Blumenthal Charged With DUI in New Hampshire

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:44:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I'm not sure why journalist Sidney Blumenthal's DUI arrest is worth this much attention, but it's gone from the Nashua Telegraph to the Associated Press to Newsweek .

Blumenthal, an unpaid senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, was arrested in Nashua on the eve of the New Hampshire primary and charged with aggravated DWI, according two members of the Nashua police force.

The aggravated part stems from his alleged speeding, 70 mph in a 30 mph. Blumenthal told the officer he was trying to find his way back to his hotel.

Blumenthal, a journalist and author currently working as a senior fellow for the New York University Center on Law and Security, was a gracious arrestee. “I asked if he was here with a campaign. He said he was here with Clinton," Masella said. “Other than that we certainly suspected him of DWI, he was a perfect gentleman."

< Clintons Address Race Questions | Reassuring Conservative Obama Supporters >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Blumenthal Charged With DUI in New Hampshire | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

An aside (none / 0) (#1)
by kovie on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:49:13 PM EST

But I've never quite understood the difference between DUI and DWI. Are they semantic and meaningless, or is there an important legal difference?

Anyway, stupid move on Blumenthal's part, but this should have no bearing on the race, I hope.

difference is in blood alcohol levels (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:05:25 PM EST

dui is driving under the influence of alcohol, with a blood alcohol level of .08% or higher.

dwi (or dwai here) is driving while impaired or driving while ability impaired by alcohol, usually .05 to .08. Its a lesser offense.

For more, see the DUI blog.


Thanks Jeralyn (none / 0) (#7)
by kovie on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:08:09 PM EST

I didn't know that. It's just that the article you cited said DWI, and you wrote DUI.


I'm not the lawyer here (none / 0) (#8)
by Rojas on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:44:29 PM EST

but I think you'll find these laws vary by state.
I dont't believe Texas has DUI. Could be they do now. They're making new laws on this issue every time the lege' is in session.


: This took place in NH (none / 0) (#10)
by kovie on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:24:49 PM EST

But I don't know the laws there.

Apparently the arrest is (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:53:17 PM EST

"worth this much attention," as it is now publicized here. Anyhow, Blumenthal didn't get the memo--you don't have to answer the officer's questions! Clinton campaign, indeed.

You don't have to answer (none / 0) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:01:01 PM EST

the officer's questions. You just have to take the breath or blood test or you lose your license for a year -- regardless of whether you are convicted of DUI or not.

You have to provide identification to an officer if requested but you do not have to answer questions. The right to remain silent is there for a reason. Use it or lose it. The jails are filled with people who thought if only they could tell their side of the story, the cop would understand.


For sure. I only had 2 beers, officer. (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:03:41 PM EST

Good advice! (none / 0) (#6)
by Jgarza on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:07:20 PM EST

Ft. Worth, Texas is taking blood these days (none / 0) (#9)
by Rojas on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:50:17 PM EST

if you refuse
I belive Grits did a piece on it recently.


: Are there minimization protections (none / 0) (#11)
by kovie on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:27:01 PM EST

against the blood sample being used for unrelated investigations and stored for future use IF the person turned out not to have been over the legal limit for alcohol (and perhaps even if they have)? Or is the blood sample the state's to do with as it pleases no matter what?