Fwiw, the interlock doesn't necessarily
" absolutely, positively, without mercy, catch you if you drink."
The threshold was almost certainly not 0.0 (but well less than the legal limit...I think it's usually 0.02). It's quite possible that Radford drank and was able to drive with the interlock prior...by not drinking much and/or waiting long enough...and misjudged it once. Or, of course, he may have gotten totally sloshed.
Either way...common layman's definition of addiction: "repeated unwanted behavior despite the presence of negative consequences."
Ask me how I know.
(not saying any of this to excuse what he did...just a little clarification)
|
(
In response to this post by AshburnFarmHokie)
Posted: 07/01/2021 at 8:24PM