[denny]

Hey, at least that's something I can use! 

[kerneldustjacket]

Hey, at least that's something I can use! 

We've gone from DUI to TMI...

[capozzoli]

What's the EU method?.

But treating everybody as "guilty till proven innocent" is wrong plain & simple.

Which raises a question for me. When are the police treating people as guilty until proven innocent? I think there are sobriety road blocks all over Europe, more than here I bet. that's no doubt why your friends wont think of driving after drinking I bet. Cause even if your driving ok you may get caught at a check point.

They use the breathalyzer in Europe also dont they? Some people even saud here that the the breathalyzer is unconstitutional because they will be tried by a "machine" instead of a jury.

I just cant seem to imagine that the cops are out there in road blocks just picking people out randomly to test their blood or breath. They are gonna get the people who are stinking of pot or alcohol, maybe crack. The road blocks are also used to get people for bad inspection stickers, bad registration, NO INSURANCE, unsafe vehicles and loads, etc,.right?
 

Do people feel as though these means (breathalizer,/blood test) of acquiring evidence from someone who is clearly intoxicated is wrong entirely? or only wrong at a road block? Ya know as opposed to pulling someone over for weaving or running a red light.

I have never been through a check point ever. Im not even sure they are real. They are kinda like bigfoot to me. Havent been pulled over in about 20 years either. Well actually once about five years ago cause I had a taillight out.

One day they will have some sort of alcohol sensor they can aim right at you and it will give them a reading from a distance. They will use that for the people that dont submit to the chip. cause the chip will tell them how much you drank. Maybe it will even call the police.   


 

[tschmidlin]

I can.  And although I find this objectionable, it's not clear that it violates the constitution. 

innocent until proven guilty....gone
right to not self incriminate....gone
illegal search and seizure.....gone

and if you physically resist the blood draw, they just write you up as resisting an officer which carries a similar penalty - and FINE I would imagine. Since they only do this occasionally, could it be less about public safety and more about $$$?

I can.  And although I find this objectionable, it's not clear that it violates the constitution. 

US Constitution - Amendment 4 - Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Wow, get busy for a few days . . .

I haven't read all of the posts, all of the sudden there's 11 pages of them, so someone may have covered this.  And I am not a lawyer, but here is my take . . .

Innocent until proven guilty.  If the law says refusing is an admission of guilt, then that let's them arrest you for it.  You are still entitled to a trial, not immediately sentenced, therefore you are still innocent until proven guilty.  And if the law says that refusal is probable cause, then that is all they need for a warrant.

Right to not self-incriminate.  Court ordered biological samples have surely been challenged and found to be constitutional by SCOTUS, right?  bouef.

Illegal search and seizure.  If the judge issues a warrant based on probable cause, there is nothing illegal about it.

As for the probable cause, no driving around at night is not probable cause.  But smelling like alcohol is.  It's not like they're going to be giving breath tests to every single person they stop at these checkpoints, just the ones they think are drunk.  If the officer is trained in detecting someone who has been drinking, and they all are, then they are an expert as far as a court is concerned and their opinion is all they need to establish probable cause.

My brother was NJSP for 8 or 10 years, and I rode along with him once.  He stopped a guy for speeding, he smelled like alcohol, the guy passed every field sobriety test except the horizontal gaze nystagmus test.  Took him back for the breathalyzer, his BAC was something over .2%.   Crazy.

Anyway, like I said, I find the whole thing objectionable because I don't believe refusal should be enough for probable cause.  Why refuse if you're sober?  For the same reason I object to warrantless wire taps or the government reading my email.  "If you have nothing to hide then why do you care?".  Right to privacy.  I think you have the expectation of privacy when you're on the phone or sending email, so these are clearly protected.  But driving is a privilege and all that, so it is less clear to me if you can expect the same protections.  If I missed a better argument please point it out to me, I just find these unconvincing

I think google just needs to start selling the self-driving car already so we can stop worrying about it.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/09/google-car-video/

[euge]

Hell yeah!  Drive my ass to work or anywhere I want to go. Problem solved.

[tschmidlin]

Seriously, I want one so I can sleep on the ride from here to Portland and back

Naps on the way to work, stop by for a pint on the way home no problem, it would be awesome.

Now if they had the computer equivalent of the ignition lock to keep people from drunken posting on the forum . . .

[euge]

Seriously, I want one so I can sleep on the ride from here to Portland and back

Naps on the way to work, stop by for a pint on the way home no problem, it would be awesome.

Now if they had the computer equivalent of the ignition lock to keep people from drunken posting on the forum . . .

Now preventing a PUI would go against the spirit don't ya  think? Guilty as charged sir! No I won't get off my couch! Move along.

Interestingly, if our Google car got into a wreck with you (me) drunk in the back seat who would be responsible?

[tschmidlin]

Seriously, I want one so I can sleep on the ride from here to Portland and back

Naps on the way to work, stop by for a pint on the way home no problem, it would be awesome.

Now if they had the computer equivalent of the ignition lock to keep people from drunken posting on the forum . . .

Now preventing a PUI would go against the spirit don't ya  think? Guilty as charged sir! No I won't get off my couch! Move along.

I was originally thinking drunk dialing or emailing ex-girlfriends, but that's not nearly as relevant to the board.  Or maybe it is?

Interestingly, if our Google car got into a wreck with you (me) drunk in the back seat who would be responsible?

Pretty sure google is responsible.

I really hope this gets done relatively soon.  Just think - improved mpg, better traffic flow, fewer accidents, less (no?) road rage, no need for a DD for bachelor parties . . .

[euge]

Ha this reminds me of one of my Vietnam Vet supervisors.  He followed his gps a little too closely going cross-state about six months ago; ended up on some strange gravel road and flipped his truck- totaling it.

I was like "didn't you think leaving the pavement was a warning sign?" He said he trusted the gps maybe a little too much. Now he has a new truck.

[punatic]

Interestingly, if our Google car got into a wreck with you (me) drunk in the back seat who would be responsible?

The Federal government would be, for mandating the blending of ethanol in gasoline! (10.00% ! )

[phillamb168]

I was going to respond to this but tschmidlin said basically everything I wanted to say. But I've already typed all this up so I'm going to post anyway! Nyah!

Re Cap's EU roadblock thing:
I've never, ever seen a roadblock with Gendarmes testing for anything here. Note however that I am never driving at night unless we're on a road trip, and I like to be in bed by 8:30 because if I'm up too late my after-dinner prunes don't sit well with my stomach.

My wife is actually working on getting her driver's license here so I can ask her what the rules are. I know they got REALLY strict about a decade ago - before that it was pretty lenient and France had the highest mortality rate in Europe due to drunk driving.

Re Everything else:
After following this thread and all the "unconstitutional to be breathalyzed" stuff, I have one question: if you're up on murder charges and have had DNA testing done to prove that your bodily fluids were present at the scene, does that make the DNA test "trial by machine?" No, because you still have to go before a judge.

As far as I am aware, when you are arrested after failing a breathalyzer, you're being put into custody pending a trial by a real judge, the same way someone accused of murder is put into custody to prevent them from fleeing. Your breathalyzer results will be put before the judge as evidence of your crime, in the same way that DNA evidence will be used against you.

It is absolutely your right to argue in court that the breathalyzer was unconstitutional, or that it was inaccurate, etc. But you have to do it in court.

Refusing to do something mandated by law when you disagree with said law is called CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. It is a wonderful, beautiful method of change, but part of civil disobedience is understanding that it's super annoying and can take a lot of work. The courts system takes a long time to go through because EVERYONE deserves a fair trial and that can take a LOT of time. If you want to fight this, then go to court. Of course it costs money and time. Don't have money and time? Don't engage in civil disobedience. Don't want to sit still and allow things that you disagree with to happen? Find anybody that agrees with you and either hire a lawyer for a class action suit or petition the government for a change in the law or go political and work to elect people who agree with you. "I have a job and family responsibilities" is not a reason for inaction if your convictions are strong enough...

I'm trying REALLY hard not to be political on this forumg. But I still want to say this: it seems to me that these days a lot of Americans across the political spectrum - Conservative, Liberal, Green, Libertarian, and Wacko - want to complain about how things are but they're too lazy to do what is necessary to fix them. I'm not talking about overthrowing government or something, that's a lazy way out, too. You want to fix something, you have to use the system. It takes time, and money, and courage and conviction. Too many people are more concerned with how so-and-so is doing on The Biggest Loser than they are with where the country is headed. Jefferson said, famously, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." He said that during a time of revolution in America, before our democratic systems were in place. Were he alive today, I think he would say instead, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the sweat of patriots."

--

Also of note, it's apparently illegal to refuse a search in France (so says my wife). Not sure how I feel about that.

[beerocd]

no need for a DD for bachelor parties . . .

that should be the minimum requirement for a bachelor party.... Double D's.

[Hokerer]

Seriously, I want one so I can sleep on the ride from here to Portland and back

Naps on the way to work, stop by for a pint on the way home no problem, it would be awesome.

Now if they had the computer equivalent of the ignition lock to keep people from drunken posting on the forum . . .

Now preventing a PUI would go against the spirit don't ya  think? Guilty as charged sir! No I won't get off my couch! Move along.

Interestingly, if our Google car got into a wreck with you (me) drunk in the back seat who would be responsible?

No idea who would be responsible but one thing's for sure.  MADD and their ilk would put this in their stats as an "alcohol related accident"

[1vertical]

As for the probable cause, no driving around at night is not probable cause.  But smelling like alcohol is. 

Interesting because my WINDOW WASHER SOLVENT contains rubbing alcohol that I put in to alter the freezing point
and when I wash the windshield, it smells strongly just like alcohol and I have not had a drop to drink.....

[kerneldustjacket]

The Federal government would be, for mandating the blending of ethanol in gasoline! (10.00% ! )

So punatic...cars can consume ethanol while on the road? Unfair!!!