Just thought I would give us something to talk about today.

It seems that suspected drunken drivers who refuse to blow in breathalyzers are not being found guilty in court. This despite the word of an officer of the law and the video recordings of suspects. I think the videos are actually providing reasonable suspicion against a conviction.
So, now, the powers to be, want to make it a crime to not blow in a breathalyzer although there are already are stiff penalties if you do not. This amounts to it being a crime if you do not incriminate yourself. A constitutional no no. You already agree to lose your liscense to drive (not a constituional right) by applying for a liscense if you do not blow.
An acquaintance has one of the "occupational" liscenses and it is nothing about occupation. It is a twelve hour window to drive if you pay hefty fees.
Anyway, I put this out for discussion.

Linky

Drunken drivers may be getting away too easily

Web Posted: 03/07/2005 12:00 AM CST

San Antonio Express-News

AUSTIN — Texans who drink and drive and then refuse to take a test measuring their blood alcohol level may be getting off easier than those who agree to the test.

According to the most recent statistics, 43 percent of Texans arrested on drunken driving or boating charges in 2003 refused such tests and, in many of those cases, later received a six-month driver's license suspension, instead of a misdemeanor drunken driving conviction, the Austin American-Statesman reported Sunday.

Law enforcement groups have complained about the law, and the County Attorneys Association and the Texas Municipal Police Association are calling for a law that would make refusing a blood alcohol test a crime.

But lawmakers haven't embraced the legislation this session.

"Criminalizing it doesn't make any sense," said Keith Hampton, a lobbyist for the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. "It is your constitutional right not to incriminate yourself or be subject to unreasonable search and seizure."

Under Texas law, people arrested on drunken driving charges must provide a blood or breath sample, but it's not a crime to refuse. The penalty for refusing is a six-month license suspension.

In first-time cases, the possible consequences for taking the test and having a blood alcohol content above the legal limit of .08 are a three-month license suspension and a misdemeanor drunken driving conviction, carrying a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $2,000 fine.

"We play this little game and tell people that by getting a license, you are consenting to provide physical evidence," Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley said. "But if you refuse, there are very few consequences. The average citizen puts that together and says, 'Oh, I see: The law doesn't really mean what it says.'"

Even if a drunken driver's license is suspended, most judges will issue an occupational license for work, said state Rep. Terry Keel, R-Austin. The chairman of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, he said the "large and expensive" license revocation program is ineffective.

In addition, new surcharges that went into effect in 2003 charge a convicted drunken driver $3,000 over three years to keep a driver's license. A $6,000 surcharge over three years applies if a convicted drunken driver's blood alcohol content measures more than twice the legal limit.

That's a huge incentive to refuse, said Shannon Edmonds, a lobbyist for the defense lawyers association.

Bradley said he watched as Tarrant and other counties turned to using to search warrants to get blood samples, but was reluctant to take that step.

But then last month, a Williamson deputy was suspected of drunken driving by Round Rock police. He was released after he refused to take field sobriety tests. Because the officer on the scene did not think he had enough proof to arrest the deputy, he felt he could not legally request a blood alcohol test.

The deputy's refusal to cooperate during the incident was the tipping point, Bradley said.

Last week, Williamson County officers began training to use search warrants to force suspected drunken drivers to submit blood samples.

Bradley said getting search warrants is not easy; many patrol officers are not well versed in writing a warrant, and they will probably have to rouse a judge from sleep to sign it.

I know of one bar hoppin' young lady who thinks this is a GREAT idea... :

"I can drive around drunk as a skunk, and I don't hafta blow in any ^%$&^%$ tube! Nya Nya Nya!"

[This message has been edited by FieroRumor (edited 03-08-2005).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: So, now, the powers to be, want to make it a crime to not blow in a breathalyzer although there are already are stiff penalties if you do not. This amounts to it being a crime if you do not incriminate yourself. A constitutional no no. You already agree to lose your liscense to drive (not a constituional right) by applying for a liscense if you do not blow.

Just to play the devil's advocate here...

Wouldn't the same logic suggest that it's improper to require a driver to stop at all if he is drunk? After all, if he stops, the police might gather evidence that he has been drinking. If a driver is "required" to provide his driver license, that could constitute self incrimination as well. Without it, police couldn't prove who was driving a vehicle for any moving violation.

Personally, I think requiring a "search warrant" to compel a breathalizer is bordering on the ridiculous. If an officer has probable cause to suspect the suspect is driving drunk, I don't see that compelling him to provide evidence constitutes self incrimination, any more than handing over a driver's license or requiring fingerprinting upon arrest.

Say an officer sees a man racing out of an alley next to a building where he's responding to a burglar alarm at 4 AM. There's a reasonable suspicion the man is not there for "proper" reasons. Can he be arrested on suspicion and fingerprinted? I believe so--even held for 24 hours, though I could be wrong there. There's no proof he committed a crime at that point.

If an officer can arrest, fingerprint and jail someone without concrete proof or a court order, why not require a breathalizer if there's reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed?

Ya, I’m sorry, but I support any new law against drunk drivers... We have too many on the road as it is.
Kids my age are like "I drove home so drunk" or "I drove home so high" as if it is an accomplishment, I say throw them in jail and throw away the key. **** them they endangered not only their life but the lives of any one they pass one the road. ANY person caught drinking and driving disserves the worst...

quote Originally posted by AndyLPhoto: Just to play the devil's advocate here... Wouldn't the same logic suggest that it's improper to require a driver to stop at all if he is drunk? After all, if he stops, the police might gather evidence that he has been drinking. If a driver is "required" to provide his driver license, that could constitute self incrimination as well. Without it, police couldn't prove who was driving a vehicle for any moving violation. Personally, I think requiring a "search warrant" to compel a breathalizer is bordering on the ridiculous. If an officer has probable cause to suspect the suspect is driving drunk, I don't see that compelling him to provide evidence constitutes self incrimination, any more than handing over a driver's license or requiring fingerprinting upon arrest. Say an officer sees a man racing out of an alley next to a building where he's responding to a burglar alarm at 4 AM. There's a reasonable suspicion the man is not there for "proper" reasons. Can he be arrested on suspicion and fingerprinted? I believe so--even held for 24 hours, though I could be wrong there. There's no proof he committed a crime at that point. If an officer can arrest, fingerprint and jail someone without concrete proof or a court order, why not require a breathalizer if there's reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed?

There is a very simple difference between the things you posted and a breathalyzer test. Fingerprints (for identification purposes), driver's license, and pulling over are not going to be used as evidence in a crime. A breathalyzer test is. When you are arrested, fingerprinted, and held in prison, the police cannot force you to do or say anything that could be used as evidence against you. With this change, the police can force you to do something that can be used as evidence against you.

The other problem with this is that it is a slippery slope. Currently, police cannot compel a suspect to take a DNA test. But if you can require a breathalyzer test, why not require a DNA test? And how about a urine test for drugs? Hair samples to see if you've used drugs more than 30 days ago? Parrafin test to see if you've fired a gun recently?

quote Bradley said he watched as Tarrant and other counties turned to using to search warrants to get blood samples, but was reluctant to take that step.

The District Attorney is reluctant to use warrants to obtain physical evidence? Why? Too slow? In Arizona, they have up to 2 hours to collect evidence regarding drunk driving and there is always at least on judge available for a warrant hearing. To many warrants getting rejected? If that is the case, then a law bypassing that requirement is exactly what this country doesn't need. Too expensive? Do we really want to scrap a bit of a Constitutional right because of economy? Too many people "getting away" with it? People are not convicted of all sorts of crimes every day because of legalities. Why pick on drunk drivers?

It seems that drunk drivers are now in the same class as drug users. They are "evil", so it doesn't matter what the police do, as long as they get them.

[This message has been edited by Steve Normington (edited 03-08-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: The District Attorney is reluctant to use warrants to obtain physical evidence? Why? Too slow? In Arizona, they have up to 2 hours to collect evidence regarding drunk driving and there is always at least on judge available for a warrant hearing. To many warrants getting rejected? If that is the case, then a law bypassing that requirement is exactly what this country doesn't need. Too expensive? Do we really want to scrap a bit of a Constitutional right because of economy? Too many people "getting away" with it? People are not convicted of all sorts of crimes every day because of legalities. Why pick on drunk drivers? It seems that drunk drivers are now in the same class as drug users. They are "evil", so it doesn't matter what the police do, as long as they get them.

And why not? Drugs are a huge problem in our scarcity (I’m not talking pot, or shrooms, I’m talking Heroin, Cocan, ext) and as for drunk drivers... if you have had even one drink and you are driving, you disserve the worst... IMHO

quote They are "evil", so it doesn't matter what the police do, as long as they get them.

YUP

[This message has been edited by dezie36 (edited 03-08-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: There is a very simple difference between the things you posted and a breathalyzer test. Fingerprints (for identification purposes), driver's license, and pulling over are not going to be used as evidence in a crime. A breathalyzer test is. When you are arrested, fingerprinted, and held in prison, the police cannot force you to do or say anything that could be used as evidence against you.

It absolutely could be used as evidence. If they match the fingerprints to ones found at a crime scene, they can definitively link a suspect to a crime. If can you be forced to provide fingerprints if they might match you to a crime? What reason would one have for not agreeing to be fingerprinted? The only reason you'd be arrested and booked is for suspicion of committing a crime. The only reason you'd be given a breathalizer is for suspicion of committing a crime.

Can a suspect be forced to provide DNA if he is accused of rape? Kidnapping? Murder? Can a suspect be forced to provide fingerprints if they may link him to a crime? How is this different? The difference is that fingerprints and DNA can be collected in a variety of ways at a later date. The only evidence to convict a drunk driver, the BAC, is slowly disappearing as police are required to wait around and jump through hoops. People shouldn't be rewarded for refusing to cooperate with police. If someone is stopped for drunk driving, he's not required to say anything either.

I agree it's a slippery slope, but I really have no sympathy for drunk drivers. If there is probable cause to suspect someone is driving drunk, I do think whatever tests are required should be mandatory.

quote I do think whatever tests are required should be mandatory.

Thank you, I hate drunk drivers with a passion.

My friends dad used to be a cop for like 30 something years, after he left the force, he could pretty easily identify a drunk driver... he used to rear end them and get them busted... his insurance when way the hell up, but as he said "its a small price to pay to make sure that ******* gets behind bars"

[This message has been edited by dezie36 (edited 03-08-2005).]

quote Originally posted by AndyLPhoto: It absolutely could be used as evidence. If they match the fingerprints to ones found at a crime scene, they can definitively link a suspect to a crime. If can you be forced to provide fingerprints if they might match you to a crime? What reason would one have for not agreeing to be fingerprinted? The only reason you'd be arrested and booked is for suspicion of committing a crime. The only reason you'd be given a breathalizer is for suspicion of committing a crime.

If the police are getting your fingerprints or DNA to try and match you to a known crime, then they do need a warrant. If they are getting your fingerprints because you are being arrested, then they do not need a warrant. This is why states are making DNA evidence part of an arrest. They want to collect as much information as they can without requiring a warrant.

quote Can a suspect be forced to provide DNA if he is accused of rape? Kidnapping? Murder? Can a suspect be forced to provide fingerprints if they may link him to a crime? How is this different? The difference is that fingerprints and DNA can be collected in a variety of ways at a later date. The only evidence to convict a drunk driver, the BAC, is slowly disappearing as police are required to wait around and jump through hoops. People shouldn't be rewarded for refusing to cooperate with police. If someone is stopped for drunk driving, he's not required to say anything either.

No, no, no, and no. In each of these cases, the police must provide probable cause to a judge that there is sufficient other evidence in order to compell a suspect to provide that evidence. A warrant to obtain this type of evidence should be provided with the same requirements as a search warrant for a suspect's house. Mere suspicion on the part of police is not enough to compell someone to provide this evidence.

quote I agree it's a slippery slope, but I really have no sympathy for drunk drivers. If there is probable cause to suspect someone is driving drunk, I do think whatever tests are required should be mandatory.

Do you have sympathy for murderers? Rapists? Child molesters? Kidnappers? Why don't you allow the police to require whatever tests they think are required in all of these cases? Why not allow the police to search the houses of suspects without a warrant in these cases. If you have all that delay in getting a search warrant, the suspect could be removing the traces of blood or hair from their house. Why not allow the police to perform whatever tests they need to to detect if someone is a rapist? If there is a delay, the suspect could be showering off all the evidence. Please let me know which crimes are so bad that the police are allowed whatever tests they think are required without a warrant.

I have a few less friends because of drunk drivers. One guy was drunk enough to run over my friend, but NOT TOO drunk - he backed over him to make sure he killed him, then sped off, then dumped the car, removed the plates, and tried scratching the VIN number off.

He got three years in jail. My friend's little girls lost their father..his wife, her husband. Sounds like the guy's sentence is fair.

When he gets out, should he be allowed to drive?

I REALLY hate the stupidity of the world sometimes. If you drink and drive, and get caught, they SHOULD take your car. and your license. Period.

If you are going to go bar-hopping, for God's sake, TAKE a CAB. or grow the hell up.

ARGH.

edit: I can see why you need warrants for certain things, and I can see how those in authority can easily abuse their power. It just sickens me how screwed up some things are when it comes to things like this. I see nothing wrong with having to breathe in a tube if I get pulled over. Every time. I see nothing wrong with having to breathe in a tube before starting a car. Every time. I see nothing wrong with having a stiff penality if you are caught trying to workaround the system. or have someone else breathe in the tube.

[This message has been edited by FieroRumor (edited 03-08-2005).]

"all suspects are guilty period... otherwise they wouldn’t be suspects would they?"
Sounds funny, but If there is enough reason for the police to think you committed the crime (be it rape, murder, drunk driving) then maybe there’s a chance you did it. There are too many people getting off because cops have to jump through all these hoops. If you didn’t commit the crime you have nothing to worry about when they search your house do you?

I almost lost my mom when I was 10 to a drunk driver at 10 am on a Tuesday. My mom was lucky that they found a donor for liver transplant (she had been impaled and it destroyed her liver). She spent the next 3 weeks in intensive care, another 6 in the hospital, and another 5 years in rehab. This doctor that hit her, fu*ked up my family. My mom couldn’t work, my dad who was trying to start a business, had to drop everything, and worked two jobs, as a dock worker to pay the bills... I have no sympathy for any one who commits a crime that hurts another person. Throw them in jail or kill them, I don’t care, but I don’t want them on the street. Maybe if we had these stricter laws, and cops had more freedoms like that, there just might be less crime committed...

[This message has been edited by dezie36 (edited 03-08-2005).]

quote Originally posted by dezie36: If you didn’t commit the crime you have nothing to worry about when they search your house do you?

And here we have the universal comment. If you don't mind being subject to searches whenever, then be my guest. Let them in whenever they want it. Just don't make me live under what you think is acceptible.

quote Originally posted by dezie36: "all suspects are guilty period... otherwise they wouldn’t be suspects would they?" Sounds funny, but If there is enough reason for the police to think you committed the crime (be it rape, murder, drunk driving) then maybe there’s a chance you did it. There are too many people getting off because cops have to jump through all these hoops. If you didn’t commit the crime you have nothing to worry about when they search your house do you? I almost lost my mom when I was 10 to a drunk driver at 10 am on a Tuesday. My mom was lucky that they found a donor for liver transplant (she had been impaled and it destroyed her liver). She spent the next 3 weeks in intensive care, another 6 in the hospital, and another 5 years in rehab. This doctor that hit her, fu*ked up my family. My mom couldn’t work, my dad who was trying to start a business, had to drop everything, and worked two jobs, as a dock worker to pay the bills... I have no sympathy for any one who commits a crime that hurts another person. Throw them in jail or kill them, I don’t care, but I don’t want them on the street. Maybe if we had these stricter laws, and cops had more freedoms like that, there just might be less crime committed...

I think one problem is that if police have TOO much power, they can just do whatever the hell they want to. But I think there is a BIG difference between being forced to blow into a tube, and having yer door busted down. If they refuse to blow in a tube, then take away their car and license. It's not right to be strip-searched in the middle of the street for no good reason...but if someone was just shot, and they grab a guy that was running away, and he's got a buldge in his coat pocket...

Is it unacceptable to try to find people who have committed crimes? Is it unacceptable to do what ever it takes to apprehend the criminals? But that’s not what this thread is about, its about the Breathalyzer test and being used to catch someone of a crime. If you weren’t swerving around, stumbling out of your car, and slurring your speech, they would have no reason to test your breath. And if you refuse, then yes you should be punished for not cooperating.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: If the police are getting your fingerprints or DNA to try and match you to a known crime, then they do need a warrant. If they are getting your fingerprints because you are being arrested, then they do not need a warrant. This is why states are making DNA evidence part of an arrest. They want to collect as much information as they can without requiring a warrant.

Okay, but here's why I used the example I did. If I'm not mistaken, police can arrest you and hold you for 24 hours on suspicion of committing a crime. Correct me if I'm wrong--maybe I just watch too much TV. So if police find you running away from the scene of a crime, can they arrest you and process you? Then, they can require you to be fingerprinted. Maybe I'm way off base there.

quote Do you have sympathy for murderers? Rapists? Child molesters? Kidnappers? Why don't you allow the police to require whatever tests they think are required in all of these cases? Why not allow the police to search the houses of suspects without a warrant in these cases. If you have all that delay in getting a search warrant, the suspect could be removing the traces of blood or hair from their house. Why not allow the police to perform whatever tests they need to to detect if someone is a rapist? If there is a delay, the suspect could be showering off all the evidence. Please let me know which crimes are so bad that the police are allowed whatever tests they think are required without a warrant.

No, I don't...but here's the difference. If someone is a rapist, a child molester, or a kidnapper, and the police suspect it, it isn't hard to keep an eye on them while collecting evidence or investigating. Trace evidence is hard to completely get rid of in any case. Time isn't as critical in obtaining a warrant here. In many cases you also have at least one eyewitness to a definite act--the victim. If you lock up a drunk driver overnight and get a warrant in the morning, what happens to his BAC? It disappears over time as the driver sobers up. Sure...you can tail a suspected drunk driver all night if you want, but the damage a drunk driver does isn't likely to be premeditated, or preventable, except by removing him from the road. If he refuses the test, the only way to prove he's committing a crime is to wait for him to kill or injure someone, or damage property.

So hypothetically...what would be required to get a warrant to administer a breathalizer? The word of a police officer? Or would you have police jail the suspect overnight and make him appear personally before a judge the following morning? If the former, how is requiring a search warrant anything more than a formality? Obviously, if the officer didn't have probable cause to suspect a drunk driver, he wouldn't have pulled him over. If the latter, all it would do is give drunks time to sober up before making an appearance or getting tested. Well, judge...he sure looked drunk when we pulled him over 6 hours ago...

quote Originally posted by dezie36: Is it unacceptable to try to find people who have committed crimes?

Of course not.

quote Is it unacceptable to do what ever it takes to apprehend the criminals?

"Whatever" it takes. Yes.

quote But that’s not what this thread is about, its about the Breathalyzer test and being used to catch someone of a crime. If you weren’t swerving around, stumbling out of your car, and slurring your speech, they would have no reason to test your breath. And if you refuse, then yes you should be punished for not cooperating.

But that is what this thread is about. This thread is about being compelled to do something that can be used to convict you. All of the other things are just extensions of what could possibly happen if it is considered Constitutional to make someone do something that can be used to convict. Nothing every happens all by itself. Court cases are built on prior cases. Each new decision can create a chain of decisions.

[This message has been edited by Steve Normington (edited 03-08-2005).]

Is it the breathing part? are you affraid of ballons? Myabe its germs, well no worry they use a differnet tube each time... and unless you have a habbit of drinking and driving, I dont see why you would have a problem with the test.

Maybe I'm not being clear on this. My problem is not with the breathalyzer test itself.

My problem is that this law would make it a crime to not provide evidence to the police when they ask even if they don't have a warrant. Am I the only one that thinks that this is a dangerous principle?

Me again.
This is a good discussion.
Question.
First, let me say that I also abhor drunken driving. Also, I admit I have been guilty of it. I thought those days were behind me but last Oct, I was arrested for blowing a .085 on a field meter which is not certifiably admissable in court. The limit is .080. A point 0.10 was the old standard. I refused to blow and instead requested video evidence be taken. Request denied.
Here is the question. A cop smells beer. He thinks you are intoxicated. He charges you. Why should not a video which can be played to a jury of your peers not be enough evidence? This video has sound. They always say, "his speech was slurred". "He was unsteady on his feet". "His eyes were bloodshot". Another question. Why are people being found not guilty on just that evidence ?
More questions.
Is the standard set to low ? Is it a money trap ? Is this another prohibition ? If you can be arrested because you smell like beer, why do they have parking lots at bars ?
Again, I really do abhor drunken driving. So much so that I do not drive drunk. I do, if I want, drive down the road with a beer.
Also, and for good reason, the pressure is on to keep drunken drivers off the road. If you are a get ahead guy, you need arrests. Lot's of people in any vocation trample upon those they can.

Appreciated your views.
One last question. Is it right for you to be able to be arrested for "public intoxication" and you are not entitled to take a breathalyzer test?

The bottom line is, if an officer has reason to believe you are intoxicated, he can arrest you, Mirandize you, and take you to jail where you and your lawyer can discuss submitting to a blood alcohol test. If you're falling down drunk, they will arrest you without a field test.

The field breathylizers are gathering evidence for the purpose of convicting a crime that has not yet been charged, nor has the suspect been Mirandized.

All the field tests do is give the officer evidence to use against you in court BEFORE you have been charged with a crime. Consider it similar to a roadside search of your vehicle. If you consent, any evidence obtained is admissable in court. If the officer has a warrant or probable cause, your consent isn't required for the search. The ONLY time an officer asks for your consent for a search is when they don't have enough evidence or other legal right to search you. A breathylizer is the same way.

quote Originally posted by dezie36: Is it the breathing part? are you affraid of ballons? Myabe its germs, well no worry they use a differnet tube each time... and unless you have a habbit of drinking and driving, I dont see why you would have a problem with the test.

My lawyer used to be the prosecuting attorney. This is what he told me.
"They can make a test read what they want it to". Yeah, unquote.

You have to have a lot of money just to contest, why is not video enough ?
My DWI happened on a Fiero rally. "DWI, First Offense". Got stopped for speeding. I had a beer and you could smell it. So ? So, I was arrested. So what ! I had just introduced myself to unknown fellow Fiero owners at a gas stop. There reaction to my self proclaimed reason why I was late "I couldn't even tell you were drinking" A far cry from drunk.
I did not do the breath test, I am going to use the DPS dash camera. That is why they are now trying to make it a crime to not blow. They are not getting convictions. Can you spell "FINE MONEY"
After I got back from the rally, I posted on PFF, that drinking and driving was wrong.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Why should not a video which can be played to a jury of your peers not be enough evidence?

Because I know of a few people that can be quite hammered, and you wouldn't be able to tell, they are so used to it.

quote One last question. Is it right for you to be able to be arrested for "public intoxication" and you are not entitled to take a breathalyzer test?

Hell no. They SHOULD make you blow in a tube, if they are going to ticket you. That's kinda messed up...Glad they don't ticket for "public tripping", because I in my normal state would pass for a person quite high on some chemical compound.

Here's a question for you all - ever get hassled by a cop? I mean REALLY hassled? Once, when I was a kid, I was surrounded by undercover cops, and ordered to go into a car. Then, they screamed at me and cursed their brains out. I asked for their badge numbers, and they cursed at me more. I was NOT disrespectful, just scared out of my wits...Turns out they thought I was this kid they were looking for, that did something and ran away from home, but after they asked for the person's description, they found out It wasn't me (the kid they were looking for was over 300 lbs!) So they let me go. It was pretty messed up, and that was for something minor. One of the cops was acting like he was F'ing crazy, he was soooo angry. Maybe the kid did something terrible, I don't know...

Cops shouldn't have unlimited power, but I think they should be able to test a driver to see if they are drunk.

[This message has been edited by FieroRumor (edited 03-08-2005).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Formula88:

The bottom line is, if an officer has reason to believe you are intoxicated, he can arrest you, Mirandize you, and take you to jail where you and your lawyer can discuss submitting to a blood alcohol test.........../QUOTE]

Hahahahahahaha !
The first thing they denied me was a chance for me to talk to any, ANY, attorney.
I was there ! They present this document for you to sign when you refuse to take a breathalyzer. Stating that you have no drivers liscence for 180 days.
My signature read, "lawyer denied".

quote Originally posted by dezie36: "all suspects are guilty period... otherwise they wouldn’t be suspects would they?" Sounds funny, but If there is enough reason for the police to think you committed the crime (be it rape, murder, drunk driving) then maybe there’s a chance you did it. There are too many people getting off because cops have to jump through all these hoops. If you didn’t commit the crime you have nothing to worry about when they search your house do you? I almost lost my mom when I was 10 to a drunk driver at 10 am on a Tuesday. My mom was lucky that they found a donor for liver transplant (she had been impaled and it destroyed her liver). She spent the next 3 weeks in intensive care, another 6 in the hospital, and another 5 years in rehab. This doctor that hit her, fu*ked up my family. My mom couldn’t work, my dad who was trying to start a business, had to drop everything, and worked two jobs, as a dock worker to pay the bills... I have no sympathy for any one who commits a crime that hurts another person. Throw them in jail or kill them, I don’t care, but I don’t want them on the street. Maybe if we had these stricter laws, and cops had more freedoms like that, there just might be less crime committed...

I understand your anger but you can not stand on phrases like
"all suspects are guilty period... otherwise they wouldn’t be suspects would they?"
" If you didn’t commit the crime you have nothing to worry about when they search your house do you?"
" Maybe if we had these stricter laws, and cops had more freedoms like that, there just might be less crime committed...

Take a few minutes and ponder the results of these actions.Show me a power controlled by man that doesn't get abused.
This is the fear that paves the road to your eventual imprisonment.
All freedoms are costly.For hundreds of years we have paid for it with our peoples very lives and now we beg to have it taken away piece by piece all out of fear.
I wonder if anyone here knows the quote concerning giving up our freedoms by T.Jefferson.

quote Originally posted by pokeyfiero: I understand your anger but you can not stand on phrases like "all suspects are guilty period... otherwise they wouldn’t be suspects would they?"

I missed it.
pokeyfiero (hope you do not mind if I use your full name), you got me to thinking.
How many crimes have been committed when there was more than one suspect? What is a suspect ? If my stuff comes up missing, everyone is a suspect. Some more than others.
There have been some suspects found guilty that were later found innocent.
There are members of law enforcement which feel a certain way. Whether it be pornography values, censorship, or if you are drunk. They can belong to a church, a member of MADD, or belong to the Sierra Club, might think a toyota is better than a nissan, might not like your music. "nuff said.
Suspicion is not enough, period. Especially when they can make a machine read what they want to.
A real life video. You can see me walk, you can hear me talk. If you can not convict me on that just that, shoot me.

Disclaimer :
I have had some beer. So what !

ah, the eternal question. "where to draw the line between individual liberties and the rights of society?"
so now it's this: just how much intrusion will we tolerate for the chance to prevent potential injury or death to others?

i dont know the answer, drunk drivers should be gotten off the road, no argument. suspending their licenses would accomplish that in most cases. confiscating the cars of repeat offenders would help too. but where does it end? can they demand urine samples too? blood samples? DNA?
maybe they should ban alcohol, that would certainly reduce alcohol-related problems.
would just putting us all in jail now reduce crime? would it be worth it?

quote Originally posted by lurker: ah, the eternal question. "where to draw the line between individual liberties and the rights of society?" so now it's this: just how much intrusion will we tolerate for the chance to prevent potential injury or death to others? i dont know the answer, drunk drivers should be gotten off the road, no argument. suspending their licenses would accomplish that in most cases. confiscating the cars of repeat offenders would help too. but where does it end? can they demand urine samples too? blood samples? DNA? maybe they should ban alcohol, that would certainly reduce alcohol-related problems. would just putting us all in jail now reduce crime? would it be worth it?

Actually, lurker, I do not think the question is a balance of individual rights vs the rights of society.
My thinking is that it comes down to individual rights vs the opinion of one man.
A refusal to blow does not mean a refusal to face your peers.
Think about it.
I repeat. If a video tape does not give evidence of intoxication, a video in which can show your balance, record speech slurring, show bloodshot eyes,..............?
I dunn know. As I have said, I have driven drunk. I think I should be as castrated as all drunken drivers.
My purpose for starting this thread was, to be honest, contempt.
Yes, I am facing a charge.
I saw a news report which said video evidence was overturning field opinions.
Also, the fact that I was not able to consult with my attorney before I was told to blow.......
Now it soon will be a crime.......
I asked , when asked to blow , if I would walk if I passed. The law officer said he could not say. True.

If you might have noticed, everyone. They used an example of an officer of the law not blowing. CLUE ?????????????

Over here Police do random roadside breath tests and during holiday periods catch hundreds of idiots who would have otherwise got away. Drink driving is dangerous and making it law to blow in the tube/bag works here and will work anywhere. It is not an invasion of anyones rights. Having a drivers license is a privelage, not a right! How is the police checking to see if you are drunk an invasion of your rights when you are behind the wheel of a car that is a privelage to drive?

------------------

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: Over here Police do random roadside breath tests and during holiday periods catch hundreds of idiots who would have otherwise got away. Drink driving is dangerous and making it law to blow in the tube/bag works here and will work anywhere. It is not an invasion of anyones rights. Having a drivers license is a privelage, not a right! How is the police checking to see if you are drunk an invasion of your rights when you are behind the wheel of a car that is a privelage to drive?

Here, driving is a privledge also. If you do not blow you do not drive. Why make it a crime also if you do not blow ?

Refusing a breath test is a guaranteed trip to the drunk tank for the night. Here in Minnesota it is a misdemeanor crime to refuse a breath test. I just asked my friend who is a cop in my hometown and the reason that it is a crime is that when you sign for your license at the DMV there is a clause that says that if you are pulled over with probable cause you will submit to a breath test. Hence the crime. I didn't know that, I guess it pays to read the small print. If you don't sign it because of that clause, you don't get a license.

I just found out that what he told me was about the Intoxalizer or blood test at the PD or drunk tank. You can refuse the roadside test without penalty.

[This message has been edited by carbon (edited 03-08-2005).]

I don't know about other states, but something tells me that when I signed my name on the dotted line for my license it meant I agree to submit to a blood, urine and breathalizer test and must submit my indentification/license to any peace officer on demand. Thats here in CA, so other states might be different, but clear as day (or black and white in the case of the form I signed) it states that by signing I give my permission for those tests upon demand.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Here, driving is a privledge also. If you do not blow you do not drive. Why make it a crime also if you do not blow ?

Well that is pretty obvious. The crime is trying to avoid charges of drunken driving by not blowing. Didn't realise I would have to spell it out.

quote Originally posted by dezie36: Kids my age are like "I drove home so drunk" or "I drove home so high" as if it is an accomplishment, I say throw them in jail and throw away the key. **** them they endangered not only their life but the lives of any one they pass one the road. ANY person caught drinking and driving disserves the worst...

The friends I've gotten rid of because of drinking.I totally agree with that^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. I blame it on the parents and lack of control of their kids. Teach them in school, tell them about it for DL testing, include it in drivers ed, but NOTHING is as effective as the word of mom or dad. And if you think Im wrong, I think its time you had a talk with your kids.

------------------
Failing to prepare - Is preparing to fail....

I wonder.......what happens........if......you do not breathalize......when they pull you over for boating while intoxicated ?
You did not sign anything to get a liscense to boat.
What will be the penalty for a second offense ? Lose your fishing liscense ?
Next thing you know they will be revoking your marriage liscense.

Again, I was interested in the opinion of my peers. Drunken driving is wrong !

Hmmm...I answered my own question. It will be a crime because you did not blow.

Badge Man is the judge, jury, and executioner.
Again I ask, why is video/audio evidence not enough ?
A new prohibition ? Not enough fine money ?

You know, I don't know. I am starting to wonder if a liscense is another form of tax.
Liscense, a word. So is "permit". Which also costs money.

I am going to take my frustrations out on something productive. Hope I do not get caught.

Go ahead and laugh.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I wonder.......what happens........if......you do not breathalize......when they pull you over for boating while intoxicated ? You did not sign anything to get a liscense to boat. What will be the penalty for a second offense ? Lose your fishing liscense ? Next thing you know they will be revoking your marriage liscense. .

The water has a different set of rules and they are basic.

Drink all you want while boating.Hell you can sit right in front of them and down a cold one and they won't give you a second look.Give them any reason and they will check you out with a microscope.Give them any hassle and they will make you regret it.They dont need a warrant to board you or detain you.
They don't need to prove you are drunk with any test.They only need to proclaim you are unsafe due to excessive alchol and you are done.
There is no speed limit.Go as fast as you want.But you are 100 % responsible for any and all damages done to other boats or property.
They can take your gear your boat and your freedom in the blink of an eye.
There are even instances when they can destroy your boat legally on the spot.
Thats just the sherrifs.
The coast gaurd is another storey.As far as I can tell they have 2 main jobs they are good at.Saving your life or ruining it.
Don't even think about messing with fish and game!

On a happier note from what I have seen mostly these guys are not abusive.They go out of their way to help anyone on the water.Just don't be the problem and they are happy not to be the solution.
I wish all cops worked that way.

quote Originally posted by pokeyfiero: The water has a different set of rules and they are basic. Drink all you want while boating.Hell you can sit right in front of them and down a cold one and they won't give you a second look.Give them any reason and they will check you out with a microscope.Give them any hassle and they will make you regret it.They dont need a warrant to board you or detain you. They don't need to prove you are drunk with any test.They only need to proclaim you are unsafe due to excessive alchol and you are done. There is no speed limit.Go as fast as you want.But you are 100 % responsible for any and all damages done to other boats or property. They can take your gear your boat and your freedom in the blink of an eye. There are even instances when they can destroy your boat legally on the spot. Thats just the sherrifs. The coast gaurd is another storey.As far as I can tell they have 2 main jobs they are good at.Saving your life or ruining it. Don't even think about messing with fish and game! On a happier note from what I have seen mostly these guys are not abusive.They go out of their way to help anyone on the water.Just don't be the problem and they are happy not to be the solution. I wish all cops worked that way.

Much wisdom in your post.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: By and large you are absolutely correct. I've seen these guys work and have applauded them. What about the other few ? Checks and balances though.

Oh, don't worry about those other few. They've got their hands full with Ray right now.