I think I was probably being an idiot before - and almost died a couple of times.
Almost got hit head on by a truck in Indonesia, when I was on a moped.
Legalize Drunk Driving
- Thread starter JakeStratham
- Start date
I think I was probably being an idiot before - and almost died a couple of times.
Almost got hit head on by a truck in Indonesia, when I was on a moped.
Would anyone here feel safe with me driving down your street on 300 micrograms of LSD?
No? then this is just as fucking stupid
No? then this is just as fucking stupid
If the cop has suspicion you've been drinking, you don't get a choice. Well, you can refuse the field sobriety test, but then you're getting hauled to the station for the actual test.
They can't charge / convict you based on field sobriety test anyway. They can only use it as an indicator, so they can decide whether or not to haul you into the station for the actual test.
Question though. Say you get hauled to the station, and you blow under. Can the cops legally detain you in a cell for say 6 hours due to public safety? Or can you tell them to get fucked, and that you'll be on your way?
In my sons case it was a blood test and they let him go right after the test. Results do not come back for 10 days -2 weeks
I read the editorial and he has to be trolling. Illogical statements like this:
make me believe it. (It's not the make up of the blood that criminalized, but what you are doing in such a state)
The entire editorial reads exactly like one a vaccination opponent would write. Ignore the science and rely on anecdotal evidence to make your arguments.
make me believe it. (It's not the make up of the blood that criminalized, but what you are doing in such a state)
The entire editorial reads exactly like one a vaccination opponent would write. Ignore the science and rely on anecdotal evidence to make your arguments.
You know you have a greater chance to die from sober driving vs drunk driving? (comparing 2011 stats)
It's sort of strange... Its like they crashed and were listening to Mettalica so nobody should be aloud to listen to metallica while driving.
There are plenty of people on the road who should NEVER drive. Sober or not.
It's sort of strange... Its like they crashed and were listening to Mettalica so nobody should be aloud to listen to metallica while driving.
There are plenty of people on the road who should NEVER drive. Sober or not.
I have heard of that before. I think its called something like the "ragdoll effect", where your body is so relaxed and un-tense that it can flop around like a ragdoll so not getting as injured. Not sure about it though, sounds very made up
But I think the drink driving laws are there more to protect the other drivers than the idiot who has chosen to get behind the wheel.
I would ask them what they believed the existing laws did to prevent their family member from being killed/injured.
Related question - why do US police cars not all carry breathalyzers, and instead rely on field sobriety tests?
A gun is $400+, a car is thousands, plus a couple thousand more for the police fittings. No idea how much a baton costs, but how much does that get used?
You can get a professional, top-end breathalyzer for $100 retail (the most expensive one I found on a site specializing in breathalyzers), with mouthpieces coming in at $0.50. I imagine that'd drop heavily when bought in bulk. You don't even need to give every officer one, just every car.
Why are thousands of people getting pulled into police stations despite being under the limit, or driving off, despite being over the limit, over such a small cost?
A gun is $400+, a car is thousands, plus a couple thousand more for the police fittings. No idea how much a baton costs, but how much does that get used?
You can get a professional, top-end breathalyzer for $100 retail (the most expensive one I found on a site specializing in breathalyzers), with mouthpieces coming in at $0.50. I imagine that'd drop heavily when bought in bulk. You don't even need to give every officer one, just every car.
Why are thousands of people getting pulled into police stations despite being under the limit, or driving off, despite being over the limit, over such a small cost?
The 4th amendment, basically. Can't just go shoving a pipe into everyone's mouth when the mood hits you, type of thing. Using a breathalyzer would amount to unreasonable search, which is against the 4th amendment.
Field sobriety tests are used simply to confirm suspicion, and nothing else. They're not used against you as evidence in court. That comes later, when you take the actual test at the station.
If they're already at a stage of reasonable suspicion, wouldn't it be legal? They're allowed to frisk for weapons if there's reasonable suspicion. Also, would blowing into a tube be covered? I wouldn't call that a search or a seizure.
I honestly don't know the medical details behind it, but I do know whatever tests they administer road side are inadmisslble in court. They can't use results of any test that happens road side as evidence. It's when you get hauled into the station, and blow in the actual machine. You blow twice, and the lowest recording is what gets entered as evidence against you for a DUI.
Again, I don't know the medical details behind it, but I would imagine there's still a reason they can't use roadside tests as evidence in court. Who knows, maybe technology has advanced to a point where it would be fine to do so, but the laws just haven't caught up yet. Wouldn't be the first time technology surpassed the legal system.
Grr, I wrote an edit, WF logged me out, when I logged in the 10 minute limit was hit and I lost it. It was basically regarding this:
http://lawschool.unm.edu/nmlr/volumes/44/1/5-Clark.pdf
and my main notes were:
- Overall, the paper's pretty clear on breath testing being a search, but
- An officer can force someone to talk legally, as there's no reasonable expectation of privacy on the sound of your voice, which could possibly be extended to your breath.
- Using thermal cameras on a house was only ruled 5-4 as being a search, and based on it not being generally accessible to the general public - this could now potentially be different in regards to breathalyzers, as you can get breathalyzer keyrings, breathalyzer iPhone apps, etc.
- Exigent circumstances can justify it - the example they cited was a case where the person was taken to hospital for a blood test, but the state lost the case based on the fact they spent time taking them to the hospital, and the extra time for a warrant wouldn't make a huge difference - this obviously wouldn't apply to roadside breathalyzers.
- A line about not exceeding what a private citizen could do without probable cause - that sounds iffy since a private citizen couldn't pull someone over and get them to do a roadside sobriety test.
In response to your reply, I'm not suggesting roadside breathalyzers as grounds for conviction, just as means to obtain grounds for arrest. Here, the way it's done is you do a roadside breathalyzer test, if you fail it, you get taken to the police station, where you use their larger breathalyzer machine, and then get charged based on the results of that. If you want, you can then have a blood test to confirm. Same system, just with a more accurate test at the roadside, as opposed to the very inaccurate roadside sobriety test.
Australia is pretty hardcore on road safety.
This is actually a great ad...
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7ERMwnoxSI&spfreload=10[/ame]
This is actually a great ad...
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7ERMwnoxSI&spfreload=10[/ame]
Yeap exactly what I was thinking about. We got zero tolerance for here and I personaly think its good and should go on this way.
What about all the times when the police says 'you have the right to remain silent' during arrests.
I don't see how someone can be forced to talk.