Alright - Exactly How Guilty IS Tank Johnson?

When Tank Johnson was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving last month, the general consensus in the blog world was that Tank had broken the law - he was out late at night, speeding, and at least somewhat impaired - and deserved whatever he got, which of course ended up being his release from the Bears and uncertainty regarding his future.

There was an oft-mentioned phrase in stories from that time, however, that seemed to confuse a lot of people. According to police, Johnson was "impaired to the slightest degree". Nobody knew what it meant, and more importantly, nobody seemed all that interested in figuring it out.

To the Internet!

From what I found at the time, "impaired to the slightest degree" in Arizona appears to mean that just because the Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of the accused is below the legal limit of .08 does not mean the law has not been broken. That law, the more serious version most of us think of when we talk about drunk driving laws, is called "Per Se DUI".

If a motor vehicle operator appears to be impaired, however, and the results of a blood test support that finding, the driver isn't necessarily off the hook even if his BAC is only a Tank Johnson-esque .072. Misdemeanor DUI charges, known as Basic DUI, can still be filed.

How does this affect Johnson, whose BAC came back slightly below the legal limit (when I say slightly, I mean slightly - about .008 below)? According to the AP story on USA Today.com, maybe it won't:

"It is still possible for Johnson to be charged with DUI, but it would be unusual barring special circumstances. The law in Arizona provides for such prosecutions based on overall signs and symptoms of intoxication."

But here's the thing - an Arizona lawyer who specializes in DUI cases wrote the following in a June 27 entry on his blog:

"Prosecutors are sending a serious message that they can and do ignore the legal limit for DUI, and choose to prosecute people who have alcohol contents of far less than the legal limit, sometimes as low as .02. That means that anybody who has ANYTHING to drink is in danger of getting a DWI conviction.

The per se DUI law (.08 or more) means that the prosecutor does not have to prove that the person is impaired because intoxication is presumed. However, regardless of blood alcohol content (BAC) most states also give the prosecution the option of proving that the person was impaired by alcohol."

The common perception is that Tank Johnson is out of the woods in terms of guilt and/or jail time and likely won't see his suspension from Roger Goodell increased (assuming someone signs him). The way I read this, however, it appears he may still have a long way to go, especially if the prosecutor in his case decides to press the issue against a high-profile individual who has serious issues with the law in his not-so-distant past.

This leads me to view the recent backlash against the Bears in a different light. Should they have cut Johnson earlier, following his earlier run-ins with the fuzz? Probably, although I can see the reasons for wanting to hang onto him and help a troubled individual through a difficult time. But for everyone who says, "The Bears jumped the gun and cut him when his BAC wasn't even over the legal limit and he didn't commit a crime," well, I'm not sure that's the case.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so this all may be totally off-base and I should go sit quietly in the corner. If that's the case, if any lawyers out there have anything to add (I'm looking at you, RUTS), please feel free to call me on my ignorance. Just be gentle.