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 188
    More: Asinine, rubber stamps, constraint satisfaction, Bexar County, Hereford, crime lab, search warrants, warrants, Texas District  
•       •       •

10501 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2012 at 1:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 02:46:42 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 188 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report