A recent news development for better or worse , is David Cassidy's DUI arrest in Florida. In reading the details of the investigation and arrest, I just want to point out a few things. Though I don't condone drinking and driving, especially impaired, it is very important to remember the government (police and prosecutors) need to prove that the driver is impaired.
Cassidy blew twice the legal limit, but says he felt good enough to drive. He is presumed impaired by the breathalyzer, however his mental and motor skills might be fine. So it is possible that he was really not guilty of the DUI. A presumption is just a piece, but it can be overcome.
The Field Sobriety Examination's are conducted in such a way that anybody can fail them. There are multiple steps meant to trip up the person doing them.
There was a half empty bottle bourbon in Cassidy's back seat. This part of the article made me mad. It does not mean he drank that, only that it was there. There is no way of telling what he actually ingested. The bottle on the back seat indicates only that the bottle was there. I consider this a highly prejudicial aspect of the police report, and therefore the news report.
My point is that we shouldn't just judge a DUI based upon one piece of evidence or another. There are multiple things that should be considered, and a person who has the responsibility of weighing the evidence has the duty to look at everything, and not rush to judgment.