Bruce Springsteen

[Mutagen]

If it really was that minor, I hope that cop plans to move out of New Jersey before he's run out on a rail. My mom will be sharpening her pitchfork for sure.

This news actually did surprise me. I know "celebrity gets DUI" is pretty "dog bites man" news, but Bruce has had a pretty clean record by rock star standards.

[laurenj]

Feb 11, 2021 13:19:34 GMT -4 Mutagen said:

If it really was that minor, I hope that cop plans to move out of New Jersey before he's run out on a rail. My mom will be sharpening her pitchfork for sure.

This news actually did surprise me. I know "celebrity gets DUI" is pretty "dog bites man" news, but Bruce has had a pretty clean record by rock star standards.

If the 0.02 story is true, his record deserves to stay clean. I'm sure Billy Joel is out there driving around on a 2.0 as we speak.

[Oxynia]

I gasped when I first heard the news, since Bruce is one of our last dependable American heroes. But as the alleged details unfold, it feels a little hinky to me. He is known for his clean lifestyle and has a zero tolerance policy regarding drugs among his touring team. He's the last person I would expect to be intoxicated behind the wheel of any vehicle.

I hope it's all as innocent as it sounds.

[Deleted]

Not that I am excusing him. But people make mistakes. I hope it doesn't happen again and he doesn't have a problem.

[Ginger]

The police report says the cop stopped Bruce after personally witnessing him take the last shot out of a 750ml Patron bottle then get on his bike. Bruce then flunked a field sobriety test and refused to take a breathalyzer (which is a crime in New Jersey). Blood work came up with the .02.

Bruce may not have been drunk driving, but it sounds like the cop had more than enough reason to administer a breathalyzer, and he should have cooperated. The Boss has perhaps not had the experience before of a New Jersey cop being a stickler with him.

[Kaleidoscope Eyes]

Does anyone know why the story came out now as opposed to November when it happened? And, if under .08 is the legal limit in NJ, then why did he get arrested? Do we know he only registered .02? So many questions...


I've a lot of "what?"/eye squinting going on with this story and too little free time to google the info. I'm not understanding .02 = DUI and why something that happened in November is only coming out now.

Did I just not catch major parts of the story here? Sorry if I asked some JFGI questions.

[Binky]

This is indeed a confusing story. Witnessed drinking, failed a sobriety test, but .02 blood test? Is NJ a state where refusing the breathalyzer = failed sobriety test?

[bloodredcherries]

Feb 11, 2021 21:12:58 GMT -4 Kaleidoscope Eyes said:

Does anyone know why the story came out now as opposed to November when it happened? And, if under .08 is the legal limit in NJ, then why did he get arrested? Do we know he only registered .02? So many questions...


I've a lot of "what?"/eye squinting going on with this story and too little free time to google the info. I'm not understanding .02 = DUI and why something that happened in November is only coming out now.

Did I just not catch major parts of the story here? Sorry if I asked some JFGI questions.

Probably got arrested because he refused the breathalyzer.

[peace47]

Feb 11, 2021 21:31:16 GMT -4 Binky said:

This is indeed a confusing story. Witnessed drinking, failed a sobriety test, but .02 blood test? Is NJ a state where refusing the breathalyzer = failed sobriety test?

This is apparently actually a federal crime because it took place in a national park. It is being handled by an Assistant U.S. Attorney at the federal level instead of a NJ D.A. (Are there federal laws regarding DUI, or would the AUSA just have to look to NJ law?)

Regardless, just generally speaking, police can arrest you for DUI even if your blood alcohol content is under the legal limit. If you fail a field sobriety test or demonstrate other signs of impairment (lane swerving), police are generally able to arrest you for DUI based on just that evidence. And then there is the example above that a refused breathalyzer is a presumptive DUI. And if you are just under the legal limit, the police may also be entitled to presume that you got behind the wheel drunk and your blood alcohol content went down over the course of the drive.

[laurenj]

Feb 11, 2021 23:44:59 GMT -4 peace47 said:

Feb 11, 2021 21:31:16 GMT -4 Binky said:

This is indeed a confusing story. Witnessed drinking, failed a sobriety test, but .02 blood test? Is NJ a state where refusing the breathalyzer = failed sobriety test?

This is apparently actually a federal crime because it took place in a national park. It is being handled by an Assistant U.S. Attorney at the federal level instead of a NJ D.A. (Are there federal laws regarding DUI, or would the AUSA just have to look to NJ law?)

Regardless, just generally speaking, police can arrest you for DUI even if your blood alcohol content is under the legal limit. If you fail a field sobriety test or demonstrate other signs of impairment (lane swerving), police are generally able to arrest you for DUI based on just that evidence. And then there is the example above that a refused breathalyzer is a presumptive DUI. And if you are just under the legal limit, the police may also be entitled to presume that you got behind the wheel drunk and your blood alcohol content went down over the course of the drive.

I guess this just seems a bit extreme to me. A childhood friend of mine was killed by a drunk driver with a BAC of over 2.0. He was going 80+ MPH in a 35 zone and killed someone, but it was an uphill battle for the family to even see him get jail time. He ended up getting 5 years.

But there's a federal investigation into Bruce Springsteen for driving well under the legal limit and nothing at all actually happened?

I guess an argument can be made that he was stopped before something happened, but again, it seems extreme.