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  
•       •       •

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»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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).
 
Displayed 50 of 189 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