[dpark]

> Usually, it's the boundary between “defintiely DUI [or DWI, where these are distinguished] by BAC” and “quite probably DUI by being under the influence, for which BAC may be supporting evidence”.

0.08 is the legal boundary for per se influence of alcohol. If you aren’t at 0.08, you must be provably impaired by alcohol which is a different legal test. (0.07 could be supporting evidence, but so could the fact that you were at a bar, even if a BAC test was never administered.)

To my understanding, very few DUIs are prosecuted for alcohol DUI with BAC below .08. Even fewer are prosecuted successfully. The BAC of .08 is enshrined in law as the point of “intoxication”, making it difficult to prove the “influence” of alcohol below that level.

> That's inaccurate.

It’s exactly as accurate as saying you have not broken the law driving at 0.01. You might be guilty of DUI at any BAC theoretically, if you demonstrate impairment.