If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   If a cop swears he smells alcohol on your breath, then you will be pinned down in five point restraint and the rubber-stamp warrant will be hypodermically executed   (sacurrent.com) divider line 189
    More: Asinine, rubber stamps, constraint satisfaction, Bexar County, Hereford, crime lab, search warrants, warrants, Texas District  
•       •       •

10503 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2012 at 1:17 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-20 01:20:43 PM  
To be fair, that's only if you refuse the roadside sobriety test.

Wait, that doesn't make it any better...
 
2012-12-20 01:22:09 PM  
Kinky.
 
2012-12-20 01:22:12 PM  
Well, if you're not doing anything wrong why should you have a problem with this......citizen.... Right????

So what's next...sexual assault in the region, so they take....er....samples? I want to deposit my sample directly with the hot dispatcher...
 
2012-12-20 01:22:51 PM  
I'm currently posting in the near-center of 'The Beef Capital of the World,' so I'm getting a kick...

/don't live here
//it stanks
 
2012-12-20 01:23:52 PM  
And if the blood test comes back negative, will they apologize for performing a medical procedure on you without your consent??

/or will you have to sue?
 
2012-12-20 01:27:58 PM  
Maybe you should just blow into the breathalizer? or not drive drunk?
 
2012-12-20 01:27:59 PM  
Now that states are starting to realize the cash-cow that is DUI offenses, this will only get worse. With support from a nation full of reactionary busybodies, we're on our way to a "guilty until proven innocent" situation when it comes to DUIs. Already, local media in my area are discussing mandatory blow-start vehicles for everyone - not just people with past DUIs or DWIs.
 
2012-12-20 01:28:11 PM  

fredklein: And if the blood test comes back negative, will they apologize for performing a medical procedure on you without your consent??

/or will you have to sue?


No, they won't apologize, and if you sue, it will get thrown out because they'll have police testimony establishing probable cause even if the test comes back negative.

/don't feel bad, because police crime labs are never wrong
 
2012-12-20 01:28:12 PM  

fredklein: And if the blood test comes back negative, will they apologize for performing a medical procedure on you without your consent??

/or will you have to sue?


Nope, and good luck with the lawsuit. You'll probably want to move after filling it.
 
2012-12-20 01:30:20 PM  
That means any driver, any time, stopped in San Antonio and suspected of drunk driving who refuses to blow into a breathalyzer gets carted off to the magistrate and forced to give up blood if a judge approves the warrant...

Why wouldn't you just blow into the breathalyzer? Seems like pretty standard farking procedure.
 
2012-12-20 01:30:38 PM  
Wait?! Warrants are being sworn out on oaths of probable cause! Unconstitutional ™! Why is this not a breaking news tagged story?????
 
2012-12-20 01:31:26 PM  
First off, don't drink and drive.

Secondly, don't be a douche and refuse a breathalyzer.

If it keeps drunken idiots off the road i'll donate my carbon dioxide everyday.
 
2012-12-20 01:31:31 PM  

ElLoco: I'm currently posting in the near-center of 'The Beef Capital of the World,' so I'm getting a kick...

/don't live here
//it stanks


He's right - I grew up there.
 
2012-12-20 01:32:00 PM  
How much do they bill you for it even if it comes back clean?
 
2012-12-20 01:32:06 PM  
I'm ok with this. The founding fathers couldn't foresee the reckless use of automobiles so the 4th amendment is obviously outdated and no longer needed in this day and age. I for one applaud our government for making progress in this area where it is needed badly.

Your rights are not more important than the children, so just STFU.
 
2012-12-20 01:32:31 PM  
They've been doing this in Tennessee for some time, including in our county. There was so much push back from the medical guys here (All of our SO Medical guys are volunteers) who could actually do the field draws, and from the EMS agencies because of the questionable constitutionality of it, that they had to hire a private firm with forensic nurses to do it.
 
While I'm generally supportive of any aggressive measure to go after drunk driving assholes, this is far, far too far.
 
2012-12-20 01:33:20 PM  
FTFA: That means any driver, any time, stopped in San Antonio and suspected of drunk driving who refuses to blow into a breathalyzer gets carted off to the magistrate and forced to give up blood if a judge approves the warrant

The surge in no-refusal statewide began over worries of serious declines in DWI convictions in recent years. Judge David Hodges, then a judicial liaison with the Texas Center for the Judiciary, told the Legislature in early 2011 that since Texas implemented its Driver's Responsibility Law and the surcharge that it carries for DWI convicts, defendants grew more likely to fight DWI's in court, pushing judges and prosecutors to accept reduced charges instead of letting cases languish in court dockets for years. In 2005, statewide DWI arrests stood at 99,501, with convictions at 63,132. By 2009, the state saw 102,309 DWI arrests but only 44,777 convictions.

Rather than repealing the surcharge, police and prosecutors sought instead to bolster cases with more evidence. "Of those cases without a breath test that were going to trial, we were losing nearly 50 percent of them," said Herberg. "The juries were quite frankly demanding more evidence. The officer's word just wasn't good enough anymore."


Was that wrong? Should they not have done that?
 
2012-12-20 01:33:43 PM  

fredklein: And if the blood test comes back negative, will they apologize for performing a medical procedure on you without your consent??
/or will you have to sue?


Maybe if they accidentally gave you the AIDS, but good luck proving that too.

 
2012-12-20 01:33:52 PM  
Freedoms!

Fark Tejas!
 
2012-12-20 01:33:53 PM  
How long before someone gets a serious or incurable infection from a draw with a dirty needle? Look at the recent case of a strip search where one surgical glove was used for two people.
 
2012-12-20 01:34:27 PM  
In my area, you are given a breathalyzer on the road side. If you are over the limit OR if you refuse to take a breathalyzer, you are brought back to the local station.  There, you are given the option of another breathalyzer or a blood test.  You may refuse both, but if you do, then you are assumed guilty - and you are told this fact very clearly.  Not taking the test means you are guilty.
 
2012-12-20 01:35:08 PM  
I got breathalyzed twice the other evening. They were breathalyzing people randomly at 2 different checkpoints.

"Roll down the window. Blow into this. Thank you sir. Run along."
 
2012-12-20 01:35:37 PM  

You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: First off, don't drink and drive.

Secondly, don't be a douche and refuse a breathalyzer.

If it keeps drunken idiots off the road i'll donate my carbon dioxide everyday.


First off you cannot smell "alcohol" on someone's breath. and any smell you do feel you get is NOT a way to tell someone's BAC. MANY things can mimic the smell of an alcoholic beverage, and this mentality is the reason so many people have died in the drunk tank from DKA. Any defense attorney who hears you say this will eat you alive on cross-examination, and make you look like a complete idiot. 
 
Second, you have a right to refuse a breathalyzer by law. But you also have the right to surrender your license by doing so. (I'm ok with this.)
 
I'm NOT OK with people being forced to undergo an invasive medical procedure against their will with no legitimate probable cause other than a cop saying something completely un-based in reality.
 
2012-12-20 01:35:51 PM  

Treygreen13: Already, local media in my area are discussing mandatory blow-start vehicles for everyone - not just people with past DUIs or DWIs.


Quite frankly, I have far less of a problem with that than I do the star chamber proceedings that surround DUI arrests now.

In some states you can request the blood test. My non-lawyerly advice would be if you have been drinking, and think you're not over the limit, ask for the blood test if you can. At least if you're convicted you'll know it was probably accurate.
 
2012-12-20 01:36:13 PM  

trippdogg: That means any driver, any time, stopped in San Antonio and suspected of drunk driving who refuses to blow into a breathalyzer gets carted off to the magistrate and forced to give up blood if a judge approves the warrant...

Why wouldn't you just blow into the breathalyzer? Seems like pretty standard farking procedure.


Because the Constitution says you don't have to incriminate yourself? Lets all make a distinction right now between "legally" impared vs. being too inebriated to operate a vehicle. They are not the same thing.
 
2012-12-20 01:36:46 PM  
heh, isn't this actual theft of property?

I know it might be a giant stretch, but isn't that literally taking your resource without your consent? Not to mention the warrant rubber stamping issues.
 
2012-12-20 01:40:24 PM  
These are the same police that the left wants us to voluntarily give our firearms to?
 
2012-12-20 01:40:38 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: trippdogg: That means any driver, any time, stopped in San Antonio and suspected of drunk driving who refuses to blow into a breathalyzer gets carted off to the magistrate and forced to give up blood if a judge approves the warrant...

Why wouldn't you just blow into the breathalyzer? Seems like pretty standard farking procedure.

Because the Constitution says you don't have to incriminate yourself? Lets all make a distinction right now between "legally" impared vs. being too inebriated to operate a vehicle. They are not the same thing.


True.  But in the case of DUIs, would you rather take a chemical test (which is what breathalyzers and blood draws are) with the accuracy of chemistry and science (which can be validated by an independent source of your choosing in the case of blood draws) OR some cop's judgment/word that you were drunk?
 
2012-12-20 01:40:44 PM  
Loved this part:

a former county contractor and breath test analyst, George McDougall, who retired last year after being diagnosed with "mild cognitive impairment."
 
2012-12-20 01:41:38 PM  

BolivarShagnasty: I got breathalyzed twice the other evening. They were breathalyzing people randomly at 2 different checkpoints.

"Roll down the window. Blow into this. Thank you sir. Run along."


Or as I call it: Glory Hole Justice.
 
2012-12-20 01:41:39 PM  

You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: First off, don't drink and drive.

Secondly, don't be a douche and refuse a breathalyzer.

If it keeps drunken idiots off the road i'll donate my carbon dioxide everyday.


So, you'd be fine if built-in breathalizers were mandatory in every vehicle in order to start the car? Wow, just wow
 
2012-12-20 01:43:31 PM  
"The juries were quite frankly demanding more evidence. The officer's word just wasn't good enough anymore."

Gee, i wonder farking why????
 
2012-12-20 01:43:35 PM  

computerguyUT: Well, if you're not doing anything wrong why should you have a problem with this......citizen.... Right????


Oh, I get it! When you use the word "citizen", you're implying that people's rights are being violated.

/no right to drive while intoxicated
 
2012-12-20 01:45:00 PM  

LeroyBourne: fredklein: And if the blood test comes back negative, will they apologize for performing a medical procedure on you without your consent??
/or will you have to sue?

Maybe if they accidentally gave you the AIDS, but good luck proving that too.


Step 1: Accept invitation to a party
Step 2: Go and get tested for every STD before the party
Step 3: Get negative results, go and get slaughtered
Step 4: Refuse Breathalyzer, take forced bloodwork, get AIDS due to horribly derelict testing procedures
Step 5: Profit???
 
2012-12-20 01:45:25 PM  

ScotterOtter: You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: First off, don't drink and drive.

Secondly, don't be a douche and refuse a breathalyzer.

If it keeps drunken idiots off the road i'll donate my carbon dioxide everyday.

So, you'd be fine if built-in breathalizers were mandatory in every vehicle in order to start the car? Wow, just wow


There can be a lot of problems with that.  What happens when the breathalyzer breaks down? Is calibrated wrongly? Gives a false positive? Is there a way to bypass it in the case of an emergency?
 
I mean, it might be something I could see a parent installing in their kid's car, but in every car? It's a bit much.
 
2012-12-20 01:46:33 PM  

BronyMedic: You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: First off, don't drink and drive.

Secondly, don't be a douche and refuse a breathalyzer.

If it keeps drunken idiots off the road i'll donate my carbon dioxide everyday.

First off you cannot smell "alcohol" on someone's breath. and any smell you do feel you get is NOT a way to tell someone's BAC. MANY things can mimic the smell of an alcoholic beverage, and this mentality is the reason so many people have died in the drunk tank from DKA. Any defense attorney who hears you say this will eat you alive on cross-examination, and make you look like a complete idiot. 
 
Second, you have a right to refuse a breathalyzer by law. But you also have the right to surrender your license by doing so. (I'm ok with this.)
 
I'm NOT OK with people being forced to undergo an invasive medical procedure against their will with no legitimate probable cause other than a cop saying something completely un-based in reality.


I'm rather certain upon refusal, before a draw, you could just say "Guilty."

If you have a person to drunk or so unwilling to take a breathalyzer or admit guilt then this is about the only way to PROVE your guilt.

If a cop walked up and said "Arm, now." I would have a huge honkin ass problem with that.

This sounds to me like a last ditch effort to prove guilt if all other means fail.
 
2012-12-20 01:46:53 PM  
Sounds good, because the judge sitting around drinking coffee with the prosecutor and cops at the checkpoint is sure to be unbiased, and a crime lab chemist would never falsify results
 
2012-12-20 01:47:20 PM  
This is simply an extension of fishing net law enforcement. Throw a net, pull in all the fish, throw em out till you find the one you want.
 
2012-12-20 01:47:22 PM  
Hate drunk drivers, but truly despise asshole cops who will trump up charges just because they don't like you and want you to have a shiatty day.

"Oh, ya don't like that I pulled ya over for going 27 in a 25 mph zone! Ya know, *I* think ya smell like alcohol!"

/fark off
 
2012-12-20 01:47:29 PM  

Raoul Eaton: they'll have police testimony establishing probable cause even if the test comes back negative.


I'd like to see that.

"He was drunk"
"No, he wasn't. the blood test proves it."
"Oh... um.... well, we thought he was drunk, so..."
"Officer, do you routinely mistake sober people for drunk people? What, exactly, is your medical training in this regard?"
"Well, ..."
"...Or were you lying when you claimed my perfectly sober client was drunk. Which would be illegal. Do we need to pull ALL your cases for the last 10 years?"
etc.
 
2012-12-20 01:47:31 PM  

farkingatwork: I know it might be a giant stretch, but isn't that literally taking your resource without your consent?


I know, this was the same issue I had with the police when they stole all those bodies out of my crawlspace. They had no right!
 
2012-12-20 01:47:34 PM  

buzzcut73: Sounds good, because the judge sitting around drinking coffee with the prosecutor and cops at the checkpoint is sure to be unbiased, and a crime lab chemist would never falsify results


Random DNA files on ALL citizens NOW.

EVERYONE!
 
2012-12-20 01:47:37 PM  

Treygreen13: Now that states are starting to realize the cash-cow that is DUI offenses, this will only get worse. With support from a nation full of reactionary busybodies, we're on our way to a "guilty until proven innocent" situation when it comes to DUIs. Already, local media in my area are discussing mandatory blow-start vehicles for everyone - not just people with past DUIs or DWIs.


While that could certainly make a shiat-ton of money for someone selling interlocks (paging Gov. Rick Scott to the courtesy phone), that would appear to take a lot of money out of local courts, cities, and police departments. I can see all of those working quietly to make sure that doesn't happen.
 
2012-12-20 01:48:08 PM  

davidphogan: fredklein: And if the blood test comes back negative, will they apologize for performing a medical procedure on you without your consent??

/or will you have to sue?

Nope, and good luck with the lawsuit. You'll probably want to move after filling it.


I'll have the money to do that, so....
 
2012-12-20 01:48:42 PM  

NightOwl2255: This is simply an extension of fishing net law enforcement. Throw a net, pull in all the fish, throw em out till you find the one you want.


They get to keep you DNA. Guilty or otherwise.
 
2012-12-20 01:49:25 PM  

ScotterOtter: You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: First off, don't drink and drive.

Secondly, don't be a douche and refuse a breathalyzer.

If it keeps drunken idiots off the road i'll donate my carbon dioxide everyday.

So, you'd be fine if built-in breathalizers were mandatory in every vehicle in order to start the car? Wow, just wow


So, you'd be fine with every driver being too drunk to stand all day, every day?

/ Makes just as much sense as your dumbass question.
 
2012-12-20 01:50:40 PM  

mgshamster: Not taking the test means you are guilty.


So, Guilty until proven Innocent?
 
2012-12-20 01:51:04 PM  

Anastacya: LeroyBourne: fredklein: And if the blood test comes back negative, will they apologize for performing a medical procedure on you without your consent??
/or will you have to sue?

Maybe if they accidentally gave you the AIDS, but good luck proving that too.

Step 1: Accept invitation to a party
Step 2: Go and get tested for every STD before the party
Step 3: Get negative results, go and get slaughtered
Step 4: Refuse Breathalyzer, take forced bloodwork, get AIDS due to horribly derelict testing procedures
Step 5: Profit???


My brother-in-law got blood poisoning from a bad blood draw.  It ended up being the reason he wasn't convicted of a DUI.  Basically, he had a poison oak rash from earlier that day.  He told the phlebotomist that she shouldn't draw from that arm, and to please use the other arm because he had poison oak.  She ignored him and drew from that arm anyways.  Medical tests later showed blood poisoning, and the court agreed that it was the phlebotomist's fault.  Funny part is that the phlebotomist tried to claim that she didn't believe that "poison oak" was a real thing, but then later said that she washed her hands immediately afterwards in order to not catch it.
 
/He got convicted for his next DUI about 4 months later.
//He's a dumbass
 
2012-12-20 01:51:54 PM  

farkingatwork: heh, isn't this actual theft of property?

I know it might be a giant stretch, but isn't that literally taking your resource without your consent? Not to mention the warrant rubber stamping issues.


The State owns you. Drugs laws and bans on assisted suicide should tell you that.
 
2012-12-20 01:52:51 PM  

fredklein: mgshamster: Not taking the test means you are guilty.

So, Guilty until proven Innocent?


What would you prefer?

"Officer, I won't agree to any test of my BAC"
"Well then, I guess you're free to go"
 
2012-12-20 01:54:53 PM  
I wouldn't mind this as much IF this actually did anything. But lets face it, most of the BS surrounding DUI/DWI is either a cash grab or a dog and pony show. I'll start to take things more seriously when there aren't people with a DOUBLE DIGIT number of convictions STILL LEGALLY DRIVING.
 
2012-12-20 01:56:16 PM  

thurstonxhowell: fredklein: mgshamster: Not taking the test means you are guilty.

So, Guilty until proven Innocent?

What would you prefer?

"Officer, I won't agree to any test of my BAC"
"Well then, I guess you're free to go"


"Officer, I won't agree to any test of my BAC"
"Then you get tossed in a cell for the night" --next morning-- "On further study, you don't appear drunk after all. You're free to go."

There- gets a (supposedly) drunk person off the road, and no self- incrimination or invasive medical procedures.
 
2012-12-20 01:56:47 PM  

fredklein: mgshamster: Not taking the test means you are guilty.

So, Guilty until proven Innocent?


Yup.  I'm not entirely sure of the logic behind it.  It probably has something to do with the fact that you can't go back later and test them to see if they were drunk, like you can with other crimes (such as theft or murder).  You only have a window of so many hours to get a test done.  If you refuse to allow a test done within that window, you're obstructing justice or some such thing.
 
It's pretty much something along the lines of, "You can take one of these two tests which might prove that you're guilty, but could also prove that you're innocent; OR you can refuse both tests, but by doing so you have to admit that you're guilty."
 
2012-12-20 01:58:17 PM  
I see this ending up in front of the Supreme Court eventually...just need to find the right case and the right lawyer to run it up.
 
2012-12-20 01:58:38 PM  

mgshamster: DROxINxTHExWIND: trippdogg: That means any driver, any time, stopped in San Antonio and suspected of drunk driving who refuses to blow into a breathalyzer gets carted off to the magistrate and forced to give up blood if a judge approves the warrant...

Why wouldn't you just blow into the breathalyzer? Seems like pretty standard farking procedure.

Because the Constitution says you don't have to incriminate yourself? Lets all make a distinction right now between "legally" impared vs. being too inebriated to operate a vehicle. They are not the same thing.

True.  But in the case of DUIs, would you rather take a chemical test (which is what breathalyzers and blood draws are) with the accuracy of chemistry and science (which can be validated by an independent source of your choosing in the case of blood draws) OR some cop's judgment/word that you were drunk?


 
That chemical test cannot tell me how I feel. There have been times when I had a nice little buzz, but I was still in total control of my faculties.
 
2012-12-20 01:59:09 PM  

mgshamster: ScotterOtter: You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: First off, don't drink and drive.

Secondly, don't be a douche and refuse a breathalyzer.

If it keeps drunken idiots off the road i'll donate my carbon dioxide everyday.

So, you'd be fine if built-in breathalizers were mandatory in every vehicle in order to start the car? Wow, just wow

There can be a lot of problems with that.  What happens when the breathalyzer breaks down? Is calibrated wrongly? Gives a false positive? Is there a way to bypass it in the case of an emergency?

I mean, it might be something I could see a parent installing in their kid's car, but in every car? It's a bit much.


I once worked with a guy who had one of these devices in his car, and was only allowed to drive between work and home. He had no problem finding people at work willing to blow into it for him so he could start his car and go home from work every day.

Somehow it never occurred to me until just now -- Why did he need someone to blow in his breathalyzer after work when his shift ended at 7:00am? Man, he must have been some kind of hard core drunk.
 
2012-12-20 02:00:39 PM  

fredklein: mgshamster: Not taking the test means you are guilty.

So, Guilty until proven Innocent?


More accurately, not submitting to a blood-alcohol test results in automatic suspension of a driver's license. Because driving on public roads is a licensed privilege and not a right, states retain the power to establish a requirement of submission to such a test as a condition for continued licensing. As suspension of a driver's license is not itself a criminal conviction, no "guilt" is technically assessed.
 
2012-12-20 02:01:39 PM  

fredklein: There- gets a (supposedly) drunk person off the road, and no self- incrimination or invasive medical procedures.


A lot of people don't like that.  For one, there are many people that believe it won't reduce the incidents of drunk driving*.  For another, America really like to punish people for going against what the authoritarians say, and your solution just doesn't do enough punishment.
 
*I haven't sought out any studies, but I'm sure there are studies that compare drunk driving rates per population for states/counties that have tough drunk driving laws vs relaxed drunk driving laws.  I'm curious as to what the results show, but not so much that I want to go hunting from them.
 
2012-12-20 02:04:29 PM  

fredklein: Raoul Eaton: they'll have police testimony establishing probable cause even if the test comes back negative.

I'd like to see that.

"He was drunk"
"No, he wasn't. the blood test proves it."
"Oh... um.... well, we thought he was drunk, so..."
"Officer, do you routinely mistake sober people for drunk people? What, exactly, is your medical training in this regard?"
"Well, ..."
"...Or were you lying when you claimed my perfectly sober client was drunk. Which would be illegal. Do we need to pull ALL your cases for the last 10 years?"
etc.


Or, more likely, "I observed the suspect's vehicle travelling erratically on the roadway, crossing over the center line several times. He also had was driving at night without his headlights on. When I approached his vehicle and he rolled down the window, I smelled a strong odor of alcohol."
 
2012-12-20 02:04:52 PM  
In most states a refusal to test gets you just as much jail time as a DUI.....often making it easier for the police to confiscate your car.
 
2012-12-20 02:06:13 PM  

fredklein: "Officer, I won't agree to any test of my BAC"
"Well then, I guess you're free to go"

"Officer, I won't agree to any test of my BAC"
"Then you get tossed in a cell for the night" --next morning-- "On further study, you don't appear drunk after all. You're free to go."


"Sweet deal there, chief. See ya tomorrow night."
 
2012-12-20 02:07:48 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: mgshamster: DROxINxTHExWIND: trippdogg: That means any driver, any time, stopped in San Antonio and suspected of drunk driving who refuses to blow into a breathalyzer gets carted off to the magistrate and forced to give up blood if a judge approves the warrant...

Why wouldn't you just blow into the breathalyzer? Seems like pretty standard farking procedure.

Because the Constitution says you don't have to incriminate yourself? Lets all make a distinction right now between "legally" impared vs. being too inebriated to operate a vehicle. They are not the same thing.

True.  But in the case of DUIs, would you rather take a chemical test (which is what breathalyzers and blood draws are) with the accuracy of chemistry and science (which can be validated by an independent source of your choosing in the case of blood draws) OR some cop's judgment/word that you were drunk?

 
That chemical test cannot tell me how I feel. There have been times when I had a nice little buzz, but I was still in total control of my faculties.


That's a fine line to walk.  One of the effects of alcohol is a reduced ability to judge things accurately, such as one's own capabilities.  Another is reduced reaction time. Those two combined is what causes accidents. Of course, the effects vary by individual, and the law is written around the average, so it could very well be that you can handle yourself just fine at or around the legal limit, while another person wouldn't be able to handle a 0.05.
 
One of the things a cop is supposed to do is make that judgment at the road side.  Even if a person blows a 0.05, if the cop feels they are impaired, they can still arrest them (and I've seen that happen). Conversely, even if a person blows a 0.08, and they seem to not be impaired, a cop has the right to let them go. 
 
/Funny that I've never seen or heard of the latter happening.
 
2012-12-20 02:12:16 PM  

buddyrtr: ElLoco: I'm currently posting in the near-center of 'The Beef Capital of the World,' so I'm getting a kick...

/don't live here
//it stanks

He's right - I grew up there.


The tap water there smells and tastes like live cow.
 
2012-12-20 02:12:49 PM  

Raoul Eaton: fredklein: Raoul Eaton: they'll have police testimony establishing probable cause even if the test comes back negative.

I'd like to see that.

"He was drunk"
"No, he wasn't. the blood test proves it."
"Oh... um.... well, we thought he was drunk, so..."
"Officer, do you routinely mistake sober people for drunk people? What, exactly, is your medical training in this regard?"
"Well, ..."
"...Or were you lying when you claimed my perfectly sober client was drunk. Which would be illegal. Do we need to pull ALL your cases for the last 10 years?"
etc.

Or, more likely, "I observed the suspect's vehicle travelling erratically on the roadway, crossing over the center line several times. He also had was driving at night without his headlights on. When I approached his vehicle and he rolled down the window, I smelled a strong odor of alcohol."


There's lots of other reasons why a person would be driving erradically - or even impaired - that have nothing to do with alcohol.  Illicit drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, or meth; legal prescription drugs, such as oxycotin or other opoids; simply being tired; texting; and more.  Just because a person blows a 0.00 doesn't mean they weren't impaired.  Of course, I don't think (and I stress that I'm not involved in DUI cases, so my knowledge is limited to what I learned in my forensic science graduate program and from talking to cops and lawyers about it) that being tired or texting can get you a DUI, but drugs most certainly can.
 
2012-12-20 02:13:01 PM  

mgshamster: *I haven't sought out any studies, but I'm sure there are studies that compare drunk driving rates per population for states/counties that have tough drunk driving laws vs relaxed drunk driving laws. I'm curious as to what the results show, but not so much that I want to go hunting from them.


Since "times driving intoxicated and not getting arrested" isn't kept, I think you might be better off looking up the cost of fines for drunk-driving versus the total number of DUI convictions per capita.
 
Of course, I hypothesize that the more the state stands to make off the enforcement, the more convictions you'll see.
 
I don't mean to knock the hard work some police officers do to get the obviously dangerous and intoxicated people off the roads. But I see more and more convictions for DUIs today than ever before and many of them are people who were only "technically" over the limit. My friends participated in one of the studies for consumption to determine the level of impairment at certain BACs, and the amount of impairment was wildly different. Some were at .08 and stone-cold sober. Some were at .08 and showing mild impairment. I have a friend who was involved in a minor fenderbender in which *she* was hit by someone and got a DUI because the responding officer smelled alcohol on her breath and she blew slightly over the limit.
 
2012-12-20 02:16:10 PM  

fredklein: And if the blood test comes back negative, will they apologize for performing a medical procedure on you without your consent??


If it comes back less than 0.02, cops should have to pay $5,000.
 
2012-12-20 02:20:14 PM  
i'm trying to figure out why i should be outraged at this, but it's not coming to me.
 
2012-12-20 02:20:34 PM  

Treygreen13: mgshamster: *I haven't sought out any studies, but I'm sure there are studies that compare drunk driving rates per population for states/counties that have tough drunk driving laws vs relaxed drunk driving laws. I'm curious as to what the results show, but not so much that I want to go hunting from them.

Since "times driving intoxicated and not getting arrested" isn't kept, I think you might be better off looking up the cost of fines for drunk-driving versus the total number of DUI convictions per capita.
 
Of course, I hypothesize that the more the state stands to make off the enforcement, the more convictions you'll see.

 
That seems very likely.  The greater benefit a department has for DUI cases, the more likely you'll see enforcement bias.
 
I don't mean to knock the hard work some police officers do to get the obviously dangerous and intoxicated people off the roads. But I see more and more convictions for DUIs today than ever before and many of them are people who were only "technically" over the limit. My friends participated in one of the studies for consumption to determine the level of impairment at certain BACs, and the amount of impairment was wildly different. Some were at .08 and stone-cold sober. Some were at .08 and showing mild impairment. I have a friend who was involved in a minor fenderbender in which *she* was hit by someone and got a DUI because the responding officer smelled alcohol on her breath and she blew slightly over the limit.


I mentioned earlier that the law was based on the average, and I believe it was studies like these that determined what the average was.  It's been a while since I had to study alcohol - well, other than taste tests.
 
2012-12-20 02:24:26 PM  

Dimensio: fredklein: mgshamster: Not taking the test means you are guilty.

So, Guilty until proven Innocent?

More accurately, not submitting to a blood-alcohol test results in automatic suspension of a driver's license. Because driving on public roads is a licensed privilege and not a right, states retain the power to establish a requirement of submission to such a test as a condition for continued licensing. As suspension of a driver's license is not itself a criminal conviction, no "guilt" is technically assessed.


Which is all bullshiat.

It's bullshiat to say driving is a privilege. Many, if not most people need to drive. To work (to earn money). To the store (to spend money on ie. food). Is it a 'privilege' to not starve??

It's bullshiat to toss in extra requirements on driving. What's next- saying "You are required to submit to warrant-less cavity searches, or lose your license"?? "You are required to blow any cop who pulls you over, or lose your license"?

It's bullshiat to make breaking a law a civil or 'administrative' issue, instead of a criminal one. If there is a law, and I break it, I should get a criminal trial, not an 'administrative' hearing or whatever. This 'administrative' crap is just a way for the government to bypass having to have proper Cause and evidence for a criminal case, and to not have to follow the procedures for it.
 
2012-12-20 02:24:35 PM  

fat_free: Oh, ya don't like that I pulled ya over


A public service announcement: How not to get your ass kicked by the police!
 
2012-12-20 02:26:55 PM  

umad: I'm ok with this. The founding fathers couldn't foresee the reckless use of automobiles so the 4th amendment is obviously outdated and no longer needed in this day and age. I for one applaud our government for making progress in this area where it is needed badly.

Your rights are not more important than the children, so just STFU.


That's amateur hour stuff, bro.
 
2012-12-20 02:27:08 PM  

Raoul Eaton: Or, more likely, "I observed the suspect's vehicle travelling erratically on the roadway, crossing over the center line several times. He also had was driving at night without his headlights on. When I approached his vehicle and he rolled down the window, I smelled a strong odor of alcohol."


"And do you have any actual... you know... evidence of any of this, beside your word?"
"No"
 
2012-12-20 02:27:28 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: trippdogg: That means any driver, any time, stopped in San Antonio and suspected of drunk driving who refuses to blow into a breathalyzer gets carted off to the magistrate and forced to give up blood if a judge approves the warrant...

Why wouldn't you just blow into the breathalyzer? Seems like pretty standard farking procedure.

Because the Constitution says you don't have to incriminate yourself? Lets all make a distinction right now between "legally" impared vs. being too inebriated to operate a vehicle. They are not the same thing.


A cop can shoot you in the face and have a very good chance of getting away with it. Throwing a drunk driver in the clink for a night, whether or not they can still stand up, is small potatoes.

1. Don't drink and drive
2. If you do drink and drive, you probably won't get stopped if you drive carefully and obey all traffic laws
3. If you do get stopped, you probably needed to be
 
2012-12-20 02:28:08 PM  

hobnail: Treygreen13: Already, local media in my area are discussing mandatory blow-start vehicles for everyone - not just people with past DUIs or DWIs.

Quite frankly, I have far less of a problem with that than I do the star chamber proceedings that surround DUI arrests now.

In some states you can request the blood test. My non-lawyerly advice would be if you have been drinking, and think you're not over the limit, ask for the blood test if you can. At least if you're convicted you'll know it was probably accurate.


The advice I've gotten on this from an actual lawyer was that if I was ever pulled over for DUI in this state (Nevada), blow into the breathalyzer. If it fails, "request" (demand) a blood test to verify it, since you're entitled to that. Then hope that either A) the breathalyzer was miscalibrated, or B) you sober up enough in the fifteen-ish minutes it takes to get your blood drawn.
 
2012-12-20 02:31:33 PM  

fredklein: mgshamster: Not taking the test means you are guilty.

So, Guilty until proven Innocent?


Implied consent - how the fark does it work?
 
2012-12-20 02:33:46 PM  

fredklein: Raoul Eaton: Or, more likely, "I observed the suspect's vehicle travelling erratically on the roadway, crossing over the center line several times. He also had was driving at night without his headlights on. When I approached his vehicle and he rolled down the window, I smelled a strong odor of alcohol."

"And do you have any actual... you know... evidence of any of this, beside your word?"
"No"


It would be nice if that were the case, but cops are still believed over civilians in most court rooms until otherwise proven to be unreliable.  Especially when observing driving habits, which is directly related to their jobs.  Some people have tried to change this, and have made some decent progress - specifically Dr. Elizabeth Loftus and her work on the fallibility of eye-witness testimony.  Of course, there's lots of hate for her in the law enforcement world - so much so that even teachers in my forensic grad program had a dislike for her. I couldn't figure it out; I thought her work was fantastic.  But some people still fight against her and others who do work like her - so much so that I've even heard people claim that cops are immune to bad eye-witnessing because of their training.
 
2012-12-20 02:34:00 PM  

mgshamster: That's a fine line to walk. One of the effects of alcohol is a reduced ability to judge things accurately, such as one's own capabilities. Another is reduced reaction time. Those two combined is what causes accidents. Of course, the effects vary by individual, and the law is written around the average, so it could very well be that you can handle yourself just fine at or around the legal limit, while another person wouldn't be able to handle a 0.05.


BINGO.

And that's the reason a specific BAC limit is bullshiat. One person can be below the limit, and still impaired, while another is above it, but fine. Hell, someone can be perfectly sober, but tired, and have worse reaction times than a legally drunk person. Or maybe they just had a fight with their boy/girlfriend, or maybe they're fiddling with the radio, or texting, or...

Instead of focusing on specific causes of bad driving, Why not just making BAD DRIVING illegal, no matter the cause? Cop sees you driving bad, you're arrested. Doesn't matter why you were driving bad- drunk, distracted, tired, etc. That bypasses to bullshiat "you were .081, the limit is .080" crap.
 
2012-12-20 02:34:58 PM  

fredklein: Dimensio: fredklein: mgshamster: Not taking the test means you are guilty.

So, Guilty until proven Innocent?

More accurately, not submitting to a blood-alcohol test results in automatic suspension of a driver's license. Because driving on public roads is a licensed privilege and not a right, states retain the power to establish a requirement of submission to such a test as a condition for continued licensing. As suspension of a driver's license is not itself a criminal conviction, no "guilt" is technically assessed.

Which is all bullshiat.

It's bullshiat to say driving is a privilege. Many, if not most people need to drive. To work (to earn money). To the store (to spend money on ie. food). Is it a 'privilege' to not starve??

It's bullshiat to toss in extra requirements on driving. What's next- saying "You are required to submit to warrant-less cavity searches, or lose your license"?? "You are required to blow any cop who pulls you over, or lose your license"?

It's bullshiat to make breaking a law a civil or 'administrative' issue, instead of a criminal one. If there is a law, and I break it, I should get a criminal trial, not an 'administrative' hearing or whatever. This 'administrative' crap is just a way for the government to bypass having to have proper Cause and evidence for a criminal case, and to not have to follow the procedures for it.


I guess you have never heard of the public bus system. Quite often these large people movers are used by thosewho need to get to work or to an establishment that sells good.

This is not an administrative issue instead of a criminal issue.

This is an administrative issue along with a criminal issue. The license revocation hearing (administrative part) is a hearing to determine if probable cause existed when the officer made the traffic stop. It is not a phase to determine guilt or innocence of the Dwi, just the stop
 
2012-12-20 02:35:20 PM  

Anastacya: LeroyBourne: fredklein: And if the blood test comes back negative, will they apologize for performing a medical procedure on you without your consent??
/or will you have to sue?

Maybe if they accidentally gave you the AIDS, but good luck proving that too.

Step 1: Accept invitation to a party
Step 2: Go and get tested for every STD before the party
Step 3: Get negative results, go and get slaughtered
Step 4: Refuse Breathalyzer, take forced bloodwork, get AIDS due to horribly derelict testing procedures
Step 5: Profit???


Step 6:  Live out your rich life with AIDS, but who needs those later years when you're old and falling apart anyway!!
 
2012-12-20 02:36:52 PM  

fredklein: "Then you get tossed in a cell for the night" --next morning-- "On further study, you don't appear drunk after all. You're free to go."

There- gets a (supposedly) drunk person off the road, and no self- incrimination or invasive medical procedures.



Can you be sure that no invasive procedures may be performed in the cell overnight on your drunk ass?
 
2012-12-20 02:37:16 PM  
In Oregon, convictions are virtually guaranteed anywhere north of .04 BAC. They do pretty well at stocking juries with MADD mothers here.

In Washington, they now have the right to seek a blood draw warrant if you're suspected of being high, and a there is a legal limit for blood THC content (which measures active THC, not the metabolites like UAs). So there's that to look forward to everywhere else.

The question I've never had answered is if the blood draw warrants specify a maximum quantity of blood they are allowed to collect, or can they just empty you into the floor drain if you're found guilty of "contempt of cop".
 
2012-12-20 02:38:22 PM  

mgshamster: It would be nice if that were the case, but cops are still believed over civilians in most court rooms until otherwise proven to be unreliable.


it wouldn't be 'cop vs civilian', it would be 'cop claiming civilian was drunk vs lab report showing civilian was not drunk'.
 
2012-12-20 02:41:18 PM  

mgshamster: DROxINxTHExWIND: mgshamster: DROxINxTHExWIND: trippdogg: That means any driver, any time, stopped in San Antonio and suspected of drunk driving who refuses to blow into a breathalyzer gets carted off to the magistrate and forced to give up blood if a judge approves the warrant...

Why wouldn't you just blow into the breathalyzer? Seems like pretty standard farking procedure.

Because the Constitution says you don't have to incriminate yourself? Lets all make a distinction right now between "legally" impared vs. being too inebriated to operate a vehicle. They are not the same thing.

True.  But in the case of DUIs, would you rather take a chemical test (which is what breathalyzers and blood draws are) with the accuracy of chemistry and science (which can be validated by an independent source of your choosing in the case of blood draws) OR some cop's judgment/word that you were drunk?


That chemical test cannot tell me how I feel. There have been times when I had a nice little buzz, but I was still in total control of my faculties.

That's a fine line to walk.  One of the effects of alcohol is a reduced ability to judge things accurately, such as one's own capabilities.  Another is reduced reaction time. Those two combined is what causes accidents. Of course, the effects vary by individual, and the law is written around the average, so it could very well be that you can handle yourself just fine at or around the legal limit, while another person wouldn't be able to handle a 0.05.

One of the things a cop is supposed to do is make that judgment at the road side.  Even if a person blows a 0.05, if the cop feels they are impaired, they can still arrest them (and I've seen that happen). Conversely, even if a person blows a 0.08, and they seem to not be impaired, a cop has the right to let them go.

/Funny that I've never seen or heard of the latter happening.


This is why people hate the system so much. Believe it or not, most people don't go out and get wasted and then drive home. I usually limit myself to two beers. But if I say two beers, I'm going to have to take a breathalyzer/blood test. Then they'll come back and say that they felt I was impaired, so I'm going to get a DUI anyway. All they HAVE to prove is that you have some intoxicating substance in your body. All .08% BAC really is, is the level at which they MUST prosecute, and it isn't up to the officer.

They aren't trying to see if you're innocent or guilty, they're trying to prove that you're guilty. Literally everything the police do is with respect to getting a conviction against you. All the questions they ask are just them building up a case. All the tests they perform, all the observations they make, etc, are them building a case for the eventual prosecution.

Case in point: Friend went out drinking one night and only had two beers. Their BAC came back as a hair over .01%. They got pulled over and taken downtown. The cop said that they seemed to be impaired because they swerved. Friend took a picture of the road debris that they swerved around, including his own car and the police car in the picture. When it went to court, the picture was summarily thrown out, and the cop's story of them swerving all over the place was accepted as fact. The only reason they didn't have their life irrecoverably farked up was because their lawyer was able to convince the court to lower the sentencing because said friend had to pay child support and alimony and both mother/child would end up on the street if friend lost his job.

Not a week later the judge in question got popped for a DUI after wrecking their car into the front of a house, but was still a judge, and got another DUI (this time for Xanax) a couple of weeks later for being passed out at a red light in the driver's seat with the engine running.
 
2012-12-20 02:41:20 PM  

Solaris: I guess you have never heard of the public bus system. Quite often these large people movers are used by thosewho need to get to work or to an establishment that sells good.


Not every town has a public bus system.

This is not an administrative issue instead of a criminal issue.

"As suspension of a driver's license is not itself a criminal conviction, no "guilt" is technically assessed."
 
2012-12-20 02:41:39 PM  

fredbox: In Oregon, convictions are virtually guaranteed anywhere north of .04 BAC. They do pretty well at stocking juries with MADD mothers here.

In Washington, they now have the right to seek a blood draw warrant if you're suspected of being high, and a there is a legal limit for blood THC content (which measures active THC, not the metabolites like UAs). So there's that to look forward to everywhere else.

The question I've never had answered is if the blood draw warrants specify a maximum quantity of blood they are allowed to collect, or can they just empty you into the floor drain if you're found guilty of "contempt of cop".


Because in no way possible are these blood draws done by medical staff in a hospital. Nope obviously done by slicing someone open and filling up the 'ol bucket of justice with the sweet smell of victory blood.
 
2012-12-20 02:42:41 PM  

fredklein: mgshamster: That's a fine line to walk. One of the effects of alcohol is a reduced ability to judge things accurately, such as one's own capabilities. Another is reduced reaction time. Those two combined is what causes accidents. Of course, the effects vary by individual, and the law is written around the average, so it could very well be that you can handle yourself just fine at or around the legal limit, while another person wouldn't be able to handle a 0.05.

BINGO.

And that's the reason a specific BAC limit is bullshiat. One person can be below the limit, and still impaired, while another is above it, but fine. Hell, someone can be perfectly sober, but tired, and have worse reaction times than a legally drunk person. Or maybe they just had a fight with their boy/girlfriend, or maybe they're fiddling with the radio, or texting, or...

Instead of focusing on specific causes of bad driving, Why not just making BAD DRIVING illegal, no matter the cause? Cop sees you driving bad, you're arrested. Doesn't matter why you were driving bad- drunk, distracted, tired, etc. That bypasses to bullshiat "you were .081, the limit is .080" crap.


If you're 0.01 over the limit, a good lawyer can either get you out of it completely, or at least reduced to a wet reckless.  And in my state, you can still get fined for driving distracted - such as eating, fiddling with the radio, or using a cell phone to text (or even just talking on a cell phone without a hands-free device). You can also get fined for driving while tired, if your driving is bad enough.  Of course, none of those equal the punishment an individual receives for a DUI, which in California is two days in jail (your overnight visit to the drunk tanks counts towards those two days), 4-6 months loss of license, a 3 month course on drinking and addiction, lots of fines, and it remains on your record for 10 years.  If you're enrolled in the 3 month course (or have completed it), you can get a temp license for driving to and from work.  And that's just for the first conviction.
 
2012-12-20 02:42:56 PM  

fredklein: Dimensio: fredklein: mgshamster: Not taking the test means you are guilty.

So, Guilty until proven Innocent?

More accurately, not submitting to a blood-alcohol test results in automatic suspension of a driver's license. Because driving on public roads is a licensed privilege and not a right, states retain the power to establish a requirement of submission to such a test as a condition for continued licensing. As suspension of a driver's license is not itself a criminal conviction, no "guilt" is technically assessed.

Which is all bullshiat.

It's bullshiat to say driving is a privilege. Many, if not most people need to drive. To work (to earn money). To the store (to spend money on ie. food). Is it a 'privilege' to not starve??

It's bullshiat to toss in extra requirements on driving. What's next- saying "You are required to submit to warrant-less cavity searches, or lose your license"?? "You are required to blow any cop who pulls you over, or lose your license"?

It's bullshiat to make breaking a law a civil or 'administrative' issue, instead of a criminal one. If there is a law, and I break it, I should get a criminal trial, not an 'administrative' hearing or whatever. This 'administrative' crap is just a way for the government to bypass having to have proper Cause and evidence for a criminal case, and to not have to follow the procedures for it.


I disagree. I say driving is most definitely a privilege. If you need to get to work, take the bus, ride a bike, walk, bum a ride from a friend. People lived and did work and moved around before cars existed. For actually quite a long time. If you can't make any of those above options work, you either live too far from work and should move, or you suck at making good friends and should think about why that might be. Nobody is forcing you to work at that particular place or live where you do, you make that choice, knowing that you have your intact privilege to drive.

Just because it is an important and valuable privilege doesn't make it a right.

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (although I get hung up on how anyone can claim we have the right to pursuit of happiness, but will try and outlaw gay marriage? It will make 2 people happy, and have no adverse impact on you, so why is that allowed? But I digress...).

We have the right to free speech, free press, and free religion.

Personally, I wish they made the licensing requirements in my area MORE difficult, and MORE stringent. Also, punishments should be MUCH stricter. We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on expanding roadways to address the huge increase in cars on the road (which shows no signs of slowing), why not make it more restrictive to use them?

Specifically I favor:

Much harder driving tests - I see people honk at people for not passing a stopped school bus, WTF?
Must pass driving tests with license renewel (I would like to include behind-the-wheel testing, but that is expensive and would waste resources) - People forget that driving is a privilege and think that they know everything about driving, which usually ends up making them worse drivers.
DUI - Automatic lifetime driving ban. Want to drive? Don't drink when you do it.
Be at-fault in an accident where serious injury (or death) occurs? - Automatic lifetime driving ban.
Reckless driving - Automatic 6 month license suspension
Improper speeding - Automatic 1 month suspension

And you know what else this would do besides reduce traffic and leave the best drivers on the road? It would make driving as a career a much more in-demand profession. People who behave responsibly and drive within established rules and limits will be rewarded with better job oppotunities, and potentially higher wages.

/Fark DC Metro Area drivers
//How did I get locked in the asylum with those assholes?
 
2012-12-20 02:44:16 PM  

thurstonxhowell: fredklein: mgshamster: Not taking the test means you are guilty.

So, Guilty until proven Innocent?

What would you prefer?

"Officer, I won't agree to any test of my BAC"
"Well then, I guess you're free to go"


Random stops should be unConstitutional in the first place, as should random testing (if you get stopped for a busted taillight or whatever). If they are testing you, they should already have evidence, and I don't mean "beer breath".

If the dashboard cam has you staggering out of a bar, or driving like an idiot, or obviously drunk when you get out of the car, you should be able to be convicted without a drug test. The drug test should only be used to bolster your defense.
 
2012-12-20 02:44:45 PM  

thurstonxhowell: fredklein: mgshamster: Not taking the test means you are guilty.

So, Guilty until proven Innocent?

What would you prefer?

"Officer, I won't agree to any test of my BAC"
"Well then, I guess you're free to go"


THIS
not what you said.
 
2012-12-20 02:46:42 PM  

fredklein: mgshamster: It would be nice if that were the case, but cops are still believed over civilians in most court rooms until otherwise proven to be unreliable.

it wouldn't be 'cop vs civilian', it would be 'cop claiming civilian was drunk vs lab report showing civilian was not drunk'.


Technically, it would be the cop claiming the civilian was impaired, not drunk. And since one can be impaired without being drunk, s/he would be perfectly in the right to make the claim. The cops that are savvy with the legal system know the right words to use to prevent themselves from getting incriminated.
 
2012-12-20 02:48:14 PM  

fredklein: Solaris: I guess you have never heard of the public bus system. Quite often these large people movers are used by thosewho need to get to work or to an establishment that sells good.

Not every town has a public bus system.

This is not an administrative issue instead of a criminal issue.

"As suspension of a driver's license is not itself a criminal conviction, no "guilt" is technically assessed."


Ride a bike, take a cab, walk. These are possible everywhere.
 
2012-12-20 02:49:31 PM  

fredklein: It's bullshiat to say driving is a privilege


Well, that's certainly your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Luckily for the rest of us, the US Federal Court system doesn't agree.
 
2012-12-20 02:49:59 PM  
trippdogg:A cop can shoot you in the face and have a very good chance of getting away with it. Throwing a drunk driver in the clink for a night, whether or not they can still stand up, is small potatoes.

1. Don't drink and drive
2. If you do drink and drive, you probably won't get stopped if you drive carefully and obey all traffic laws
3. If you do get stopped, you probably needed to be


Thats a dumb ass reason to give up the rest of your rights. A cop could also say "meow" 10 times while he's asking me questions. What he can do insome imaginary scenario has no bearing on what I should do in a probably one.
 
2012-12-20 02:52:02 PM  
I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.
 
2012-12-20 02:53:10 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: thurstonxhowell: fredklein: mgshamster: Not taking the test means you are guilty.

So, Guilty until proven Innocent?

What would you prefer?

"Officer, I won't agree to any test of my BAC"
"Well then, I guess you're free to go"

Random stops should be unConstitutional in the first place, as should random testing (if you get stopped for a busted taillight or whatever). If they are testing you, they should already have evidence, and I don't mean "beer breath".

If the dashboard cam has you staggering out of a bar, or driving like an idiot, or obviously drunk when you get out of the car, you should be able to be convicted without a drug test. The drug test should only be used to bolster your defense.


A bit of that has to do with something called the CSI Effect.  Basically, ever since the tv show CSI came on the air, everyone seems to want the most advanced scientific tests to prove a person is guilty.  It's really gumming up the works in the forensic DNA world - friends of mine that work in that field complain about cops sending in samples that might contain DNA, and they end up getting hundreds of samples per case.
 
So even with the dash cam and other proof of drunkenness, chemical tests still "must" to be done.
 
Another aspect is that the breathalyzer was around before dash cams, and it was a lot easier to prove someone was drunk with a breath, blood, or urine test (although urine tests aren't done anymore in most jurisdictions) than it was with video evidence.  It may even be written into the law, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now.
 
2012-12-20 02:56:42 PM  
remember when they made the penalties for refusing the test the same as DUI on the basis that people were refusing and jeopardizing UDI cases?

Why not impose the penalties for violating implied consent?
 
2012-12-20 02:58:02 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.

 
Did you know that if you use mouthwash that has alcohol in it, you'll easily blow over a 0.1%.  I've done it before.  It takes about 5-10 minutes for that effect to go away. For this reason, cops are required to wait for so much time before giving a breathalyzer test.  I think it's around 20-30 minutes, but my memory can be off (this may not be true in all states).
 
2012-12-20 02:58:31 PM  

Solaris: Ride a bike, take a cab, walk. These are possible everywhere.



This is Fark you already know better.
 
2012-12-20 03:01:54 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: thurstonxhowell: fredklein: mgshamster: Not taking the test means you are guilty.

So, Guilty until proven Innocent?

What would you prefer?

"Officer, I won't agree to any test of my BAC"
"Well then, I guess you're free to go"

Random stops should be unConstitutional in the first place, as should random testing (if you get stopped for a busted taillight or whatever). If they are testing you, they should already have evidence, and I don't mean "beer breath".

If the dashboard cam has you staggering out of a bar, or driving like an idiot, or obviously drunk when you get out of the car, you should be able to be convicted without a drug test. The drug test should only be used to bolster your defense.


And what do you do when the first time an officer contacts the driver is at the scene of an accident?

Well..I never saw you drive so there is no way you could be intoxicated...carry on

I'm curious what "obviously drunk" looks like, please define.

Don't forget that before an officer even has a opportunity to request blood/breath sample from someone, they still have to establish probable to make the arrest in the field.
 
2012-12-20 03:02:57 PM  

spickus: Solaris: Ride a bike, take a cab, walk. These are possible everywhere.


This is Fark you already know better.


You're right

I'm still waking up...
 
2012-12-20 03:06:26 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: mgshamster: DROxINxTHExWIND: trippdogg: That means any driver, any time, stopped in San Antonio and suspected of drunk driving who refuses to blow into a breathalyzer gets carted off to the magistrate and forced to give up blood if a judge approves the warrant...

Why wouldn't you just blow into the breathalyzer? Seems like pretty standard farking procedure.

Because the Constitution says you don't have to incriminate yourself? Lets all make a distinction right now between "legally" impared vs. being too inebriated to operate a vehicle. They are not the same thing.

True.  But in the case of DUIs, would you rather take a chemical test (which is what breathalyzers and blood draws are) with the accuracy of chemistry and science (which can be validated by an independent source of your choosing in the case of blood draws) OR some cop's judgment/word that you were drunk?


That chemical test cannot tell me how I feel. There have been times when I had a nice little buzz, but I was still in total control of my faculties.


If you've never been tested with a calibrated test (cop's breathalyzer or blood draw) then you have no idea what your BAC was at the time. The feeling that it was over 0.08 but you were totally fine, brah, was pure speculation on your part.
 
2012-12-20 03:09:26 PM  
If the perp is legitly drunk or stoned then fine if not i got a problem with this.
 
2012-12-20 03:09:32 PM  

mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.
 
Did you know that if you use mouthwash that has alcohol in it, you'll easily blow over a 0.1%.  I've done it before.  It takes about 5-10 minutes for that effect to go away. For this reason, cops are required to wait for so much time before giving a breathalyzer test.  I think it's around 20-30 minutes, but my memory can be off (this may not be true in all states).


This is absurd. Officers are testing for impairment. Many substances can cause impairment. There is no time frame an officer must wait before testing related to what someone has consumed
 
2012-12-20 03:11:44 PM  

foxyshadis: DROxINxTHExWIND: mgshamster: DROxINxTHExWIND: trippdogg: That means any driver, any time, stopped in San Antonio and suspected of drunk driving who refuses to blow into a breathalyzer gets carted off to the magistrate and forced to give up blood if a judge approves the warrant...

Why wouldn't you just blow into the breathalyzer? Seems like pretty standard farking procedure.

Because the Constitution says you don't have to incriminate yourself? Lets all make a distinction right now between "legally" impared vs. being too inebriated to operate a vehicle. They are not the same thing.

True.  But in the case of DUIs, would you rather take a chemical test (which is what breathalyzers and blood draws are) with the accuracy of chemistry and science (which can be validated by an independent source of your choosing in the case of blood draws) OR some cop's judgment/word that you were drunk?


That chemical test cannot tell me how I feel. There have been times when I had a nice little buzz, but I was still in total control of my faculties.

If you've never been tested with a calibrated test (cop's breathalyzer or blood draw) then you have no idea what your BAC was at the time. The feeling that it was over 0.08 but you were totally fine, brah, was pure speculation on your part.


In addition, how quickly and strongly a person is effected by alcohol is dependent on a lot of factors, including food consumption, stress level, quality of alcohol and additives, how tired one is, any medications one may be taking, and more.
 
2012-12-20 03:12:58 PM  

foxyshadis: If you've never been tested with a calibrated test (cop's breathalyzer or blood draw) then you have no idea what your BAC was at the time. The feeling that it was over 0.08 but you were totally fine, brah, was pure speculation on your part.


This. There is actually research on PubMed you can search out that demonstrates that people are piss-poor judges on when they are "impaired", and will subjectively claim to not be more often than claim to be when they reach 0.08 and above.
 

Solaris: This is absurd. Officers are testing for impairment. Many substances can cause impairment. There is no time frame an officer must wait before testing related to what someone has consumed


I don't think they're under ANY requirement to wait to test you if you claim to have taken cough syrup, or used mouthwash containing alcohol prior to blowing. You can, however, present it as a defense if you blow over the legal limit.
 
2012-12-20 03:14:12 PM  

Solaris: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.
 
Did you know that if you use mouthwash that has alcohol in it, you'll easily blow over a 0.1%.  I've done it before.  It takes about 5-10 minutes for that effect to go away. For this reason, cops are required to wait for so much time before giving a breathalyzer test.  I think it's around 20-30 minutes, but my memory can be off (this may not be true in all states).

This is absurd. Officers are testing for impairment. Many substances can cause impairment. There is no time frame an officer must wait before testing related to what someone has consumed


Oh. Well, there is in California.  Either that or the police, sheriff, and forensic departments from which I heard that (on multiple occasions) were all lying to me.
 
2012-12-20 03:15:31 PM  

mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.
 
Did you know that if you use mouthwash that has alcohol in it, you'll easily blow over a 0.1%.  I've done it before.  It takes about 5-10 minutes for that effect to go away. For this reason, cops are required to wait for so much time before giving a breathalyzer test.  I think it's around 20-30 minutes, but my memory can be off (this may not be true in all states).

 
IIRC a couple of years ago there was a case where a programmer was able to force the court to let him look at the breathalyzer's source code and he found some shenanigans. If I'm remembering correctly, it's a good reason to want to not blow into their little machine.
 
2012-12-20 03:16:16 PM  

Treygreen13: Now that states are starting to realize the cash-cow that is DUI offenses, this will only get worse. With support from a nation full of reactionary busybodies, we're on our way to a "guilty until proven innocent" situation when it comes to DUIs. Already, local media in my area are discussing mandatory blow-start vehicles for everyone - not just people with past DUIs or DWIs.

 
It's worse than you think it is, already.
 
2012-12-20 03:18:04 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.
 
Did you know that if you use mouthwash that has alcohol in it, you'll easily blow over a 0.1%.  I've done it before.  It takes about 5-10 minutes for that effect to go away. For this reason, cops are required to wait for so much time before giving a breathalyzer test.  I think it's around 20-30 minutes, but my memory can be off (this may not be true in all states).
 
IIRC a couple of years ago there was a case where a programmer was able to force the court to let him look at the breathalyzer's source code and he found some shenanigans. If I'm remembering correctly, it's a good reason to want to not blow into their little machine.


Yeah, or insist on using machines from different companies, or a breathalyzer and a blood test.  A single test should not be enough to prove intoxication.
 
/Of course, there's also the road-side test, which is the cop's judgment, but is still admissible evidence.
 
2012-12-20 03:20:01 PM  

mgshamster: Solaris: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.
 
Did you know that if you use mouthwash that has alcohol in it, you'll easily blow over a 0.1%.  I've done it before.  It takes about 5-10 minutes for that effect to go away. For this reason, cops are required to wait for so much time before giving a breathalyzer test.  I think it's around 20-30 minutes, but my memory can be off (this may not be true in all states).

This is absurd. Officers are testing for impairment. Many substances can cause impairment. There is no time frame an officer must wait before testing related to what someone has consumed

Oh. Well, there is in California.  Either that or the police, sheriff, and forensic departments from which I heard that (on multiple occasions) were all lying to me.


There is a 15 minute time period before a breath test is administered called an observation period. Part of it's purpose is to show that someone has not ingested anything just prior to the test.

Maybe you are thinking of this? But it's done every time and not relative to any specific substance.
 
2012-12-20 03:20:42 PM  

mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.
 
Did you know that if you use mouthwash that has alcohol in it, you'll easily blow over a 0.1%.  I've done it before.  It takes about 5-10 minutes for that effect to go away. For this reason, cops are required to wait for so much time before giving a breathalyzer test.  I think it's around 20-30 minutes, but my memory can be off (this may not be true in all states).
 
IIRC a couple of years ago there was a case where a programmer was able to force the court to let him look at the breathalyzer's source code and he found some shenanigans. If I'm remembering correctly, it's a good reason to want to not blow into their little machine.

Yeah, or insist on using machines from different companies, or a breathalyzer and a blood test.  A single test should not be enough to prove intoxication.
 
/Of course, there's also the road-side test, which is the cop's judgment, but is still admissible evidence.


I think the whole shebang should start with a roadside sobriety test, and then being required to submit a sample should be contingent on failing that test. Not an officer deciding he thinks he smells alcohol so thats that.
 
2012-12-20 03:22:37 PM  

mgshamster: Technically, it would be the cop claiming the civilian was impaired, not drunk. And since one can be impaired without being drunk, s/he would be perfectly in the right to make the claim.


Um...

mgshamster 2012-12-20 02:33:46 PM
fredklein: Raoul Eaton: Or, more likely, "I observed the suspect's vehicle travelling erratically on the roadway, crossing over the center line several times. He also had was driving at night without his headlights on. When I approached his vehicle and he rolled down the window, I smelled a strong odor of alcohol."

"And do you have any actual... you know... evidence of any of this, beside your word?"
"No"

It would be nice if that were the case, but cops are still believed over civilians in most court rooms until otherwise proven to be unreliable.
 
2012-12-20 03:24:09 PM  

Solaris: mgshamster: Solaris: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.
 
Did you know that if you use mouthwash that has alcohol in it, you'll easily blow over a 0.1%.  I've done it before.  It takes about 5-10 minutes for that effect to go away. For this reason, cops are required to wait for so much time before giving a breathalyzer test.  I think it's around 20-30 minutes, but my memory can be off (this may not be true in all states).

This is absurd. Officers are testing for impairment. Many substances can cause impairment. There is no time frame an officer must wait before testing related to what someone has consumed

Oh. Well, there is in California.  Either that or the police, sheriff, and forensic departments from which I heard that (on multiple occasions) were all lying to me.

There is a 15 minute time period before a breath test is administered called an observation period. Part of it's purpose is to show that someone has not ingested anything just prior to the test.

Maybe you are thinking of this? But it's done every time and not relative to any specific substance.


Quite possibly.  It's been a while since I was around law enforcement types, so the exact terminology and details can easily be off in my head.  What you describe seems to fit perfectly with what I was trying to claim - that using mouth wash can cause a false positive on a breathalyzer for a short period of time (it's not exactly "ingesting" it, but still).
 
2012-12-20 03:24:29 PM  

Solaris: Ride a bike, take a cab, walk. These are possible everywhere.


Sure. You tell me how long a 20-mile commute takes you to walk. Or how much it costs to cab it.

Or, are you now forcing people to move closer to their place of work?
 
2012-12-20 03:25:16 PM  
Today is my 6 year anniversary of when I got arrested for DUI after a holiday garthering. The cops beat the shiat out of me and broke my thumbs, face, ribs and tortured me. I coulda sued, but I had all charges dropped instead in a deal.
 
2012-12-20 03:26:05 PM  

mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.
 
Did you know that if you use mouthwash that has alcohol in it, you'll easily blow over a 0.1%.  I've done it before.  It takes about 5-10 minutes for that effect to go away. For this reason, cops are required to wait for so much time before giving a breathalyzer test.  I think it's around 20-30 minutes, but my memory can be off (this may not be true in all states).
 
IIRC a couple of years ago there was a case where a programmer was able to force the court to let him look at the breathalyzer's source code and he found some shenanigans. If I'm remembering correctly, it's a good reason to want to not blow into their little machine.

Yeah, or insist on using machines from different companies, or a breathalyzer and a blood test.  A single test should not be enough to prove intoxication.
 
/Of course, there's also the road-side test, which is the cop's judgment, but is still admissible evidence.


And when those test are administered properly, they are highly effective at demonstrating that someone does not have the normal use of their mental or physical faculties, as the legal lingo puts it.

Remember an officer only needs probable cause to make the arrest. "Beyond reasonable doubt" standard is for trial.

And if it goes to court and the officer did not administer the test properly, guess what?

Case dismissed
 
2012-12-20 03:26:07 PM  

mgshamster: A bit of that has to do with something called the CSI Effect.  Basically, ever since the tv show CSI came on the air, everyone seems to want the most advanced scientific tests to prove a person is guilty.  It's really gumming up the works in the forensic DNA world - friends of mine that work in that field complain about cops sending in samples that might contain DNA, and they end up getting hundreds of samples per case.

So even with the dash cam and other proof of drunkenness, chemical tests still "must" to be done.

Another aspect is that the breathalyzer was around before dash cams, and it was a lot easier to prove someone was drunk with a breath, blood, or urine test (although urine tests aren't done anymore in most jurisdictions) than it was with video evidence.  It may even be written into the law, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now.


Anyone who has had the pleasure of a run in with law enforcement knows not to trust them. The more draconian the laws, the more interactions, the more regular joes start learning that lesson, the less credulous your typical jury is.

In other words, law inforcement is creating their own problem and having to up the ante to keep the money flowing.

And don't kid yourself, it is all about the money.
 
2012-12-20 03:28:05 PM  

Solaris: This is absurd. Officers are testing for impairment.


No, they are testing for one specific substance that Might cause impairment (alcohol).

Many substances can cause impairment.

Exactly.

There is no time frame an officer must wait before testing related to what someone has consumed

False.
 
2012-12-20 03:28:48 PM  

WeenerGord: Maybe you should just blow into the breathalizer? or not drive drunk?


Except for the whole pesky 5th amendment protection against being forced to give evidence against your self
 
2012-12-20 03:30:07 PM  
Anyone convicted of DWI/DUI should have all of their vehicles impounded and they should be forced to use a Segway.
 
2012-12-20 03:30:20 PM  

Solaris: There is a 15 minute time period before a breath test is administered called an observation period. Part of it's purpose is to show that someone has not ingested anything just prior to the test.


Or burps. If the person burps, that increases 'mouth alcohol', and will throw off the test.

So, just burp every 14 minutes, and they can't test you.
 
2012-12-20 03:30:34 PM  

fredklein: Solaris: Ride a bike, take a cab, walk. These are possible everywhere.

Sure. You tell me how long a 20-mile commute takes you to walk. Or how much it costs to cab it.

Or, are you now forcing people to move closer to their place of work?


Someone's "inconvenience" of a longer commute does not afford them any rights to what form of transportation they get to use.
 
2012-12-20 03:32:23 PM  

Solaris: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.
 
Did you know that if you use mouthwash that has alcohol in it, you'll easily blow over a 0.1%.  I've done it before.  It takes about 5-10 minutes for that effect to go away. For this reason, cops are required to wait for so much time before giving a breathalyzer test.  I think it's around 20-30 minutes, but my memory can be off (this may not be true in all states).
 
IIRC a couple of years ago there was a case where a programmer was able to force the court to let him look at the breathalyzer's source code and he found some shenanigans. If I'm remembering correctly, it's a good reason to want to not blow into their little machine.

Yeah, or insist on using machines from different companies, or a breathalyzer and a blood test.  A single test should not be enough to prove intoxication.
 
/Of course, there's also the road-side test, which is the cop's judgment, but is still admissible evidence.

And when those test are administered properly, they are highly effective at demonstrating that someone does not have the normal use of their mental or physical faculties, as the legal lingo puts it.

Remember an officer only needs probable cause to make the arrest. "Beyond reasonable doubt" standard is for trial.

And if it goes to court and the officer did not administer the test properly, guess what?

Case dismissed


Unless someone is stupidly falling down drunk and taking the road-side sobriety test would be dangerous, why isn't it a prerequisite to using a breathalyzer?
 
2012-12-20 03:33:52 PM  

Solaris: And when those test are administered properly, they are highly effective at demonstrating that someone does not have the normal use of their mental or physical faculties, as the legal lingo puts it.


Oh absolutely.  However, we were talking about when they don't work correctly - such as faulty code or providing false positives.  Another example was back when breathalyzers couldn't distinguish between alcohol and acetones from a diabetic with high blood sugar.  Of course, technology has improved, and in many places those older breathalyzers are no longer used, but still - machines can fail.  I mean, all a breathalyzer is is a portable IR Spectroscopy.
 
Hell, I've been dealing with that at work all week. Both my GC/MS's are down.  Both are having problems with their vacuum pumps.  I've been working with my department technician all week trying to get them fixed.
 
2012-12-20 03:35:29 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Solaris: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.
 
Did you know that if you use mouthwash that has alcohol in it, you'll easily blow over a 0.1%.  I've done it before.  It takes about 5-10 minutes for that effect to go away. For this reason, cops are required to wait for so much time before giving a breathalyzer test.  I think it's around 20-30 minutes, but my memory can be off (this may not be true in all states).
 
IIRC a couple of years ago there was a case where a programmer was able to force the court to let him look at the breathalyzer's source code and he found some shenanigans. If I'm remembering correctly, it's a good reason to want to not blow into their little machine.

Yeah, or insist on using machines from different companies, or a breathalyzer and a blood test.  A single test should not be enough to prove intoxication.
 
/Of course, there's also the road-side test, which is the cop's judgment, but is still admissible evidence.

And when those test are administered properly, they are highly effective at demonstrating that someone does not have the normal use of their mental or physical faculties, as the legal lingo puts it.

Remember an officer only needs probable cause to make the arrest. "Beyond reasonable doubt" standard is for trial.

And if it goes to court and the officer did not administer the test properly, guess what?

Case dismissed

Unless someone is stupidly falling down drunk and taking the road-side sobriety test would be dangerous, why isn't it a prerequisite to using a breathalyzer?


And that scenario, in the totality of circumstances, can help establish probable cause
 
2012-12-20 03:36:31 PM  

fredklein: it wouldn't be 'cop vs civilian', it would be 'cop claiming civilian was drunk vs lab report showing civilian was not drunk'.


You mean civilian who works for the police department claiming civilian who doesn't work for the police department was drunk vs lab report showing civilian who doesn't work for the police department was not drunk.
 
2012-12-20 03:36:54 PM  

fredklein: mgshamster: Technically, it would be the cop claiming the civilian was impaired, not drunk. And since one can be impaired without being drunk, s/he would be perfectly in the right to make the claim.

Um...

mgshamster 2012-12-20 02:33:46 PM
fredklein: Raoul Eaton: Or, more likely, "I observed the suspect's vehicle travelling erratically on the roadway, crossing over the center line several times. He also had was driving at night without his headlights on. When I approached his vehicle and he rolled down the window, I smelled a strong odor of alcohol."

"And do you have any actual... you know... evidence of any of this, beside your word?"
"No"

It would be nice if that were the case, but cops are still believed over civilians in most court rooms until otherwise proven to be unreliable.


Fair enough. 
 
/What did you think of Loftus' work?
 
2012-12-20 03:41:51 PM  

Solaris: Uchiha_Cycliste: Solaris: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.
 
Did you know that if you use mouthwash that has alcohol in it, you'll easily blow over a 0.1%.  I've done it before.  It takes about 5-10 minutes for that effect to go away. For this reason, cops are required to wait for so much time before giving a breathalyzer test.  I think it's around 20-30 minutes, but my memory can be off (this may not be true in all states).
 
IIRC a couple of years ago there was a case where a programmer was able to force the court to let him look at the breathalyzer's source code and he found some shenanigans. If I'm remembering correctly, it's a good reason to want to not blow into their little machine.

Yeah, or insist on using machines from different companies, or a breathalyzer and a blood test.  A single test should not be enough to prove intoxication.
 
/Of course, there's also the road-side test, which is the cop's judgment, but is still admissible evidence.

And when those test are administered properly, they are highly effective at demonstrating that someone does not have the normal use of their mental or physical faculties, as the legal lingo puts it.

Remember an officer only needs probable cause to make the arrest. "Beyond reasonable doubt" standard is for trial.

And if it goes to court and the officer did not administer the test properly, guess what?

Case dismissed

Unless someone is stupidly falling down drunk and taking the road-side sobriety test would be dangerous, why isn't it a prerequisite to using a breathalyzer?

And that scenario, in the totality of circumstances, can help establish probable cause


I'm not sure I understand your response. Can you re-phrase or elaborate please?
 
2012-12-20 03:44:48 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com 
 
You're asking for it, Texas
 
2012-12-20 03:49:00 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Solaris: Uchiha_Cycliste: Solaris: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.
 
Did you know that if you use mouthwash that has alcohol in it, you'll easily blow over a 0.1%.  I've done it before.  It takes about 5-10 minutes for that effect to go away. For this reason, cops are required to wait for so much time before giving a breathalyzer test.  I think it's around 20-30 minutes, but my memory can be off (this may not be true in all states).
 
IIRC a couple of years ago there was a case where a programmer was able to force the court to let him look at the breathalyzer's source code and he found some shenanigans. If I'm remembering correctly, it's a good reason to want to not blow into their little machine.

Yeah, or insist on using machines from different companies, or a breathalyzer and a blood test.  A single test should not be enough to prove intoxication.
 
/Of course, there's also the road-side test, which is the cop's judgment, but is still admissible evidence.

And when those test are administered properly, they are highly effective at demonstrating that someone does not have the normal use of their mental or physical faculties, as the legal lingo puts it.

Remember an officer only needs probable cause to make the arrest. "Beyond reasonable doubt" standard is for trial.

And if it goes to court and the officer did not administer the test properly, guess what?

Case dismissed

Unless someone is stupidly falling down drunk and taking the road-side sobriety test would be dangerous, why isn't it a prerequisite to using a breathalyzer?

And that scenario, in the totality of circumstances, can help establish probable cause


I'm not sure I understand your response. Can you re-phrase or elaborate please? 

Basically, what he is saying is that there's never just one piece of evidence to prove someone is driving under the influence.  There's a collection of evidence, one of which is the breathalyzer (or some other test), another is the officer's observation of the individual at the scene.  A different one is the road-side test (you know, the walk the line heel-to-toe, close your eyes and touch your nose, follow my finger with your eyes without moving your head, etc..).
 
So if a person is falling down drunk, then that will be just one piece of evidence to show probable cause, and probable cause is all an officer needs to make an arrest.
 
2012-12-20 03:51:00 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Solaris: Uchiha_Cycliste: Solaris: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.
 
Did you know that if you use mouthwash that has alcohol in it, you'll easily blow over a 0.1%.  I've done it before.  It takes about 5-10 minutes for that effect to go away. For this reason, cops are required to wait for so much time before giving a breathalyzer test.  I think it's around 20-30 minutes, but my memory can be off (this may not be true in all states).
 
IIRC a couple of years ago there was a case where a programmer was able to force the court to let him look at the breathalyzer's source code and he found some shenanigans. If I'm remembering correctly, it's a good reason to want to not blow into their little machine.

Yeah, or insist on using machines from different companies, or a breathalyzer and a blood test.  A single test should not be enough to prove intoxication.
 
/Of course, there's also the road-side test, which is the cop's judgment, but is still admissible evidence.

And when those test are administered properly, they are highly effective at demonstrating that someone does not have the normal use of their mental or physical faculties, as the legal lingo puts it.

Remember an officer only needs probable cause to make the arrest. "Beyond reasonable doubt" standard is for trial.

And if it goes to court and the officer did not administer the test properly, guess what?

Case dismissed

Unless someone is stupidly falling down drunk and taking the road-side sobriety test would be dangerous, why isn't it a prerequisite to using a breathalyzer?

And that scenario, in the totality of circumstances, can help establish probable cause

I'm not sure I understand your response. Can you re-phrase or elaborate please?


You said "unless it's too dangerous to perform or they are falling down drunk" to me discussing the road side test being performed to establish probable cause.

I was trying to say that those actions of someone falling down drunk, or so intoxicated they are unable to stand or perform any field sobriety test, can still help to establish probable cause when taken into consideration of the total incident ie: other events that occurred or observations the officer had.

I'm not sure if I have done any better explaining...
 
2012-12-20 03:54:15 PM  

mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: Solaris: Uchiha_Cycliste: Solaris: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.
 
Did you know that if you use mouthwash that has alcohol in it, you'll easily blow over a 0.1%.  I've done it before.  It takes about 5-10 minutes for that effect to go away. For this reason, cops are required to wait for so much time before giving a breathalyzer test.  I think it's around 20-30 minutes, but my memory can be off (this may not be true in all states).
 
IIRC a couple of years ago there was a case where a programmer was able to force the court to let him look at the breathalyzer's source code and he found some shenanigans. If I'm remembering correctly, it's a good reason to want to not blow into their little machine.

Yeah, or insist on using machines from different companies, or a breathalyzer and a blood test.  A single test should not be enough to prove intoxication.
 
/Of course, there's also the road-side test, which is the cop's judgment, but is still admissible evidence.

And when those test are administered properly, they are highly effective at demonstrating that someone does not have the normal use of their mental or physical faculties, as the legal lingo puts it.

Remember an officer only needs probable cause to make the arrest. "Beyond reasonable doubt" standard is for trial.

And if it goes to court and the officer did not administer the test properly, guess what?

Case dismissed

Unless someone is stupidly falling down drunk and taking the road-side sobriety test would be dangerous, why isn't it a prerequisite to using a breathalyzer?

And that scenario, in the totality of circumstances, can help establish probable cause

I'm not sure I understand your response. Can you re-phrase or elaborate please? 

Basically, what he is saying is that there's never just one piece of evidence to prove someone is driving under the influence.  There's a collection of evidence, one of which is the breathalyzer (or some other test), another is the officer's observation of the individual at the scene.  A different one is the road-side test (you know, the walk the line heel-to-toe, close your eyes and touch your nose, follow my finger with your eyes without moving your head, etc..).
 
So if a person is falling down drunk, then that will be just one piece of evidence to show probable cause, and probable cause is all an officer needs to make an arrest.


Yeah, that's what I was trying to say
 
2012-12-20 03:55:08 PM  
The test does not measure alcohol in the blood.
The test measures the brightness of light at various wavelengths.
A carbon-oxygen bond absorbs particular wavelengths to a different degree than a carbon-hydrogen bond or a carbon-carbon bond.
The test is to shine a light through the "sample" and then measure how bright it is when it comes out on the other side.
The underlying assumption is that since a molecule is made up of certain atoms with certain types of bonds between them ...
... that means we can looks at the brightness of the light and work backwards to say that any dimming was caused by molecular bond absorbtion...
... and from there we can guess what molecule caused that absorbtion ....

This is alcohol and its types of molecular bonds:
Ethanol C2H6O
5 x C-H
1 x C-C
1 x C-O
1 x O-H

Here is some other stuff that is your breath and the types of bonds:
Carbon Dioxide CO2
2 x C=O

Water H20
2 x O-H


These are some things that might be in your breath, depending on your health and what you recently ate:
Acetone C3H6O (if you have diabetes)
6 x C-H
2 x C-C
1 x C=O

Vinegar C2H4O2 (food)
3 x C-H
1 X C-C
1 X C-O
1 X O-H
1 X C=O

Glucose C6H12O6
7 x C-H
5 X C-C
5 X C-O
5 X O-H
1 X C=0

Citric Acid C6H8O7 (fruit / preservative)
4 x C-H
5 X C-C
4 X C-O
4 X O-H
3 X C=0

Sorbitol C6H14O6 (sugarfree gum)
8 x C-H
5 X C-C
6 X C-O
6 X O-H

Glycerol / Glycerin C3H8O3 (food additive)
5 x C-H
2 X C-C
3 X C-O
3 X O-H

Actually, most of the stuff we eat is chock full of Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen.
So how do we know that this magic light brightness machine is really measuring alcohol or is even any good at guessing or what foods screw it up?
We don't !!!
The formula used is a TRADE SECRET of the company that made it so it is not available for scientific peer review
And no, you can't even cross examine the lab workers about it because it is a secret from them too!
An no, you can't summon representatives from the company the made it because the subpeona will be quashed by the judge.
Because the state supreme court has taken "judicial notice" of the "general reliability" of the machine.
Why? Because fark You!
 
2012-12-20 03:58:27 PM  

TheWhoppah: Actually, most of the stuff we eat is chock full of Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen.
So how do we know that this magic light brightness machine is really measuring alcohol or is even any good at guessing or what foods screw it up?
We don't !!!
The formula used is a TRADE SECRET of the company that made it so it is not available for scientific peer review
And no, you can't even cross examine the lab workers about it because it is a secret from them too!
An no, you can't summon representatives from the company the made it because the subpeona will be quashed by the judge.
Because the state supreme court has taken "judicial notice" of the "general reliability" of the machine.
Why? Because fark You!

 
Trade Secret? You're kidding right?  You want it? Here you go:
 
orgchem.colorado.edu
 
 
/If you're going to pretend to know what you're talking about when it comes to IR Spectroscopy, at least be courteous enough to explain it properly.
 
2012-12-20 04:03:12 PM  

mgshamster: TheWhoppah: Actually, most of the stuff we eat is chock full of Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen.
So how do we know that this magic light brightness machine is really measuring alcohol or is even any good at guessing or what foods screw it up?
We don't !!!
The formula used is a TRADE SECRET of the company that made it so it is not available for scientific peer review
And no, you can't even cross examine the lab workers about it because it is a secret from them too!
An no, you can't summon representatives from the company the made it because the subpeona will be quashed by the judge.
Because the state supreme court has taken "judicial notice" of the "general reliability" of the machine.
Why? Because fark You!
 
Trade Secret? You're kidding right?  You want it? Here you go:
 
[orgchem.colorado.edu image 650x401]
 
 
/If you're going to pretend to know what you're talking about when it comes to IR Spectroscopy, at least be courteous enough to explain it properly.


fc02.deviantart.net
 
2012-12-20 04:07:42 PM  

mgshamster: Trade Secret? You're kidding right? You want it? Here you go:


A spectrometer isn't the trade secret and neither is the graph of a pure ethanol sample.
The secret is how they determine blood alcohol concentration from a breath sample that contains all kinds of other stuff that is also full of C-C, C-H, and C-O bonds.
Breath is anything but a pure sample.
Plus, you have to consider the relative vapor pressures due to variations in body temperature and lung surface areas that will impact the concentration of any of these volatiles in the breath.
How are those accounted for in an Intoxilyzer 5000?
Have you ever seen an Intoxilyzer 5000? It is a tiny thing compared to a proper mass spectrometer.
Where is the magic?
 
2012-12-20 04:09:02 PM  

Solaris: Uchiha_Cycliste: Solaris: Uchiha_Cycliste: Solaris: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.
 
Did you know that if you use mouthwash that has alcohol in it, you'll easily blow over a 0.1%.  I've done it before.  It takes about 5-10 minutes for that effect to go away. For this reason, cops are required to wait for so much time before giving a breathalyzer test.  I think it's around 20-30 minutes, but my memory can be off (this may not be true in all states).
 
IIRC a couple of years ago there was a case where a programmer was able to force the court to let him look at the breathalyzer's source code and he found some shenanigans. If I'm remembering correctly, it's a good reason to want to not blow into their little machine.

Yeah, or insist on using machines from different companies, or a breathalyzer and a blood test.  A single test should not be enough to prove intoxication.
 
/Of course, there's also the road-side test, which is the cop's judgment, but is still admissible evidence.

And when those test are administered properly, they are highly effective at demonstrating that someone does not have the normal use of their mental or physical faculties, as the legal lingo puts it.

Remember an officer only needs probable cause to make the arrest. "Beyond reasonable doubt" standard is for trial.

And if it goes to court and the officer did not administer the test properly, guess what?

Case dismissed

Unless someone is stupidly falling down drunk and taking the road-side sobriety test would be dangerous, why isn't it a prerequisite to using a breathalyzer?

And that scenario, in the totality of circumstances, can help establish probable cause

I'm not sure I understand yo ...


I guess what I was trying to ask is why is something as subjective as "I think I smelled alcohol on his breath" sufficient probable cause? I guess I personally don't think that's sufficient. But I would be satisfied with a requisite road-side sobriety test to determine if a breathalyzer should be used (or blood or urine). I suppose it's just a personal gripe because I don't think it's fair for the accused in the courtroom when it would come down to a he says/she says situation and the cop will be automagically assumed to be in the right.
 
2012-12-20 04:13:39 PM  

TheWhoppah: mgshamster: Trade Secret? You're kidding right? You want it? Here you go:

A spectrometer isn't the trade secret and neither is the graph of a pure ethanol sample.
The secret is how they determine blood alcohol concentration from a breath sample that contains all kinds of other stuff that is also full of C-C, C-H, and C-O bonds.
Breath is anything but a pure sample.
Plus, you have to consider the relative vapor pressures due to variations in body temperature and lung surface areas that will impact the concentration of any of these volatiles in the breath.
How are those accounted for in an Intoxilyzer 5000?
Have you ever seen an Intoxilyzer 5000? It is a tiny thing compared to a proper mass spectrometer.
Where is the magic?


No, I've never looked at a specific analyzer in that much detail.  There are multiple explanations on the web, including wikipedia.  It's not that difficult to separate out other samples; I do it all the time in my lab. 
 
Here's one example (which I've actually have done when I was an undergrad):
www.breathalyzeralcoholtester.com 
 
 
Another way is to just see if the IR spec matches the stored spec with 1-2%, and that clears out other chemicals, because each chemical has a unique spectrum (it's part of why IR spec is so useful in chemistry).
 
And most importantly, an IR spec is NOTHING like a mass spec.  Getting those two confused shows that you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2012-12-20 04:20:29 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: I guess what I was trying to ask is why is something as subjective as "I think I smelled alcohol on his breath" sufficient probable cause? I guess I personally don't think that's sufficient. But I would be satisfied with a requisite road-side sobriety test to determine if a breathalyzer should be used (or blood or urine). I suppose it's just a personal gripe because I don't think it's fair for the accused in the courtroom when it would come down to a he says/she says situation and the cop will be automagically assumed to be in the right.


I think the easiest response is "they don't."  Well, they shouldn't. Smelling alcohol on your breath would be enough probable cause to administer a road-side test, but not enough to make an arrest. 
 
The story someone mentioned earlier about how cops are now requiring breathalyzers as you drive by is the first I've heard of it, and I really don't think that it will hold up in court if that's all they're doing.  Perhaps they're just trying to weed out people to pull over an perform a road side test to determine impairment, but if all they are doing is saying "roll down your window and blow, ok, you're under arrest" then that's something that needs to be squashed right away.
 
2012-12-20 04:23:37 PM  

fredklein: Solaris: Ride a bike, take a cab, walk. These are possible everywhere.

Sure. You tell me how long a 20-mile commute takes you to walk. Or how much it costs to cab it.

Or, are you now forcing people to move closer to their place of work?


If you know your whole life depends on being able to drive 20 miles to work...maybe you shouldn't drive while impaired?
 
2012-12-20 04:25:09 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Solaris: Uchiha_Cycliste: Solaris: Uchiha_Cycliste: Solaris: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.
 
Did you know that if you use mouthwash that has alcohol in it, you'll easily blow over a 0.1%.  I've done it before.  It takes about 5-10 minutes for that effect to go away. For this reason, cops are required to wait for so much time before giving a breathalyzer test.  I think it's around 20-30 minutes, but my memory can be off (this may not be true in all states).
 
IIRC a couple of years ago there was a case where a programmer was able to force the court to let him look at the breathalyzer's source code and he found some shenanigans. If I'm remembering correctly, it's a good reason to want to not blow into their little machine.

Yeah, or insist on using machines from different companies, or a breathalyzer and a blood test.  A single test should not be enough to prove intoxication.
 
/Of course, there's also the road-side test, which is the cop's judgment, but is still admissible evidence.

And when those test are administered properly, they are highly effective at demonstrating that someone does not have the normal use of their mental or physical faculties, as the legal lingo puts it.

Remember an officer only needs probable cause to make the arrest. "Beyond reasonable doubt" standard is for trial.

And if it goes to court and the officer did not administer the test properly, guess what?

Case dismissed

Unless someone is stupidly falling down drunk and taking the road-side sobriety test would be dangerous, why isn't it a prerequisite to using a breathalyzer?

And that scenario, in the totality of circumstances, can help establish probable cause

I'm not sure I understand yo ...

I guess what I was trying to ask is why is something as subjective as "I think I smelled alcohol on his breath" sufficient probable cause? I guess I personally don't think that's sufficient. But I would be satisfied with a requisite road-side sobriety test to determine if a breathalyzer should be used (or blood or urine). I suppose it's just a personal gripe because I don't think it's fair for the accused in the courtroom when it would come down to a he says/she says situation and the cop will be automagically assumed to be in the right.


It's not as subjective as you think. In any arrest, probable cause must be established by articulate facts.

And I'm certainly not saying "just the odor of alcohol" is sufficient.

I'm just saying many factors influence probable cause.
 
2012-12-20 04:29:32 PM  
TFA is about Texas the chemical tests are not used in Texas because their results are not admissible.
Texas only uses the Intoxilyzer 5000.
How it works is a trade secret but we do know that it only detects 5 wavelengths, not a full spectrum.
That does not seem like enough data points to accurately tease ethanol out from compounds that might be in the sample.
Also, Texas does not use reference sample, they use a blank.
The sample is compared to an air blank!
Every 6 months or so the machine is calibrated with a reference,
The calibration is done by a lab tech that doesn't know HOW it works, just that they follow the procedure in the Intoxilyzer service manual.
Would you be confident in those results?
Would you be sure enough to send a family member to prision?
 
2012-12-20 04:37:36 PM  
The US Supreme Court has held that the right to refuse to testify against yourself does not protect forced blood draws because blood is "evidence" and not "testimony."

The Texas Constitution specifically says that you do not have to "give evidence" against yourself.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that despite the plain language of the Texas Constitution, it should not protect people MORE than the US Constitution!
Really, that was their logic. Thats the type of quality you get when the judges of the highest criminal court are all elected by Texans.
 
2012-12-20 04:39:30 PM  

TheWhoppah: TFA is about Texas the chemical tests are not used in Texas because their results are not admissible.
Texas only uses the Intoxilyzer 5000.
How it works is a trade secret but we do know that it only detects 5 wavelengths, not a full spectrum.
That does not seem like enough data points to accurately tease ethanol out from compounds that might be in the sample.
Also, Texas does not use reference sample, they use a blank.
The sample is compared to an air blank!
Every 6 months or so the machine is calibrated with a reference,
The calibration is done by a lab tech that doesn't know HOW it works, just that they follow the procedure in the Intoxilyzer service manual.
Would you be confident in those results?
Would you be sure enough to send a family member to prision?


That's why in Texas, the offense of DWI does not simply and only require that it be shown that someones alcohol concentration be .08 or more. The intoxilyzer test is not required to "establish guilt" in committing the offense. That's why in Texas you have the right to refuse the test. That's why you have the right to an attorney and the right to a jury trial.
 
2012-12-20 04:45:15 PM  

TheWhoppah: TFA is about Texas the chemical tests are not used in Texas because their results are not admissible.

 
So the whole story about drawing blood involuntarily is a lie. Texas ONLY uses breathalyzers, and they ONLY use that one machine. Got it.
 
Texas only uses the Intoxilyzer 5000.
 
That's a pretty old machine to be the *only* one an entire state uses. Does Texas have regulations that they must use that one machine?  In my state, it's the department that chooses, and they usually try to get the best one they can afford.
 
How it works is a trade secret but we do know that it only detects 5 wavelengths, not a full spectrum.
 
That's how they separate out the other spectrums.  When separating by spectrum, it's nearly impossible to do it with a full spectrum without pure samples, so they HAVE to separate out by detecting at specific wavelengths. It's how the physics of it works.

That does not seem like enough data points to accurately tease ethanol out from compounds that might be in the sample.
 
I'm glad that the machine isn't working by how you feel science should work, but rather by reality.
 
Also, Texas does not use reference sample, they use a blank. The sample is compared to an air blank!
 
They do use a reference; one that's stored in the machine. That's how most others work, too. The air sample is to subtract out the background data from the breath. The only way to get a true reference sample for individual comparison is to compare it to when the individual is not sober.  Would you like to change the law so that a person has to remain in jail until they are sober so a reference sample can be obtained in order to determine if they have been drinking or not?

Every 6 months or so the machine is calibrated with a reference,
 
But you just said that the reference is an air sample. Now you're saying there's an actual stored reference? What do ya know! Please stop contradicting yourself.

The calibration is done by a lab tech that doesn't know HOW it works, just that they follow the procedure in the Intoxilyzer service manual.
 
Just like how cops don't know how a breathalyzer works, they just follow instructions to operate a machine. And how like most people don't know how a microwave works, they just know how to use it.  Or how fingerprint analysts don't know how fingerprints form and why they're unique, they just know how to compare them. And how most doctors don't know how an MRI works, but they know how to use it and read the results.  Wow! There are lots of people who don't know how things work, yet are still capable of using the equipment around them.

Would you be confident in those results?
 
Don't like them? Get a blood sample analyzed.  There are other tests that exist.

Would you be sure enough to send a family member to prision?

Yup.  I'd also insist that they get a blood sample, because machines sometimes fail, and it's always a good idea to get a second opinion.
 
2012-12-20 04:52:51 PM  

Raoul Eaton: fredklein: Raoul Eaton: they'll have police testimony establishing probable cause even if the test comes back negative.

I'd like to see that.

"He was drunk"
"No, he wasn't. the blood test proves it."
"Oh... um.... well, we thought he was drunk, so..."
"Officer, do you routinely mistake sober people for drunk people? What, exactly, is your medical training in this regard?"
"Well, ..."
"...Or were you lying when you claimed my perfectly sober client was drunk. Which would be illegal. Do we need to pull ALL your cases for the last 10 years?"
etc.

Or, more likely, "I observed the suspect's vehicle travelling erratically on the roadway, crossing over the center line several times. He also had was driving at night without his headlights on. When I approached his vehicle and he rolled down the window, I smelled a strong odor of alcohol."


Here's what I don't get -- why isn't the erratic driving enough? Who cares whether a person had alcohol in their system or not unless we want to bust people who are technically over the limit but not inebriated? From a practical standpoint, why do we care why someone was weaving around in the road? Whether they are drunk or just a crappy driver, their weaving is no more or less dangerous.
 
2012-12-20 05:00:32 PM  

Solaris: Uchiha_Cycliste: Solaris: Uchiha_Cycliste: Solaris: Uchiha_Cycliste: Solaris: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: mgshamster: Uchiha_Cycliste: I can understand refusing to blow on the breathalyzer if you have reason to believe the readings are not accurate.
Also, if you *haven't* been drinking at all and the cop is just being a dick or lying out his ass about smelling alcohol just so that he has a reason to search your car.
 
Did you know that if you use mouthwash that has alcohol in it, you'll easily blow over a 0.1%.  I've done it before.  It takes about 5-10 minutes for that effect to go away. For this reason, cops are required to wait for so much time before giving a breathalyzer test.  I think it's around 20-30 minutes, but my memory can be off (this may not be true in all states).
 
IIRC a couple of years ago there was a case where a programmer was able to force the court to let him look at the breathalyzer's source code and he found some shenanigans. If I'm remembering correctly, it's a good reason to want to not blow into their little machine.

Yeah, or insist on using machines from different companies, or a breathalyzer and a blood test.  A single test should not be enough to prove intoxication.
 
/Of course, there's also the road-side test, which is the cop's judgment, but is still admissible evidence.

And when those test are administered properly, they are highly effective at demonstrating that someone does not have the normal use of their mental or physical faculties, as the legal lingo puts it.

Remember an officer only needs probable cause to make the arrest. "Beyond reasonable doubt" standard is for trial.

And if it goes to court and the officer did not administer the test properly, guess what?

Case dismissed

Unless someone is stupidly falling down drunk and taking the road-side sobriety test would be dangerous, why isn't it a prerequisite to using a breathalyzer?

And that scenario, in the totality of circumstances, can help establish probable cause

I' ...


I guess that's just the way it is and I must accept it.
 
2012-12-20 05:01:17 PM  

WeenerGord: If you know your whole life depends on being able to drive 20 miles to work...maybe you shouldn't drive while impaired?


I think you mean "I shouldn't drive while the cop thinks I'm impaired".
 
2012-12-20 05:01:37 PM  

ennuie: Raoul Eaton: fredklein: Raoul Eaton: they'll have police testimony establishing probable cause even if the test comes back negative.

I'd like to see that.

"He was drunk"
"No, he wasn't. the blood test proves it."
"Oh... um.... well, we thought he was drunk, so..."
"Officer, do you routinely mistake sober people for drunk people? What, exactly, is your medical training in this regard?"
"Well, ..."
"...Or were you lying when you claimed my perfectly sober client was drunk. Which would be illegal. Do we need to pull ALL your cases for the last 10 years?"
etc.

Or, more likely, "I observed the suspect's vehicle travelling erratically on the roadway, crossing over the center line several times. He also had was driving at night without his headlights on. When I approached his vehicle and he rolled down the window, I smelled a strong odor of alcohol."

Here's what I don't get -- why isn't the erratic driving enough? .


Enough for what? Enough to be arrested?

In Texas you can be arrested for any traffic offense, except speeding and open alcohol container.
 
2012-12-20 05:07:27 PM  

ennuie: Raoul Eaton:
Or, more likely, "I observed the suspect's vehicle travelling erratically on the roadway, crossing over the center line several times. He also had was driving at night without his headlights on. When I approached his vehicle and he rolled down the window, I smelled a strong odor of alcohol."

Here's what I don't get -- why isn't the erratic driving enough? Who cares whether a person had alcohol in their system or not unless we want to bust people who are technically over the limit but not inebriated? From a practical standpoint, why do we care why someone was weaving around in the road? Whether they are drunk or just a crappy driver, their weaving is no more or less dangerous.


That's what I said earlier- punish the bad driving (whatever the cause), instead of trying to punish each and every possible cause of bad driving ('drunk' is already illegal, 'texting' recently become illegal in many places, but 'tired', 'just had a fight', 'just received bad news', 'playing with the radio', and 'talking to passengers' are still perfectly legal).
 
2012-12-20 05:11:51 PM  

fredklein: ennuie: Raoul Eaton:
Or, more likely, "I observed the suspect's vehicle travelling erratically on the roadway, crossing over the center line several times. He also had was driving at night without his headlights on. When I approached his vehicle and he rolled down the window, I smelled a strong odor of alcohol."

Here's what I don't get -- why isn't the erratic driving enough? Who cares whether a person had alcohol in their system or not unless we want to bust people who are technically over the limit but not inebriated? From a practical standpoint, why do we care why someone was weaving around in the road? Whether they are drunk or just a crappy driver, their weaving is no more or less dangerous.

That's what I said earlier- punish the bad driving (whatever the cause), instead of trying to punish each and every possible cause of bad driving ('drunk' is already illegal, 'texting' recently become illegal in many places, but 'tired', 'just had a fight', 'just received bad news', 'playing with the radio', and 'talking to passengers' are still perfectly legal).


So one level of punishment to cover all "bad driving" right?

Here is your $45 ticket for running the stop sign, your $45 ticket for speeding, and here is your $45 ticket for running over those two children playing in the backyard of their house when your car left the roadway after running the stop sign while speeding because you were intoxicated"


That sounds great, where do I sign up
 
2012-12-20 05:13:11 PM  
TheWhoppah:
 
Look, there are legitimate complaints about the breathalyzer and determining BAC vs impairment.  Look at the conversation DROxINxTHExWIND and I were having earlier. That's a legitimate concern. Look at the variability of the blood/lung partition coefficient for breathalyzers. That's a legitimate concern.  Or the differences between males and females.  That could be a legitimate concern.  Some of these concerns can be handled by getting a blood test.  Others, like what DROxINxTHExWIND brought up, is simply a part of the legal system that we have to deal with for now, because we currently don't have something better.
 
But claiming that the machine works "like magic" and pretending that we have no idea how a farking infrared spectrometer works is just silly.
 
/And don't tell me that we don't have access to the programming code, because if we didn't, we wouldn't be seeing articles like this.
 
2012-12-20 05:25:33 PM  

Solaris: So one level of punishment to cover all "bad driving" right?

Here is your $45 ticket for running the stop sign, your $45 ticket for speeding, and here is your $45 ticket for running over those two children playing in the backyard of their house when your car left the roadway after running the stop sign while speeding because you were intoxicated"


That sounds great, where do I sign up


I never said anything about 'one single level of punishment'.
 
2012-12-20 05:31:08 PM  

ennuie: Here's what I don't get -- why isn't the erratic driving enough? Who cares whether a person had alcohol in their system or not unless we want to bust people who are technically over the limit but not inebriated? From a practical standpoint, why do we care why someone was weaving around in the road? Whether they are drunk or just a crappy driver, their weaving is no more or less dangerous.


Because $$$.
 
2012-12-20 05:35:21 PM  

fredklein: Solaris: So one level of punishment to cover all "bad driving" right?

Here is your $45 ticket for running the stop sign, your $45 ticket for speeding, and here is your $45 ticket for running over those two children playing in the backyard of their house when your car left the roadway after running the stop sign while speeding because you were intoxicated"


That sounds great, where do I sign up

I never said anything about 'one single level of punishment'.


Disregard, I misread your statement because I'm reading fark on my tiny phone screen

/not because I'm intoxicated
 
2012-12-20 05:36:50 PM  
Forced blood draw went to SCOTUS in 1996, and the citizen lost.  The key in that case was that 2 hours elapsed after the stop and there was no time to get a warrant before the evidence would have dissipated.  The guy was hurt and had to be taken to the hospital.
 
A different forced blood draw case is headed for SCOTUS right now.  It will decide whether warrants are ever necessary.
 
2012-12-20 05:45:12 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Yeah, or insist on using machines from different companies, or a breathalyzer and a blood test. A single test should not be enough to prove intoxication.


Why bother with the breathalyzer? "No refusal" means you have the right to insist on a much more accurate blood test instead. So I guess that's exactly what you want.
 
2012-12-20 05:53:13 PM  

ignacio: Uchiha_Cycliste: Yeah, or insist on using machines from different companies, or a breathalyzer and a blood test. A single test should not be enough to prove intoxication.

Why bother with the breathalyzer? "No refusal" means you have the right to insist on a much more accurate blood test instead. So I guess that's exactly what you want.


I'm not sure how you misquoted me, but I didn't write what you quoted.
Regardless I agree with what you said and would always go for the blood test, if I ever was suspected of a DUI. Which I can all but guarantee would never happen to me =D
 
2012-12-20 06:11:37 PM  

fredklein: WeenerGord: If you know your whole life depends on being able to drive 20 miles to work...maybe you shouldn't drive while impaired?

I think you mean "I shouldn't drive while the cop thinks I'm impaired".



Why would a cop think you were impaired if you were not? Were you speeding? Weaving? Do you have a bumper sticker that says Fark the Police?

Don't speed, or weave, and get rid of the bumper sticker, now why would a cop pick you out of the crowd to fark over?
 
2012-12-20 06:24:35 PM  
So can anyone confirm or deny the 'get out of the car, open a beer and slam it' defense as working or not working?

Because the beer you just drank got you drunk..not the previous 9 shots at the bar...?
 
2012-12-20 06:28:27 PM  
I will leave this here. Every time a cop makes the news in my area on DWI charges, they have refused to blow.

I bet none of them were restrained. But I don't know.
 
2012-12-20 06:29:57 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: ignacio: Uchiha_Cycliste: Yeah, or insist on using machines from different companies, or a breathalyzer and a blood test. A single test should not be enough to prove intoxication.

Why bother with the breathalyzer? "No refusal" means you have the right to insist on a much more accurate blood test instead. So I guess that's exactly what you want.

I'm not sure how you misquoted me, but I didn't write what you quoted.
Regardless I agree with what you said and would always go for the blood test, if I ever was suspected of a DUI. Which I can all but guarantee would never happen to me =D


Yeah, it was me. :)
 
I'd rather have a blood test done, as well.  Not only is it more accurate, but you also still have the blood sample, so you can get it tested from a private lab of your choosing (provided you can afford it) if you don't trust the state's report.  However, some people don't like the idea of their precious bodily fluids being taken, so in that event, at least get two breath tests from two different machines.  And if you're worried about the code, then use machines from two different companies.
 
2012-12-20 06:33:43 PM  

WeenerGord: fredklein: WeenerGord: If you know your whole life depends on being able to drive 20 miles to work...maybe you shouldn't drive while impaired?

 
I think you mean "I shouldn't drive while the cop thinks I'm impaired".
 
 
Why would a cop think you were impaired if you were not? Were you speeding? Weaving? Do you have a bumper sticker that says Fark the Police?
 
Don't speed, or weave, and get rid of the bumper sticker, now why would a cop pick you out of the crowd to fark over?
 
Driving while black*?
 
*Or some other minority the cop happens to hate
 
2012-12-20 06:49:49 PM  
Here in San Antonio, its pretty bad as far as driving while intoxicated goes.

I've been stopped twice while coming home around 2am on a weekend. Completely sober. Not a drink in me. Nothing. The reason I was stopped? "You didn't use a turn signal (in a turn only lane that is protected by a median)." The other time I was stopped, "I didn't come to a complete stop (while leaving a restaurant, no stop sign, nothing)."

Both of those times I happen to be on the "wrong side" of town. West Avenue and 1-10.

When I come home from Flying Saucer up 1-10 near Huebner however, I see people swerving and being drunk as balls, nothing.

Its all profiling.
 
2012-12-20 06:54:21 PM  

mgshamster: WeenerGord: fredklein: WeenerGord: If you know your whole life depends on being able to drive 20 miles to work...maybe you shouldn't drive while impaired?

I think you mean "I shouldn't drive while the cop thinks I'm impaired".


Why would a cop think you were impaired if you were not? Were you speeding? Weaving? Do you have a bumper sticker that says Fark the Police?

Don't speed, or weave, and get rid of the bumper sticker, now why would a cop pick you out of the crowd to fark over?

Driving while black*?

*Or some other minority the cop happens to hate


Did you read the comments?

spikespeigel and 14 more Reply
Based on the photo, the cop also looks African American. So, was this really a racist thing? Or just a cop quota thing? It is the end of the month after all.

Cheneysheart Reply
I just invested portable/reusable white-face driver's mask for people of color. Only $19.95 plus shipping and handling. You're welcome.
Sherlock Homey Reply
Atlanta is over 50% black. If the cops are pulling people over just for being black, they've got their work cut out for them.

Steven Simmons Reply
Sounds bullshiat. I live outside of Atlanta and am Caucasian. I am pretty sure there are far more black people than white in this area, including cops. Every time I've been pulled over inside of Atlanta it has been a black cop (at least three times).
I'm also sure his relationship with local police is pretty one sided. Could be a racism thing but I am sure its a more of a "bored police officer looking to fill time or fill a quota".

Centrocampista and 2 more Reply
anyone who doesn't understand that black cops can racially target black drivers needs to read ta-nehisi coates' article from 2001 about prince william county, maryland:
The violence perpetrated by the P.G. cops is a curious development. Usually, police brutality is framed as a racial issue: Rodney King suffering at the hands of a racist white Los Angeles Police Department or more recently, an unarmed Timothy Thomas, gunned down by a white Cincinnati cop. But in more and more communities, the police doing the brutalizing are African Americans, supervised by African-American police chiefs, and answerable to African-American mayors and city councils.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0106.coates.html

TurbelWeezo and 1 more Reply
Whoopdie-do. A police car pulled over someone. Welcome to life. Quit being a pussy and trying to make every thing that ever happens to you about race. You got your President. Race card over with. It's nothing but a pathetic excuse to continue to act like critters. Man up and take care of your women and children. Quit breaking the law. Stay out of jail so you CAN take care of your women and children. They need you. Have you seen the statistics on prison demographics in relation to overall population demographics? They're sad. Really sad. This country should be better than this. And it starts with people taking personal responsibility and ceasing to blame others (read: "whitey") for........everything.
 
2012-12-20 06:58:53 PM  

rockforever: Here in San Antonio, its pretty bad as far as driving while intoxicated goes.

I've been stopped twice while coming home around 2am on a weekend. Completely sober. Not a drink in me. Nothing. The reason I was stopped? "You didn't use a turn signal (in a turn only lane that is protected by a median)." The other time I was stopped, "I didn't come to a complete stop (while leaving a restaurant, no stop sign, nothing)."

Both of those times I happen to be on the "wrong side" of town. West Avenue and 1-10.

When I come home from Flying Saucer up 1-10 near Huebner however, I see people swerving and being drunk as balls, nothing.

Its all profiling.


And both of those times you violated the transportation code. You forgot to include the part where the officers pulled you out of the car and beat you senseless.
 
2012-12-20 07:01:31 PM  

rockforever: When I come home from Flying Saucer up 1-10 near Huebner however,



You fly Saucer for a living? Can we call come for a ride?
 
2012-12-20 07:08:47 PM  
In TN you can be convicted of DUI if there is ANY trace of canabis in your system. Now..according to popular propaganda, one could have eaten a brownie one month ago and still be impared (or have enough trace metabolites in ones system) enough to get convicted for DUI.

I would like someone to tell me why this is fair or just.
 
2012-12-20 07:10:14 PM  

WeenerGord: Did you read the comments?


No, I didn't. Wow.
 
I just grabbed the first article that popped up.  There are other incidences, though.  This one is a good* story: The Fat Blue Line.
 
*For different definitions of "good."
 
2012-12-20 07:14:48 PM  

Solaris: rockforever: Here in San Antonio, its pretty bad as far as driving while intoxicated goes.

I've been stopped twice while coming home around 2am on a weekend. Completely sober. Not a drink in me. Nothing. The reason I was stopped? "You didn't use a turn signal (in a turn only lane that is protected by a median)." The other time I was stopped, "I didn't come to a complete stop (while leaving a restaurant, no stop sign, nothing)."

Both of those times I happen to be on the "wrong side" of town. West Avenue and 1-10.

When I come home from Flying Saucer up 1-10 near Huebner however, I see people swerving and being drunk as balls, nothing.

Its all profiling.

And both of those times you violated the transportation code. You forgot to include the part where the officers pulled you out of the car and beat you senseless.


Depends on the area. In California, there are no laws stating that you have to use your turn signals (depending on the jurisdiction).  The only reason I know that is because an old friend of mine, who is a deputy, got a citizen complaint against him for not using his turn signal.  When the department went to cite him for it, he demanded they show him the regs that require the use of a turn signal. Turned out that they didn't exist (for that particular city, county, and state; there may be regs like that for other counties or cities).
 
2012-12-20 07:19:21 PM  

mgshamster: Solaris: rockforever: Here in San Antonio, its pretty bad as far as driving while intoxicated goes.

I've been stopped twice while coming home around 2am on a weekend. Completely sober. Not a drink in me. Nothing. The reason I was stopped? "You didn't use a turn signal (in a turn only lane that is protected by a median)." The other time I was stopped, "I didn't come to a complete stop (while leaving a restaurant, no stop sign, nothing)."

Both of those times I happen to be on the "wrong side" of town. West Avenue and 1-10.

When I come home from Flying Saucer up 1-10 near Huebner however, I see people swerving and being drunk as balls, nothing.

Its all profiling.

And both of those times you violated the transportation code. You forgot to include the part where the officers pulled you out of the car and beat you senseless.

Depends on the area. In California, there are no laws stating that you have to use your turn signals (depending on the jurisdiction).  The only reason I know that is because an old friend of mine, who is a deputy, got a citizen complaint against him for not using his turn signal.  When the department went to cite him for it, he demanded they show him the regs that require the use of a turn signal. Turned out that they didn't exist (for that particular city, county, and state; there may be regs like that for other counties or cities).


You are making a separate argument. He's talking about being "profiled" when he was actually lawfully detained for violating an offense in the state he resides.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
 
2012-12-20 07:23:13 PM  

Solaris: mgshamster: Solaris: rockforever: Here in San Antonio, its pretty bad as far as driving while intoxicated goes.

I've been stopped twice while coming home around 2am on a weekend. Completely sober. Not a drink in me. Nothing. The reason I was stopped? "You didn't use a turn signal (in a turn only lane that is protected by a median)." The other time I was stopped, "I didn't come to a complete stop (while leaving a restaurant, no stop sign, nothing)."

Both of those times I happen to be on the "wrong side" of town. West Avenue and 1-10.

When I come home from Flying Saucer up 1-10 near Huebner however, I see people swerving and being drunk as balls, nothing.

Its all profiling.

And both of those times you violated the transportation code. You forgot to include the part where the officers pulled you out of the car and beat you senseless.

Depends on the area. In California, there are no laws stating that you have to use your turn signals (depending on the jurisdiction).  The only reason I know that is because an old friend of mine, who is a deputy, got a citizen complaint against him for not using his turn signal.  When the department went to cite him for it, he demanded they show him the regs that require the use of a turn signal. Turned out that they didn't exist (for that particular city, county, and state; there may be regs like that for other counties or cities).

You are making a separate argument. He's talking about being "profiled" when he was actually lawfully detained for violating an offense in the state he resides.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.


I was just being ignorant of Texas law.  It is illegal there to not use a turn signal when making a turn? Or for failing to stop while leaving a parking lot with no stop sign at the driveway?  Are you supposed to assume that it's a stop sign in situations like that?
 
2012-12-20 07:29:02 PM  

mgshamster: Solaris: mgshamster: Solaris: rockforever: Here in San Antonio, its pretty bad as far as driving while intoxicated goes.

I've been stopped twice while coming home around 2am on a weekend. Completely sober. Not a drink in me. Nothing. The reason I was stopped? "You didn't use a turn signal (in a turn only lane that is protected by a median)." The other time I was stopped, "I didn't come to a complete stop (while leaving a restaurant, no stop sign, nothing)."

Both of those times I happen to be on the "wrong side" of town. West Avenue and 1-10.

When I come home from Flying Saucer up 1-10 near Huebner however, I see people swerving and being drunk as balls, nothing.

Its all profiling.

And both of those times you violated the transportation code. You forgot to include the part where the officers pulled you out of the car and beat you senseless.

Depends on the area. In California, there are no laws stating that you have to use your turn signals (depending on the jurisdiction).  The only reason I know that is because an old friend of mine, who is a deputy, got a citizen complaint against him for not using his turn signal.  When the department went to cite him for it, he demanded they show him the regs that require the use of a turn signal. Turned out that they didn't exist (for that particular city, county, and state; there may be regs like that for other counties or cities).

You are making a separate argument. He's talking about being "profiled" when he was actually lawfully detained for violating an offense in the state he resides.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

I was just being ignorant of Texas law.  It is illegal there to not use a turn signal when making a turn? Or for failing to stop while leaving a parking lot with no stop sign at the driveway?  Are you supposed to assume that it's a stop sign in situations like that?


No assumptions are necessary when it's clearly stated in the Texas transportation code. Available to everyone.
 
2012-12-20 07:34:43 PM  

Solaris: mgshamster: Solaris: mgshamster: Solaris: rockforever: Here in San Antonio, its pretty bad as far as driving while intoxicated goes.

I've been stopped twice while coming home around 2am on a weekend. Completely sober. Not a drink in me. Nothing. The reason I was stopped? "You didn't use a turn signal (in a turn only lane that is protected by a median)." The other time I was stopped, "I didn't come to a complete stop (while leaving a restaurant, no stop sign, nothing)."

Both of those times I happen to be on the "wrong side" of town. West Avenue and 1-10.

When I come home from Flying Saucer up 1-10 near Huebner however, I see people swerving and being drunk as balls, nothing.

Its all profiling.

And both of those times you violated the transportation code. You forgot to include the part where the officers pulled you out of the car and beat you senseless.

Depends on the area. In California, there are no laws stating that you have to use your turn signals (depending on the jurisdiction).  The only reason I know that is because an old friend of mine, who is a deputy, got a citizen complaint against him for not using his turn signal.  When the department went to cite him for it, he demanded they show him the regs that require the use of a turn signal. Turned out that they didn't exist (for that particular city, county, and state; there may be regs like that for other counties or cities).

You are making a separate argument. He's talking about being "profiled" when he was actually lawfully detained for violating an offense in the state he resides.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

I was just being ignorant of Texas law.  It is illegal there to not use a turn signal when making a turn? Or for failing to stop while leaving a parking lot with no stop sign at the driveway?  Are you supposed to assume that it's a stop sign in situations like that?

No assumptions are necessary when it's clearly stated in the Texas transportation code. Available to everyone.


By "assumption" I meant that if you come to an intersection that has no signs, are you supposed to pretend it's a stop sign?  Are you supposed to assume there is one there?  Because otherwise you'd just be able to drive through.  I wasn't asking if you had to assume the law existed in the code, but rather if the code requires the driver to assume a stop sign when at an uncontrolled intersection.  There are actually a lot of those near where I live, so I should go look it up for my state.
 
/I also figured that since you already knew that he was violating transportation codes, you'd be able to answer my question with something a little more specific than "look it up."
 
2012-12-20 07:37:54 PM  
Found it for my state (California). You assume a yield sign to the first person in the intersection, and then to the person on your right. Otherwise, drive on through.
 
2012-12-20 07:42:15 PM  

mgshamster: Solaris: mgshamster: Solaris: mgshamster: Solaris: rockforever: Here in San Antonio, its pretty bad as far as driving while intoxicated goes.

I've been stopped twice while coming home around 2am on a weekend. Completely sober. Not a drink in me. Nothing. The reason I was stopped? "You didn't use a turn signal (in a turn only lane that is protected by a median)." The other time I was stopped, "I didn't come to a complete stop (while leaving a restaurant, no stop sign, nothing)."

Both of those times I happen to be on the "wrong side" of town. West Avenue and 1-10.

When I come home from Flying Saucer up 1-10 near Huebner however, I see people swerving and being drunk as balls, nothing.

Its all profiling.

And both of those times you violated the transportation code. You forgot to include the part where the officers pulled you out of the car and beat you senseless.

Depends on the area. In California, there are no laws stating that you have to use your turn signals (depending on the jurisdiction).  The only reason I know that is because an old friend of mine, who is a deputy, got a citizen complaint against him for not using his turn signal.  When the department went to cite him for it, he demanded they show him the regs that require the use of a turn signal. Turned out that they didn't exist (for that particular city, county, and state; there may be regs like that for other counties or cities).

You are making a separate argument. He's talking about being "profiled" when he was actually lawfully detained for violating an offense in the state he resides.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

I was just being ignorant of Texas law.  It is illegal there to not use a turn signal when making a turn? Or for failing to stop while leaving a parking lot with no stop sign at the driveway?  Are you supposed to assume that it's a stop sign in situations like that?

No assumptions are necessary when it's clearly stated in the Texas transportation code. Available to everyone.

By "assumption" I meant that if you come to an intersection that has no signs, are you supposed to pretend it's a stop sign?  Are you supposed to assume there is one there?  Because otherwise you'd just be able to drive through.  I wasn't asking if you had to assume the law existed in the code, but rather if the code requires the driver to assume a stop sign when at an uncontrolled intersection.  There are actually a lot of those near where I live, so I should go look it up for my state.
 
/I also figured that since you already knew that he was violating transportation codes, you'd be able to answer my question with something a little more specific than "look it up."


An intersection in Texas is different than leaving a private drive or parking lot that was stated.

In Texas, if there is no traffic control device (stop sign, stop light) at the intersection, then you can proceed without assuming you need to stop.
 
2012-12-20 07:51:46 PM  

Solaris: n intersection in Texas is different than leaving a private drive or parking lot that was stated.

In Texas, if there is no traffic control device (stop sign, stop light) at the intersection, then you can proceed without assuming you need to stop.


Yup. I found it in the regs.  Good call; he violated the code both times.
 
2012-12-21 12:06:19 AM  

WeenerGord: Why would a cop think you were impaired if you were not?


As an excuse to stop me and search my car.

There are plenty of examples of this happening.
 
2012-12-21 01:55:47 AM  
I still find it amusing that so many people still live under the delusion that they actually still have any civil rights.
 
2012-12-21 02:05:22 AM  

fredklein: WeenerGord: Why would a cop think you were impaired if you were not?

As an excuse to stop me and search my car. There are plenty of examples of this happening.



OK but why would he want to search your car?
 
2012-12-21 04:37:00 AM  
A five point restraint is only one step away from rape. Anyone who thinks this is okay has never been in a five point restraint.
 
2012-12-21 09:37:36 AM  

Moonlightfox: A five point restraint is only one step away from rape. Anyone who thinks this is okay has never been in a five point restraint.


Are you suggesting that BDSM is rape?

/snickers.
 
2012-12-21 09:50:33 AM  
Have no fear the DWI Dude is here!
 
2012-12-21 09:54:06 AM  
Unless they have asthma or other conditions that make a breathalyzer a bad idea, why would someone refuse a breathalyzer other than to avoid getting caught for DUI? I understand the distrust of accuracy of those things, but even if they are a bit inaccurate, indicating more than that's actually in your blood, it still seems like that if one does blow a 0.08 or more, there's going to be enough in their blood that they really shouldn't be driving, even if their actual BAC is 0.079 or less.
 
2012-12-21 10:09:54 AM  

WeenerGord: fredklein: WeenerGord: Why would a cop think you were impaired if you were not?

As an excuse to stop me and search my car. There are plenty of examples of this happening.


OK but why would he want to search your car?


Because he hates [insert description here: ie: blacks, latinos, hippies, etc]? Because he is getting pressure to bust more people from his chief? Because he 'honestly' thinks there might be a chance there's drugs in the car, and -damn the Constitution- he's gonna search it no matter what?
 
2012-12-21 10:38:33 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Unless they have asthma or other conditions that make a breathalyzer a bad idea, why would someone refuse a breathalyzer other than to avoid getting caught for DUI? I understand the distrust of accuracy of those things, but even if they are a bit inaccurate, indicating more than that's actually in your blood, it still seems like that if one does blow a 0.08 or more, there's going to be enough in their blood that they really shouldn't be driving, even if their actual BAC is 0.079 or less.


Because some were shown to be incredibly sloppy in how they reported the results.

There's a concept called "partition ratio" that's also worth reading about. What the device really measures is alcohol vapor on your breath. Different people apparently have different rates at which alcohol diffuses(?) from their blood into their breath.
 
2012-12-21 11:00:56 AM  

pedrop357: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Unless they have asthma or other conditions that make a breathalyzer a bad idea, why would someone refuse a breathalyzer other than to avoid getting caught for DUI? I understand the distrust of accuracy of those things, but even if they are a bit inaccurate, indicating more than that's actually in your blood, it still seems like that if one does blow a 0.08 or more, there's going to be enough in their blood that they really shouldn't be driving, even if their actual BAC is 0.079 or less.

Because some were shown to be incredibly sloppy in how they reported the results.

There's a concept called "partition ratio" that's also worth reading about. What the device really measures is alcohol vapor on your breath. Different people apparently have different rates at which alcohol diffuses(?) from their blood into their breath.


If that is the case, then someone needs to do a study on what the average of that difference in alcohol from blood into their breath is to establish a margin of error for breathalysers
 
2012-12-21 12:27:22 PM  
They've been done. The standard ratio used is 1:2100, and the population varies between 1:1100 and 1:3900. If you're above the 1:2100 ratio used, it'll actually under report your true BAC. According to wiki (which is always right and never wrong, and also doesn't provide a citation), about 1.8% of the population are below the 1:2100 ratio. So the majority of the population will either be accurately reported or underreported.

I'd look it up to give you a better source, but I'm using my phone to post.
 
2012-12-21 08:42:19 PM  

WeenerGord: Maybe you should just blow into the breathalizer? or not drive drunk?


People shouldnt oppose perceived rights violations?  You have a "thing" for authority figures, dont you?
 
Displayed 189 of 189 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report