And it really is more of a red herring since they were obviously not visibly intoxicated and they didn't actually do anything illegal. Their BAC is more of an issue between them and their employer, and has no bearing on their false arrest.
0.05% BAC will result in a DUI in many countries. Regardless, any impairment on a job where you're doing things guaranteed to summon the cops is a very bad idea.
BAC also declines linearly over time. I doubt (hope?) they weren't drinking on the job, but a 0.05% BAC measured after their arrest means their BAC would have been higher when they started breaking into the building earlier in the night.
Australia, scotland and france are also 0.05.
There are quite a few countries where the limit is less than that.
The level of impairment doesn't matter. They are impaired. There is no standard or testing which reveals the minimum level of impairment that one can safely do the job. So, you don't do it impaired, at any level, period.
> and has no bearing on their false arrest.
Two people that have obviously been drinking, hiding from police, and then making up fantastic sounding stories as to why they're in a tax payer owned facility outside of working hours. The police had good reason to effect an arrest so it can't be "false arrest."
Physical coordination becomes an issue. 70% of subjects tested struggled to maintain lane position at 0.02%.
My point is not that they definitely should have done it. It is simply that, in this context, it's really not a big deal & is not really germane to the discussion at all. They did nothing wrong, stone cold sober or not.
This article is from 2002 - twenty years ago. It cites several other studies, which seem not great overall.
One studied a driving simulator, the others looked at deaths in the single year after lowering blood alcohol.
The one about minors in Maryland seemed especially strange, as minors are usually required to have 0% BAC.
It sounds like cherry picking.