Legalize Drunk Driving

I'm torn on this topic. I've been harassed by cops numerous times. Had a friend at a tailgate decide to do the right thing, and sleep it off in the parking lot after a game. Police saw him sleeping in back seat, and because the keys were in the ignition he got a DUI.

Recently a 21 year old girl from my neighborhood was hit by a drunk driver, about a mile from her house. She will now be in a wheel chair the rest of her life. The guy that hit her had five prior DUI's. https://www.facebook.com/pages/For-the-Love-of-Haylie/1517384501852119

A drunk driver left a small bar near us and killed a bicyclist last summer. The bar and bar tender were charged and sued. Crazy that no one is held accountable for their own actions.
 


Kiopa_Matt said:
I honestly don't know the medical details behind it, but I do know whatever tests they administer road side are inadmissible 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.
Click to expand...


Correct, the PBT (portable breath tester) gives the officer some indication of whether you do have alcohol in your system, but it's not nearly accurate enough to meet the scientific standards of reliability to be used as admissible evidence in court. Its more used so they don't waste time hauling in a non-drunk person who just wasn't good enough at the state-sponsored roadside gymnastics pop-quiz (aka FSTs). If you haven't been drinking or only had one drink, it's often worthwhile to voluntarily take a PBT, because when an officer sees you blow a .02 or so on that, he's not going to bother taking you downtown to use the more accurate machine (the Datamaster still in most states, which has been around forever and is actually pretty outdated tech). FSTs are almost always a bad idea to take if you've been drinking, they are hard enough to pass stone-cold sober, and there are a lot of subjective factors that the officer can make up whatever they want. I've seen hundreds of cases where Officers write how terribly people did on FSTs to where they must have terribly intoxicated, then they get arrested and blow like a .03. You should almost never take the FSTs, there is almost no upside to taking them, I've seen situations where pro athletes, with no alcohol in their system, have allegedly "failed" the FSTs according to the officer's report. Those tests aren't designed to be passed.
 
SeoReborn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Aren't you still required to say certain things, for example, give your name? I may be wrong, not sure. Anyways, on the speaking thing, here's the precedent they cite: United States v. Dionisio | Casebriefs (referenced in previous link on page 15)
mont7071 said:
Correct, the PBT (portable breath tester) gives the officer some indication of whether you do have alcohol in your system, but it's not nearly accurate enough to meet the scientific standards of reliability to be used as admissible evidence in court. Its more used so they don't waste time hauling in a non-drunk person who just wasn't good enough at the state-sponsored roadside gymnastics pop-quiz (aka FSTs). If you haven't been drinking or only had one drink, it's often worthwhile to voluntarily take a PBT, because when an officer sees you blow a .02 or so on that, he's not going to bother taking you downtown to use the more accurate machine (the Datamaster still in most states, which has been around forever and is actually pretty outdated tech). FSTs are almost always a bad idea to take if you've been drinking, they are hard enough to pass stone-cold sober, and there are a lot of subjective factors that the officer can make up whatever they want. I've seen hundreds of cases where Officers write how terribly people did on FSTs to where they must have terribly intoxicated, then they get arrested and blow like a .03. You should almost never take the FSTs, there is almost no upside to taking them, I've seen situations where pro athletes, with no alcohol in their system, have allegedly "failed" the FSTs according to the officer's report. Those tests aren't designed to be passed.
Click to expand...
Ones that give a more clear cut reading could be obtained (here, it puts on a red light and makes a bad sounding noise if you're over the limit), although I'm sure what you say is why they don't have that.

What's the procedure for the police challenging existing precedent? I feel like there's a reasonable case for a portable breathalyzer (to obtain grounds for doing a larger one at the station) not constituting a search. Would an individual police department have to take it to court?
 
mont7071 said:
Correct, the PBT (portable breath tester) gives the officer some indication of whether you do have alcohol in your system, but it's not nearly accurate enough to meet the scientific standards of reliability to be used as admissible evidence in court. Its more used so they don't waste time hauling in a non-drunk person who just wasn't good enough at the state-sponsored roadside gymnastics pop-quiz (aka FSTs). If you haven't been drinking or only had one drink, it's often worthwhile to voluntarily take a PBT, because when an officer sees you blow a .02 or so on that, he's not going to bother taking you downtown to use the more accurate machine (the Datamaster still in most states, which has been around forever and is actually pretty outdated tech). FSTs are almost always a bad idea to take if you've been drinking, they are hard enough to pass stone-cold sober, and there are a lot of subjective factors that the officer can make up whatever they want. I've seen hundreds of cases where Officers write how terribly people did on FSTs to where they must have terribly intoxicated, then they get arrested and blow like a .03. You should almost never take the FSTs, there is almost no upside to taking them, I've seen situations where pro athletes, with no alcohol in their system, have allegedly "failed" the FSTs according to the officer's report. Those tests aren't designed to be passed.
Click to expand...

But if you don't take the FST don't you just get taken to the station to be tested? and if you do take it and you fail the same thing happens? So if you take it at least you have a chance to pass it and not have to go to the station? And the FST is not admissible as evidence? So doesn't that mean that you are better off taking it than not taking it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom