to criminal prosecution under Federal or State laws, effectively ending their careers.

text: Similar laws apply to other activities involving transportation; Michigan prohibits intoxicated bicycling, horseback riding, buggy driving, use of motorized farm implements, or boating, the latter whether a pilot or passenger, with much the same threshold of intoxication. In the case of boating, the laws extend to include kayaks, canoes, sailboats—any flotation device that needs to be steered in water. Different states have different laws and classifications on the level of transgression attached to a citation for boating under the influence. For example, Virginia has very similar penalties for a BUI as it does for a DUI. Those convicted of boating while intoxicated face penalties including, fines of up to $2,500, jail time of up to one year, loss of your operator’s license for up to three years and mandatory enrollment and completion of a Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program.[19]

text: Alcohol use was the number one contributing factor in U.S. recreational boating deaths between 2003 and 2012, accounting for 15 percent of the fatalities in 2003, and 17 percent in 2012.[20] A Canadian study published in 2011 examined 18 years of data on recreational boating, and concluded that a "true figure" of alcohol-related deaths in that country "may lie between 46% and 56%".[21]:15

text: Physician Reporting[edit]

text: Six states require physicians to report patients who drive while impaired.[22] Another 25 states permit physicians to violate doctor-patient confidentiality to report impaired drivers, if they so choose.[22] The American Medical Association endorsed physician reporting in 1999, but deferred to the states on whether such notification should be mandatory or permissive.[22] Medical bioethicist Jacob Appel of New York University says physician reporting may deter some patients from seeking care, writing "Reporting may remove some dangerous drivers from the roads, but if in doing so it actually creates other dangerous drivers, by scaring them away from treatment, then society has sacrificed confidentiality for no tangible return in lives saved."[22]

text: Driving While Impaired Court - DWI Court & Driving Under the Influence Court - DUI Court[edit]

text: These innovative courts use substance abuse intervention with repeat offenders who plead guilty to driving while intoxicated. Those accepted into the diversionary program are required to abstain from alcohol. Some are required to wear a device that monitors and records any levels of alcohol detected in their bloodstreams.

text: Criminal Penalties[edit]

text: The penalties for driving under the influence (DUI), driving while intoxicated (DWI) and operating while intoxicated (OWI) vary from state-to-state and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It is not uncommon for the penalties to be different from county-to-county within any given state depending on the practices of the individual jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions require jail time and larger fines, even on a first offense. For instance, Ohio requires a mandatory 72-hour jail sentence for a first offense conviction; however, the jail time component is satisfied by attendance of the Ohio A.W.A.R.E. Program, which is a 72-hour alcohol-education program. Compared to many other countries, such as Sweden, penalties for drunk driving in the United States are considered less severe unless alcohol is involved in an incident causing injury or death of another, such DUI, DWI or OWI with Great Bodily Injury (GBI) or Vehicular Manslaughter.

text: Administrative and Civil Penalties[edit]

text: The federal Assimilative Crimes Act, which makes state law applicable on lands reserved or acquired by the Federal government when the act or omission is not made punishable by an enactment of Congress, recognizes collateral actions related to DUI convictions as punishments. According to 18 U.S.C. § 13:

text: … that which may or shall be imposed through judicial or administrative action under the law of a State, territory, possession, or district, for a conviction for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a drug or alcohol, shall be considered to be a punishment provided by that law …

text: SR-22 - Proof of Financial Responsibility[edit]

text: An SR-22 is an addendum to an insurance policy. It is an administrative form that attests to an insurance company's coverage, or the posting of a personal public bond in the amount of the state's minimum liability coverage for the licensed driver or vehicle registration. The SR in SR-22 stands for Safety Responsibility, and it is needed to reinstate a suspended driver's license after a DUI conviction in 49 states and the District of Columbia. It is submitted to the State's DMV by an auto insurance company to serve as proof that a driver has the minimum liability insurance that the states requires. They are essentially an agreement between a driver's insurance company and the respective State's DMV that requires the driver's insurance company to notify the respective State's DMV that the driver's insurance has either been terminated or lapsed; thus instituting a suspension of the driver's driving privileges until proof of insurance is re-filed with the State's DMV.

text: While SR-22s are typically filed with the respective State's DMV, some States require the driver to carry proof of the SR-22 or to carry it in the registered vehicle, (particularly if the driver has been cited for coverage lapses or other administrative infractions). SR-22s may attest coverage for a vehicle regardless of operator (owner liability coverage), or cover a specific person regardless of the specific vehicle operated (operator liability coverage).

text: As stated, the form is required in 49 states and the US District of Columbia in order to register a vehicle for usage on public roads. It is also required to redeem a license which has been suspended due to coverage lapse in these required states. These states also, generally, require that the issuing insurance company provide the relevant state's DMV with timely updates as to the status of such coverage. If the policy with the SR22 cancels, a form called an SR26 is issued and sent to the state DMV.[23] Upon notice that there has been a lapse in coverage, the state will suspend the driver's license again.[24] Another SR-22 filing will need to be submitted to regain driving privileges.

text: Diversion Programs[edit]

text: The State of Washington used to permit those charged with a first offense DUI/DWI/OWI to complete a diversion program that resulted in the charges being dismissed upon the completion of a Diversion Program. In 1975, under the revised code of Washington or RCW Section 10.05, the Washington State Legislature established a deferred prosecution option for offenders arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or impairing drugs (DUI). It was intended to encourage individuals to seek appropriate treatment and, under this option, defendants with a significant alcohol or drug dependence problem could petition a court to defer disposition of their charge until they have completed intensive substance dependence treatment and met other conditions required by the court. If the defendant successfully completed the terms of the program, the charge was dismissed; for those who failed, the deferred status was revoked and the defendant was prosecuted for the original DUI charge. (RCW 10.05.010 and 10.05.020) In 1992, the University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute evaluated DUI deferred prosecution and concluded the program reduced DUI recidivism.[25] In 1998, the legislature modified the DUI statutes. Among other things, the length of deferred prosecution supervision was increased from two to five years and defendants were restricted to one deferred prosecution per lifetime.

text: Alcohol Programs

text: Every jurisdiction imposes the completion of alcohol education programs, commonly known as DUI programs, subsequent to a DUI/DWI/OWI conviction. Additionally, some states impose an additional requirement that a person attend a Victim Impact Panel (VIP) administered by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), which was established in 1982. Both DUI classes and Victim Impact Panels are available in some states for first offense DUIs dependent on the judge's decision.[26]

text: DUI Plates[edit]

text: In 1967, Ohio began to issue special license plates to DUI offenders who are granted limited driving privileges such as work-related driving until a court can rule that they can have full privileges back. However, judges rarely enforced the plates, so in 2004, the plates became mandated by state law to all DUI offenders.[27] Unlike Ohio's standard-issue plates (which as of 2008 have a picture of the Ohio country side), the DUI plates are yellow with red writing with no registration stickers or graphics. They are commonly referred to as "party plates".[27]

text: Minnesota has a similar program, where the plates are white with either blue or black text. The plate number is a "W", followed by a letter and four numbers. These plates may be issued to drivers with at least 2 offenses in a five-year period; three offenses in a ten-year period; having a BAC twice the legal limit; or having a child in the car at the time of arrest.[28] In Minnesota, DUI plates are referred to as "whiskey plates",[29] whiskey being the name of the letter W in the NATO phonetic alphabet.

text: Ignition Interlock Devices - IID Devices[edit]

text: Some states, such as California, may impose the installation of ignition interlock devices in cases where the driver's BAC is over 0.20%, or 0.15% in some places. These additional sanctions are meant to deter and punish the operation of a vehicle at extremely high BAC levels and the concomitant danger posed to the safety of persons and property by heavily impaired drivers.

text: As of July 1, 2010, California implemented a pilot project for DUI sentencing. In four counties, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Tulare and Alameda, first offenders convicted of drunk driving are required to install an ignition interlock device in their car for a period of five months and second offenders for a period of one year.[30] Previously, this requirement was only required for third offenders and permitted for second offenders, and then for a three-year period. The California DMV has written guidelines to clear up some ambiguities in the law. Costs associated with ignition interlock devices include $70 – $150 for installation and fees in the range of $60 - $80 per month thereafter.[31]

text: Vehicle Impoundment and Forfeiture[edit]

text: Some states, such as California, allow for the impoundment and forfeiture of vehicles under certain conditions.[32][33]

text: Cost of a DUI[edit]

text: In the United States, paying the DUI ticket, court costs, and attorney fees is just the start of a person's financial obligations after a DUI conviction. Additional costs of a DUI conviction will often involve the installation and maintenance fees of a vehicle Ignition Interlock Device, which serves the same function as a Breathalyzer to enable the vehicle to start. A person convicted of a driving under the influence charge, can also expect to pay higher insurance rates and premiums.[34][35] In addition, DUI records prevent entry into Canada without proper documentation.[36]

text: History of drunken driving laws[edit]

text: New Jersey enacted the first law that specifically criminalized driving an automobile while intoxicated, in 1906. The New Jersey statute provided that "[n]o intoxicated person shall drive a motor vehicle." Violation of this provision was punishable by a fine of up to $500, or a term of up to 60 days in county jail.[37]

text: Early laws, such as that enacted in New Jersey, required proof of a state of intoxication with no specific definition of what level of inebriation qualified.[38] The first generally accepted legal BAC limit was 0.15%. New York, for example, which had enacted a prohibition on driving while intoxicated in 1910,[39] amended this law in 1941 to provide that it would constitute prima facie evidence of intoxication when an arrested person was found to have a BAC of .15 percent or higher, as ascertained through a test administered within two hours of arrest.[40]

text: In 1938, the American Medical Association created a "Committee to Study Problems of Motor Vehicle Accidents". At the same time, the National Safety Council set up a "Committee on Tests for Intoxication".

text: In the US, most of the laws and penalties were greatly enhanced starting in the late 1970s, and through the 1990s, largely due to pressure from groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) and leaders like Candy Lightner. Significantly, zero tolerance laws were enacted which criminalized driving a vehicle with 0.01% or 0.02% BAC for drivers under 21. This is true even in Puerto Rico, despite maintaining a legal drinking age of 18.[41]

text: On May 14, 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all 50 states lower the benchmark for determining when a driver is legally drunk from 0.08 blood-alcohol content to 0.05. The idea is part of an initiative to eliminate drunk driving, which accounts for about a third of all road deaths.[42] In light of this push by the NTSB, and in addition to numerous media reports, many bloggers/authors have posted content addressing the Debate Surrounding Lowering the Legal Limit from 0.08% to 0.05%.

text: The NHTSA estimates that 17,941 people died in 2006 in alcohol-related collisions, representing 40% of total traffic deaths in the US. Over the decade 2001-2010, this rate showed only a 3% variation, and no trend.[43] NHTSA states 275,000 were injured in alcohol-related accidents in 2003.[2] The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that in 1996 local law enforcement agencies made 1,467,300 arrests nationwide for driving under the influence of alcohol, 1 out of every 10 arrests for all crimes in the U.S., compared to 1.9 million such arrests during the peak year in 1983, accounting for 1 out of every 80 licensed drivers in the U.S.[3][4] This represented a 220% increase in DUI arrests from 1970 to 1986, while the number of licensed drivers increased by just 42% in the same period.[44] The arrest rate for alcohol-related offenses among American Indians was more than double that for the total population during 1996, and almost 4 in 10 American Indians held in local jails had been charged with a public order offense, most commonly driving while intoxicated.[45] In 1997 an estimated 513,200 DUI offenders were under correctional supervision, down from 593,000 in 1990 and up from 270,100 in 1986.[46]

text: Recent analysis have shown cities in which ride sharing services operate show mixed results as to whether the availability of those services affects rates of impaired driving.[47] NHTSA defines fatal collisions as "alcohol-related" if they believe the driver, a passenger, or non-motorist (such as a pedestrian or pedal cyclist) had a BAC of 0.01% or greater. NHTSA defines nonfatal collisions as alcohol-related if the accident report indicates evidence of alcohol present. NHTSA specifically notes that alcohol-related does not necessarily mean a driver or non occupant was tested for alcohol and that the term does not indicate a collision or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol.[6] On average, about 60% of the BAC values are missing or unknown. To analyze what they believe is the complete data, statisticians simulate BAC information.[7] Drivers with a BAC of 0.10% are 6 to 12 times more likely to get into a fatal crash or injury than drivers with no alcohol.[8][48]

text: Typical DUI Investigation and Arrest[edit]

text: Following are common procedures when a law enforcement officer has reason to suspect a driver is intoxicated.

text: Reasonable Suspicion to Stop & Detain[edit]

text: There are several situations in which the officer will come into contact with a driver, some examples are:

text:
The officer on patrol has observed erratic, suspicious driving, or a series of traffic infractions indicating the possibility that the driver may be impaired. This is by far the most common reason for stopping a suspect.
A police officer has stopped a vehicle for a lesser traffic offense, notices the signs of intoxication, and begins the DUI investigation.
The driver has been involved in an automobile accident; the officer has responded to the scene and is conducting an investigation.
The driver has been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint (also known as roadblocks).
The police have received a report, possibly from an anonymous citizen, that a described car has been driving erratically. The officer should verify the erratic driving before pulling the driver over. In some cases, the driver will no longer be in the vehicle.

text: The following list of DUI symptoms, from a publication issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (DOT HS-805-711),[49] is widely used in training officers to detect drunk drivers. After each symptom is a percentage figure which, according to NHTSA, indicates the statistical chances through research, that a driver is over the legal limit.

text:
Turning with wide radius
over 50%

Straddling center or lane marker
65%

Appearing to be drunk
60%

Almost striking object or vehicle
60%

Weaving
60%

Driving on other than designated roadway
55%

Swerving
55%

Slow speed (more than 10 mph below limit)
50%

Stopping (without cause) in traffic lane
50%

Drifting
50%

Following too closely
45%

Tires on center or land marker
45%

Braking erratically
45%

Driving into opposing or crossing traffic
45%

Signaling inconsistent with driving actions
40%

Stopping inappropriately (other than in lane)
35%

Turning abruptly or illegally
35%

Accelerating or decelerating rapidly
30%

Headlights off
30%

text: If the officer observes enough evidence to have a "Reasonable Suspicion" to legally justify a further detention and investigation, they will ask the driver to step out of the vehicle.

text: Reasonable suspicion requires less evidence than "Probable Cause", but more than a mere hunch. A rule of thumb is that reasonable suspicion requires 25% proof, and probable cause requires more than 50% statistical chance. Therefore, if there is probable cause for arrest for DUI/DWIOWI, as suggested by the research and examples used above, then there is reasonable suspicion to stop a driver.

text: Investigation[edit]

text: According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, police officers should conduct DUI Investigations according to a specific protocol called phases. According to the NHTSA training, DUI Investigations are categorized by these phases:

text:
Phase 1 - “Vehicle in Motion”
Phase 2 - "Personal Contact"
Phase 3 - "Pre-Arrest Screening"

text: The Vehicle in Motion Phase deals with the law enforcement officers observations of the suspect's driving maneuvers. The Personal Contact Phase is where the officer actually comes into contact with the DUI suspect. The Pre-Arrest Screening Phase is portion of the DUI Investigation that encompasses the Pre-Field Sobriety Test Questioning and the Field Sobriety Testing, including a Preliminary Alcohol Screening Test where applicable. This Phase also includes the post-arrest evidentiary chemical test despite that it occurs subsequent to a DUI arrest, not prior to a DUI arrest.

text: The officer will typically approach the driver's window and ask some preliminary questions. During this phase of the stop the officer will note if they detect any of the following indicators of intoxication

text:
Odor of an alcoholic beverage on the driver's breath or in the car generally
Slurred speech in response to the questioning
Watery, blood shot, or reddish eyes
Flushed face
Droopy eyelids
Difficulty in understanding and responding intelligently to question
Fumbling with his or her driver's license and registration
The plain-view presence of containers of alcoholic beverages in the vehicle.
Admission of consumption of alcoholic beverage

text: If the officer observes enough to have a reasonable suspicion to legally justify a further detention and investigation, they will ask the driver to step out of the vehicle.

text: Field Sobriety Tests[edit]

text: One of the most controversial aspects of a DUI stop is the field sobriety test (FSTs). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has developed a model system for managing Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) training. They have published numerous training manuals associated with FSTs. As a result of the NHTSA studies, the walk-and-turn test was determined to be 68% accurate, and the one-leg stand test is only 65% accurate when administered to people within the study parameters. The tests were not validated for people with medical conditions, injuries, 65 years or older, and 50 pounds or greater overweight. The officer will administer one or more field sobriety tests. FSTs are considered "divided attention tests" that test the suspect's ability to perform the type of mental and physical multitasking that is required to operate an automobile. However, these tests can be problematic for people with non-obvious disabilities affecting proprioception, such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

text: The three validated tests by NHTSA are:

text:
The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, which involves following an object with the eyes (such as a pen) to determine characteristic eye movement reaction.[50]
The Walk-and-Turn Test (heel-to-toe in a straight line). This test is designed to measure a person's ability to follow directions and remember a series of steps while dividing attention between physical and mental tasks.
The One-Leg-Stand Test

text: Alternative tests, which have not been scientifically validated, include:

text:
Romberg test, or the Modified-Position-of-Attention Test, (feet together, head back, eyes closed for thirty seconds).
The Finger-to-Nose Test (tip head back, eyes closed, touch the tip of nose with tip of index finger).
The Alphabet Test (recite all or part of the alphabet).
The Finger Count Test (touch each finger of hand to thumb counting with each touch (1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1)).
The Counting Test (counting backwards from a number ending in a number other than 5 or 0 and stopping at a number ending other than 5 or 0. The series of numbers should be more than 15).
The Preliminary Alcohol Screening Test, PAS Test or PBT, (breathe into a "portable or preliminary breath tester", PAS Test or PBT).

text: Standardized Field Sobriety Tests[edit]

text: Although most law enforcement agencies continue to use a variety of these FSTs, most use the 3-test battery of validated field sobriety tests, referred to as the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFSTs). The NHTSA-approved battery of tests consists of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, or HGN Test; the Walk-and-Turn Test, or the WAT Test, and the One-Leg-Stand Test, or the OLS Test.

text: In some states, such as Ohio, only the standardized tests will be admitted into evidence, provided they were administered and objectively scored "in substantial compliance" with NHTSA standards (ORC 4511.19(D)(4)(b)).[citation needed]

text: According to NHTSA, these tests were not designed to measure impairment, but rather to give a probability that a driver is at or above a 0.08% BAC. However, studies have shown that there are reasons to doubt the tests' usefulness in helping an officer to make such a determination. In 1991, Dr. Spurgeon Cole of Clemson University conducted a study of the accuracy of FSTs. His staff videotaped people performing six common field sobriety tests, then showed the tapes to 14 police officers and asked them to decide whether the suspects had "had too much to drink and drive" (sic). The blood-alcohol concentration of each of the 21 DUI subjects was 0.00, unknown to the officers. The result: the officers gave their opinion that 46% of these innocent people were too drunk to be able to drive. This study showed the possible inaccuracy of FSTs.[51]

text: An increasingly used field sobriety test involves having the suspect breathe into a small, handheld breath testing device. These are often referred to as PAS Tests, or "Preliminary Alcohol Screening" Tests", or a PBT, "Preliminary Breath Test" and precede the actual arrest and subsequent requirement to submit to an evidentiary chemical test of the suspect's breath or blood. These breath testing devices used are smaller, inexpensive versions of the larger, more sophisticated instruments at the police stations, commonly known as an Evidentiary Breath Test using an EBT device, or Evidentiary Breath Test device. However, an increasing number jurisdictions began using Portable Evidentiary Breath Test devices, or PEBT devices, that are more sophisticated versions of the smaller, inexpensive versions of the larger, larger instruments at the police stations. However, where the larger EBTs usually employ infrared spectroscopy, the PEBT and PAS devices use a relatively simple electrochemical (fuel cell) technology. When used for purposes of a Preliminary Alcohol Screening Test, or PAS Test, their purpose, along with the other FSTs, is to assist the officer in determining whether he/she has probable cause for arrest.

text: There were three tests chosen to constitute the "Standardized Field Sobriety Tests", which are: (1) the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test; (2) the Walk & Turn Test; and (3) the One Leg Stand Test.

text: The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test[edit]

text: The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, or HGN Test, is administered by the police officer checking the test subject's eyes.

text: Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Instructions (HGN)

text:
I am going to check your eyes. (Please remove your glasses)
Keep your head still and follow the stimulus with your eyes only.
Do not move your head.
Do you understand the instructions?

text: Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Evaluation

text: There are six cues or clues that a police officer is looking for on the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, they are as follows:

text:
Lack of smooth pursuit
Distinct and sustained nystagmus and maximum deviation
Onset of nystagmus prior to 45 degrees

text: Total Cues: 6 Cues - Decision Point: 4/6 Cues

text: While the original research indicated that 6 out of 6 cues meant that a person was more likely above 0.08% at the time of the test, subsequent research conducted by the NHTSA has indicated that a “Hit” occurred when the number of reported signs for a given BAC fell within the range: > a 0.06% at 4 - 6 cues or clues; a .05% – .059% at 2 - 4 cues or clues; a 0.03% – 0.049% at 0 - 4 cues or clues and a < 0.03% at 0 – 2 cues or clues. "The Robustness of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Study" (September, 2007)

text: The Walk-and-Turn Test (WAT)[edit]

text: This article relies excessively on partisan sources. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (March 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: The walk-and-turn test is composed of two phases: the Instruction Phase and Walking Phase. During the test, the individual is directed to take nine steps along a straight line. The individual is supposed to walk heel to toe, and while looking down at a real or imaginary line, count the steps out loud. The test subject's arms must remain at their side. Reaching the ending point, the individual must turn around using a series of small steps, and return to the starting point. The proper instruction, according to the NHTSA Guidelines, is as follows:

text: Walk and Turn Test Instructions (WAT)[edit]

text:
Put your left foot on the line, then place your right foot on the line ahead of your left, with the heel of your right foot against the toe of your left foot.
Do not start until I tell you to do so.
Do you understand? (must receive affirmative response)
When I tell you to begin, take 9 heel-to-toe steps on the line (demonstrate) and take 9 heel-to-toe steps back down the line.
When you turn on the ninth step, keep your front foot on the line and turn taking several small steps with the other foot (demonstrate) and take 9 heel-to-toe steps back down the line.
Ensure you look at your feet, count each step out loud, keep your arms at your side, ensure you touch heel-to-toe and do not stop until you have completed the test.
Do you understand the instructions?
You may begin.
If the suspect does not understand some part of the instructions, only the part in which the suspect does not understand should be repeated

text: Walk and Turn Test Evaluation[edit]

text: There are eight cues or clues that a police officer is looking for on the Walk & Turn Test, they are as follows:

text:
Can’t keep balance during instructions
Starts too soon
Stops walking
Misses heel-to-toe
Steps off line
Uses arms for balance
Improper turn
Incorrect number of steps

text: Total Cues: 8 Cues – Decision Point: 2/8 Cues

text: The One Leg Stand Test (OLS)[edit]

text: The One Leg Stand Test is composed of two stages: the Instruction Phase and Balancing Phase. The proper instruction, according to the NHTSA Guidelines, is as follows:

text:
Stand with your feet together and your arms at your side (demonstrate)
Maintain position until told otherwise.
When I tell you to, I want you to raise one leg, either one, approximately 6 inches off the ground, foot pointed out, both legs straight and look at the elevated foot. Count out loud in the following manner: 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004 and so on until told to stop
Do you understand the instructions?
You may begin the test.

text: One Leg Stand Test Evaluation[edit]

text: There are four cues or clues that a police officer is looking for on the One Leg Stand Test, they are as follows

text:
Sways while balancing
Uses arms to balance
Hopping
Puts foot down

text: Total Cues: 4 Cues – Decision Point: 2/4 Cues

text: Field Sobriety Tests Criticisms[edit]

text: This article relies excessively on partisan sources. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (April 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Critics of standardized field sobriety tests often question the statistical evidence behind them, and the ability of the officers to administer the tests and actually judge for impairments related to alcohol. According to Barone, one study involved completely sober individuals who were asked to perform the standardized field sobriety tests, and their performances were videotaped. “After viewing the 21 videos of sober individuals taking the standardized field tests, the police officers’ believed that forty-six percent of the individuals had ‘too much to drink’”. It should not be out of the question for the standardized field sobriety tests to be re-examined for reliability and validity. A standardized test that claims to have scientific support should be able to be repeated. Along with that, the standardized field sobriety tests do not have a specific standard for grading, and it is left up to the discretion of the officer to determine whether what he/she see observes is actually a cue sufficient to count against the test subject. To err is human. The NHTSA’s 1977 study had an error rate of 47 percent, and the 1981 study had an error rate of 32 percent, which is considered unusually high for a scientific study.[52]

text: One of the main criticisms of field sobriety tests is that the judgment is left up to the discretion of the police officer. An officer may have some bias towards a suspect and judge the test more critically than necessary. Additionally, it is almost impossible to tell whether or not a police officer used proper procedures for administering the field sobriety test when a case is brought to court. The original research conducted by the NHTSA is often disputed because of the manner in which they were conducted and the conclusions that were reported. One author comments that “The reports for all three studies issued by NHTSA are lacking much of the material and analysis expected in a scientific paper, and none have been published in peer-reviewed journals” (Rubenzer 2011).

text: Walk & Turn Test Criticisms[edit]

text: One of the main problems with the walk-and-turn test is that some of the signs of alcohol impairment may stem from other physical problems. Along with that, there are other signs of physical impairment that can stem from various causes, including fatigue, an injury or illness, and nervousness. Those who are physically inactive, elderly, or obese may have trouble completing the walk-and-turn test without flaw. The NTSA used to say that those who are 50 pounds or more overweight may have difficulty performing the test, and that the suspect must walk along a real line. “Later NHTSA manuals removed the weight comment, and also inserted the phrase ‘imaginary line’ at the instruction phase, even though original research always used a visible line”.[52] The fact that officers are no longer required to provide a line for the suspect to walk along may affect the outcome of the test, and often adds to the scrutiny received from critics.

text: Probable Cause to Arrest[edit]

text: If the officer has sufficient probable cause that the suspect has been driving under the influence of alcohol, they will make the arrest, handcuff the suspect and transport them to the police station. En route, the officer may advise them of their legal implied consent obligation to submit to an evidentiary chemical test of blood, breath or possibly urine depending on the jurisdiction.

text: Laws relating to what exactly constitutes probable cause vary from state to state. In California it is a refutable presumption that a person with a BAC of 0.08% or higher is driving under the influence. However, section 23610(a)(2) of the California Vehicle Code states that driving with a BAC between 0.05% and 0.08% "shall not give rise to any presumption that the person was or was not under the influence of an alcoholic beverage".

text: Chemical Test[edit]

text: An arrestee will be offered a chemical test of breath, blood or, much less frequently, urine. Breath test results are usually available immediately; urine and blood samples are sent to a lab for later analysis to determine the BAC or possible presence of drugs. Some states sought to impose criminal punishment for a refusal to submit to a chemical test of his/her breath or blood; however, in Birchfield v. North Dakota, the United States Supreme Court visited the issue of whether states can criminalize a refusal to submit to a chemical test. The United States Supreme Court decided that states may criminalize a refusal to submit to a breath test; but not a refusal to submit to a blood test absent a McNeely warrant, named after Missouri v. McNeely (2013), which was a case decided by United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution under exigent circumstances.[1] The United States Supreme Court ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunken-driving suspect to a blood test, and that the natural metabolism of blood alcohol does not establish a per se exigency that would justify a blood draw without consent.

text: Regarding blood tests, some commentators, such as Brown University's Jacob Appel, have criticized the role of medical personnel in this process. According to Appel, "If physicians acquiesce today in the removal of a resistant patient's blood, soon they may be called upon to pump the contents of an unwilling patient's stomach or even to perform involuntary surgery to retrieve an evidential bullet".[53]

text: While chemical tests are used to determine the driver's BAC, they do not determine the driver's level of impairment. However, state laws usually provide for a rebuttable legal presumption of intoxication at a BAC of 0.08% or higher (see blood alcohol test assumptions).

text: Booking & Charging[edit]

text: If it is determined after arrest that the person's BAC is not at or above the legal limit of 0.08%, they will probably be released without any charges. One may, however, still be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol on the basis of driving symptoms, observed impairment, admissions or performance on the field sobriety tests. And if there is suspicion of drug usage, a blood or urine test is likely, or at least the testimony of a specially trained officer called a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE). Assuming sufficient evidence of impaired driving from drugs, the arrested may face charges of driving under the influence of drugs or the combined influence of alcohol and drugs.

text: Most of the time, the driver will either be kept in a holding cell (sometimes referred to as the "drunk tank") until they are deemed sober enough to be released on bail or on his "own recognizance" ("O.R."). A date to appear in court for an arraignment will be given to them. If they cannot make bail or is not granted O.R., they will be kept in jail to wait for the arraignment on remand.

text: Interventions[edit]

text: Drunk driving is a public health concern in the United States, and reducing its frequency may require an integrated community-based approach utilizing sanctions and treatments.[54] Several intervention programs have been developed, such as the Paradigm Developmental Model of Treatment (PDMT), a program encouraging a paradigm shift in the offender's view of oneself and the world.[55]

text: The National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism suggests environmental interventions to help eliminate drinking and driving all together. To date, the most successful law[citation needed] in combating drinking and driving has been raising the minimum drinking age to 21 (NIAAA, 2011). NHTSA estimates that a legal drinking age of 21 saves 700 to 1,000 lives annually.[citation needed] Since 1976, these laws have prevented more than 21,000 traffic deaths.[citation needed] Other suggestions include raising taxes, enacting zero-tolerance laws, stepping up enforcement, school-based prevention programs, and family based prevention programs (NIAAA).

text: International Comparisons[edit]

text: In countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia drunk driving and deaths caused by drunk driving are considerably lower than in the USA. Drunk driving deaths in the UK (population 61 million, 31 million cars) were 380 in 2010 (21% of all fatal accidents).[56][57][58] In California (population 36 million, 32 million cars) there were 950 deaths from traffic accidents involving drivers with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.08 or greater) in 2009 (31% of all fatal accidents).[59][60] Alcohol consumption per capita in the UK and Australia is higher than in the USA and the legal age for drinking lower.[61]

text: Research in the United Kingdom has shown that the danger group for drunk driving is young men in their early 20s rather than teenagers.[62] It is not uncommon for police forces in Australia to randomly stop motorists and submit them to a Random breath test. This test involves speaking or blowing into a hand held device to give a reading. Refusing a roadside test is an offense, and is subject to the same penalty as high range drunk driving. This detection method is not employed in the UK, and it is not an offence in England or Wales for a fully licensed driver to drive with a BAC of less than 0.08% (Australia and Scotland have limits of 0.05%). Also in Australia it is an offence for any person driving on Learner or probationary ('P1 or P2') plates (aged under 20 years) to drive with any alcohol at all in their system. The BAC must be 0.00% and still remains under 0.05% for an "instructing a learner".

text: Unlike the USA, these countries do not see restricting access to alcohol as having any useful role to play in reducing drunk driving. Their experience is that random breath tests, severe penalties, including imprisonment for a first offense (in UK), combined with blanket public service broadcasting are a more effective strategy.[63]

text: Also, Australian and British Law do not recognize the crime of DUI Manslaughter and sentences for causing death by drunk driving are much lower than the USA. In the UK, a judge makes a sentencing decision based on the amount of alcohol present. This can lead to imprisonment for a first offence.[64][65]

text: In Germany, a legal limit of 0.05% lowers to 0.03% if a driver is found to be at fault in a traffic accident. 0.00% is the standard for those who are under 21 years of age.[66]


document_title: Ark: Survival Evolved

question_text: when did ark come out in early access

question_tokens: when did ark come out in early access

text: Ark: Survival Evolved

text: Gameplay[edit]

text: Ark: Survival Evolved is an action-adventure survival game set in an open world environment and played either from a third-person or first-person perspective. To survive, players must establish a base, with a fire and weapons; additional activities, such as taming and feeding dinosaurs, require more resources.[1] The game's world, known as the "Ark", is approximately 48 km2 (19 sq mi) in size:[2] there is approximately 36 km2 (14 sq mi) of land with 12 km2 (4.6 sq mi) of ocean.[3]

text: To build a base, players must gain structure components—such as floors, doors and windows built with the resources littered throughout the world—which are earned as they progress and gain levels. These components can be crafted and placed in the world. Players can create any structure, as long as they have the logistics and resources; the structural integrity of the building is compromised when the pillars and foundations are destroyed.[1] Creating structures out of tek makes them the most durable; only  high-end explosives can damage tek structures. Players can also craft items in the game, such as weapons, by collecting the resources and technology required for crafting.[4] In addition, players can craft and attach accessories to their weapons, such as a scope or flashlight for a pistol or machine gun.[5] Should players take damage, their health meter will gradually regenerate if they have consumed the necessary food, or if they craft items that regenerate the health meter at a faster pace. Otherwise, a player's health meter will gradually regenerate over time.[6]

text: There are twenty-nine species of dinosaurs in the game, and over 40 creatures.[7] Dinosaurs in the game can be tamed by feeding them food after they have been rendered unconscious, or by using kibble designed especially for each species. A dinosaur / creature can also be tamed passively. Once a dinosaur is tamed, players can utilize the dinosaur's abilities, such as flight or fast underwater movement, as well as its statistics, such as speed, health and damage. [1] When riding atop certain creatures, players can use their weapons. With the larger dinosaurs, other players can ride on the side with full control of their own weapons, this requires a platform saddle.[8] They can also be used to carry items, and players can issue offensive and defensive commands to them; for example, a pack of Utahraptors can be assigned to defend the base, or a group of Triceratops can be ordered to attack an enemy's base.[1] The game also features various other animals, such as the dodo, saber-toothed cat, woolly mammoth, Meganeura, Titanomyrma, and Doedicurus.[3] Every creature in the game has living ecosystems and predator hierarchies.[9]

text: Development[edit]

text: Preliminary work on Ark: Survival Evolved began in October 2014.[10] Studio Wildcard, the Seattle-based team behind the game, co-opted Egypt-based developer Instinct Games to facilitate development.[11] When researching for information about the game's prehistoric species, the development team read "general audience books" and online articles, and sought assistance from friends who studied in the fields in biological sciences.[3] When creating the species and world, the team took creative license for gameplay purposes, although there is an in-game reason that the species have diverged from their historical counterparts.[3] Many of the development team members were inspired by dinosaur films such as Jurassic Park and The Land Before Time.[12]

text: The team added features to the game that would appeal to all players, as opposed to specifically players of the survival genre, such as the ability to simply explore the island and compete against large bosses, as a reward for uncovering secrets of the island.[13] They also added an end-game for players to strive towards, as they felt that most survival games lack a final goal. They wanted to "provide a depth and scope that allows for the world to not just be a means to an end [...] but also a place to explore", said creative director Jesse Rapczak.[1]

text: The game, powered by Unreal Engine 4, contains "tens of thousands" of artificial intelligence entities, according to Rapczak.[9] It also features support for virtual reality (VR) gameplay; Rapczak, who has almost three years of experience with head-mounted displays, described the game as being designed with VR in mind from the beginning.[9]

text: The game was initially released through Steam Early Access for Microsoft Windows on June 2, 2015,[7] shortly before the theatrical release of Jurassic World later that month. Rapczak said that the game's release was scheduled to take advantage of the "dino fever" that was present with the film's imminent release.[14] The game subsequently received an Early Access release for Linux and OS X on July 1, 2015,[11] and through the Xbox Game Preview Program for Xbox One on December 16, 2015;[15] a PlayStation 4 version was released on December 6, 2016.[16] The final game launched in August 2017;[16] it was originally intended for release in June 2016,[11] but was delayed in April.[17] The game launched with support for Oculus Rift and PlayStation VR,[7] and the Xbox One version was released via the ID@Xbox program.[11] Android and iOS versions were released on June 14, 2018,[18] and a Nintendo Switch version is due in late 2018.[19]

text: On March 16, 2016, the Survival of the Fittest game mode was released in early access as a free standalone game with no microtransactions; it was scheduled to fully launch in mid 2016,[17] but was eventually merged back to the main game as the development team did not wish to monetize on its release, and wanted to ensure that modders can apply the development kit of Survival Evolved to create mods for Survival of the Fittest.[20] There will be various eSports tournaments of the game mode, with a prize pool of US $50,000.[21] Players who played Survival of the Fittest before it was merged back into the main game can continue to play the game without paying an extra cost, while new players must pay before getting access to it. It will be available for every player who purchases the main game.[20][22]

text: On September 1, 2016, Studio Wildcard released the paid downloadable content (DLC) Scorched Earth. The expansion includes a new, desert map as well as several desert-themed resources and items. It also features ten new creatures, some of which are fictional, like the Wyvern. The release of paid DLC for a game still in early access caused negative reaction among players of the game, resulting in lots of negative reviews on Steam right after the expansion launch.[23]

text: The game left early access on August 29, 2017, for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4, and Xbox One. The standard version was released alongside an "Explorer's Edition", which included a season pass with three expansions, and the "Collector's Edition", which included a season pass as well, a necklace, a map, a notebook, a development team poster, a wooden chest packaging, and the game's official soundtrack.[24] A new expansion, Aberration, was announced in September 2017, adding an underground setting, as well as new enemies and items.[25]

text: Reception[edit]

text: ReceptionAggregate scoreAggregatorScoreMetacritic(PC) 70/100[26](PS4) 69/100[27](XONE) 69/100[28]Review scoresPublicationScoreDestructoid7/10[29]GameSpot6/10[30]IGN7.7/10[31]PC Gamer (US)72/100[32]

text: Ark: Survival Evolved received "mixed or average" reviews from critics, according to review aggregator Metacritic.[26][27][28]

text: GameSpot gave the game a 6/10, saying: "This outstanding sense of place and mood is offset by the sheer difficulty of everything that you have to do, the spectacular amounts of time necessary to experience even a tenth of what the game has to offer, and the randomness of death constantly destroying everything that you have built."[30]

text: TJ Hafer's 7.7/10 review on IGN stated that "When I'm having a good time in Ark, I'm having a really good time. The problem is that those moments are usually one part to every nine parts menial grinding and crafting - especially at the later tech tiers. Having to repeat so much work after failing an attempt at a boss feels far too punishing, and some really dumb dinosaurs can take a lot of the challenge and sense of danger out of the many primal locations. Even with all of those quirks, however, I'm still hungry to play more after the 60 hours I've spent so far. There aren't a lot of survival games that have legitimately held my attention that long."[31]

text: Ian Birnbaum of PC Gamer gave the game a score of 72/100, stating it to be "a bloated, grindy mess, but so packed with options that a better game is hidden inside it."[32]

text: Sales[edit]

text: Within a month of its early access release on Steam, Ark had sold over one million copies.[33] By August 2016, the game had over 5.5 million sales across both Windows and Xbox One, with about 1.5 million from the Xbox One platform.[34]