Slashdot Mirror
'No Refusal' DUI Checkpoints Coming To Florida?
schwit1 writes "With New Year's Eve only days away, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects this to be one of the deadliest weeks of the year on the roads. But now a new weapon is being used in the fight against drunk driving. ...
Florida is among several states now holding what are called 'no refusal' checkpoints. It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test."
"No refusal" car searches? They'll have a judge on site to issue the OK for an otherwise unconstitutional search of your car?
if you plan to drink, plan to get a ride. if you werent drinking, you have nothing to fear about a breath test.
I was under the impression that a refusal to take a breathalyzer in most states landed you in jail until your blood was drawn. That's how it is here in MN.
I just don't understand any legitimate concern to decline a breathalyzer test. It's non-invasive and it's not like it's a cheek swap DNA test. But I bet that no drop of blood goes to waste once they draw that...
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
They did this in the movies once, look how that turned out.
At least in some states they need to consider the penalties for DUI. In many, drivers will be fined as little as $250 and be allowed to continue driving on a restricted license. DUI should result in a minimum one year total ban and a requirement to resit your test. There is no excuse for such behaviour.
Many other countries have made drink driving socially unacceotable. That status is long overdue in the US.
I've always said one of the causes of certain crime rates to be high is the selective enforcement and the 'luck' factor that plays into it. In a perfect world, every crime should be caught and prosecuted, or removed from the books. If every drunken driver was caught every time, there would be reduced penalty and it would almost never happen.
Do we really need DUI checkpoints? It sounds like lazy police to me. We had one of those around where I live one year I think around the time of a high school graduation. It just held up traffic and pissed everyone off (I was on my way home from work). Then the cops pulled anyone over who saw the traffic and tried to make a U-Turn. This was my only experience with this sort of checkpoint though.
So is there a significant benefit to these checkpoints that couldn't be solved by more police patrolling? It seems like by the time the people hit the checkpoint they've already had plenty of time to cause an accident unless everyone is coming from the same party and this "checkpoint" is at the exit to the parking lot.
1: I don't know where you are, but New Years isn't "days away" here... It's here now.
2: Doesn't Florida fall under the same constitution as the rest of the US? Refusing to take a brethalyzer test is a constitutional right under the 5th amendment, and as much as I'd like to see all drunk drivers charged with attempted murder, I don't see how a judge can issue a warrant without evidence simply because someone exercises their rights. Two wrongs do not make a right in this case for sure.
--Forest C. Adcock--
An excerpt from the Fourth Amendment: "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."
The Robed 9 need to re-read that one too. Also they should re-read their own decision in US v. Leon (1984), particularly the bit about "The exception we recognize today will also not apply in cases where the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role..." -- rubber-stamped warrants don't count.
If you refuse a breathalyser test the RCMP office is the judge, jury and executioner. You can't even take it to court as you dispute it I think you have to now go through the Superintendent Of Motor Vehicles. http://www.invermere.com/2010/09/06/bc-gets-tough-on-drinking-and-driving/
Oh and the RCMP would never abuse these new laws, no never.....
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Drunk drivers have been killing about a 9/11 worth of Americans every couple months since the 1960s. Given the extent to which we've allowed the government to invade our privacy in ineffective ways in the name of protecting us from terrorism, I'm happy to see them do something genuinely effective against a problem that's about a hundred times worse than terrorism.
And the problem is, all politicians are too big of pussies to rein them in. Their eventual goal is 0% legal BAC and probably after that, a complete prohibition on alcohol at all. And you know what? I think they'll eventually get it. Baby steps. It's been going on for decades.
No, I don't condone drunk driving. I'm sorry people get hurt and die. But at some point, you have to stand up and say, I think our system is OK as-is.
Why not just force them to take the damn breathalyzer rather than jabbing them with a needle? Do they have an RN there for that, or does Barney Fife take a crack at it?
One step closer to Judge Dread. Why not cut the act and make the police judges.
I was under the impression that a refusal to take a breathalyzer in most states landed you in jail until your blood was drawn. That's how it is here in MN.
In Minnesota it is a separate crime to refuse to a blood, urine, or intoxilyzer 5000 test after being read the implied consent advisory. This is almost exclusively done at a place of detention. If you give them the finger they charge you with refusing to take the test. They can not forcibly take blood without a warrant unless there is an accident involving a fatality (or one of the other few exceptions). Minnesota law says if the test is lawfully refused then a test must not be given. IANAL but i suspect they would have to adjust this statute in order to force blood draws on people who refused, at least in Minnesota.
See MN SS 159A.51 and 169A.52 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=169A.51 & https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=169A.52
my sig depressingly relevant, again
weinersmith
I hate the nanny state.
http://nwbagpipes.com/
.....they would beat you down; then you would wake up in the drunk tank in a pool of blood and vomit; then there's the disheveled shuffle where you, your toxic hangover and your black eye wobble in front of a judge.
Happy New Year to You and Yours!
Hebrews 11:8
Jeremiah 33:3
why not just make cops judges, call it cost cutting.
Don't wanna be an American idiot!
I demand my Constitutional right to kill as many people as I want while drink driving - how dare you investigate me!
nobody riding in the back seats of taxis has ever been administered a breath test and issued a DUI or DWI. this will get -100 because the alkies are running slashdot now.
Things like DUI checkpoints are sheer laziness and serve no purpose but to terrorize the populous. Drunk driving, like so many other things, need to be punished based on harm done, not on the presumption that harm might be done. If someone is driving recklessly,pull them over and, if they are in no condition to drive, take them away. I think we would have much happier roads if drivers could be removed based on the real dangers of reckless driving rather than the presumed dangers of being under the influence.
The SCOTUS has ruled that cars that are not accesible to suspects need warrants. Many conservatives still believe in the bill of rights. Unfortunately some fake conservatives, like the one's now ruling Texas, seem to want to ignore those that prevent them from building a bloated and unnecessarily intrusive central government.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mr38/1308847889/
http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&title=portable_backscatter_technology_zbv_and_&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
and now this? I don't think Nazi Germany was going around giving people cancer, forcing blood tests on the street and installing guard towers in shopping center parking lots.
Sure, we aren't singling out Jews and Gays, but isn't that in a way EVEN WORSE?
We're ALL expendable in this country now. Unless you have a private jet, and even then you might still get hit with the cancer gun when you're in your limo. Is there a good country to move to and get away from this? I'm dead serious: I want out. My country has fallen into a full on police state, and I'm ready to start swimming.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
"Respect my authoritah!"
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
Do it the way we have been successfully doing it here in Victoria, Australia for over two decades. Random breath testing, either preliminary testing performed by ANY cop doing ANY stop using a hand held device, or process an entire stream of traffic using one of thirty-odd 'booze buses', each equipped with several cops who breath test everybody, AND can also perform the second stage (analytical) breath test on site (in the specially equipped bus). Yeah, you CAN refuse a breath test, that's easy, but you're then charged with refusing to take a breath test which carries the same penalty as if you blew the end off the range!! No we don't enforce 'mandatory taking of blood', after all that would be considered a deprivation of a citizen's rights in some enlightened cultures. But refusal = guilty, it's your choice!! Also for the past few years the booze buses are being converted to booze/drugs buses and a saliva test is used to check drivers for cannabis or amphetamine use. Some may scream of invasion of privacy, but the statistics clearly reflect the good that is done by this initiative. Road fatalities have fallen by 2/3!!! Injuries have fallen a similar amount. Stavros_Oz, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
In most cases, you are very vulnerable in your car: Your identity is available via license plate, and driving in a car is not a right, but a privilege.
Posted by timothy on Fri Dec 31
Says it all for the quality of slashdot editing.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Refusing to take a brethalyzer test is a constitutional right under the 5th amendment
Courts are almost never willing to extend the privilege against self-incrimination to the collection of ordinary physical evidence - hair, fingerprints, blood samples and so on - paricularly when the procedure is non-invasive - and least of all when you look and smell as drunk as a skunk.
This is not even remotely surprising to me, and doesn't even phase me.
Here in Arizona, it's a state law that if you refuse a field sobriety test for any reason, it's an automatic 1 year driver's license suspension, even if you are otherwise in the clear. And judges are but a phone call away.
This makes me glad that I live in Washington State, where *any* checkpoint is illegal under the Washington state constitution. The one exception is CBP, which (I think) argues that they aren't subject to the state's constitution, even when operating well within the state (not just at the border).
Well if uniformed tax collectors are going to fish, it might as well be in Florida.
It seems the US is no longer the land of the free...
It is to be seen if it is still the home of the brave.
Me I am not in the US, so I'm buying popcorn.
I keep hearing about people with up to 30+ DUI's and they still have a license. Third time should be a perminate loss of license. If they are caught driving without a license because of DUI's then cease the car. Make the penalties severe enough that everyone thinks twice. I lost a good friend to a drunk driver and after all these years they still don't have severe enough penalties. Simply considering everyone drunk is a waste of resources. 9 times out of 10 if some one gets a DUI it isn't their first. Focus on those likely to be guilty than going after those likely to be innocent. How about running plates and testing everyone with a DUI instead of all the ones unlikely to be drunk? If some one is driving erratic then test them but random tests are a waste and illegal.
In Missouri, if you refuse the breath test, you are automatically guilty of a DWI, regardless of your blood alcohol. However, you do have a right to talk to your attorney before taking the test.
...is assault and battery. Just because a judge says it's OK doesn't make it right. If they want to take away your license for refusing a test, that's fine. That's their right. It's the most basic of human rights to NOT have needles forcibly stuck into you by the government. Anyone that does that to another person is a criminal of the worst kind (right up there with torturers and terrorists).
Does it bother anyone else that the Civil Claims Administrator at Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office is sock puppeting as a member of Mother Against Drunk Driving in this article? I mean, it seems like the county has a vested interest in seeing this revenue stream begin over and beyond Ms. Unfried's cover within MADD's exaggerated punitive stances.
If there were a better alternative, I'd go there.
The trained drunks are really good at basic baseline driving. It is REALLY hard to catch them.
But give the trained drunk one glitch in his driving situation--one unexpected thing--and that sorry bastard becomes a KILLER.
Here in Canada, depending on the province, you are automatically presumed guilty of DUI if you refuse the breath test.
The prisoner has rights! There is a `'no refusal' checkpoint judge,' where is the `'no refusal' checkpoint defense lawyer?'
On the FL license it already states, "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law."
My Minnesota experience was hilarious. While at a bar somewhere in Duluth, I was outside having a smoke when a cop car pulled up. The cop got out, and let a guy out of the back that looked like he got beat up pretty good. The cop told the guy to have a good one, and the guy thanked the cop for the ride and went inside.
So, when in Minnesota, if you're too drunk to drive to the next bar, get a ride from the cops.
"Lame" - Galaxar
Consider it at face value instead of as the thin end of the wedge designed to take all the rights of Americans away. You've already had a pretty thick wedge driven in hard with the TSA grope squads, so go chasing after that and let the cops get a few more drunks off the road. Perhaps this is as it says it is, and merely closing a loophole.
For one thing it works in a very similar way in other many other democratic countries and has not led to losing "freedoms that many great men have fought and died for". Get a grip and think about what those freedoms were and what those great men would probably really think about the situation.
A speech given outlining a history of DUI, how the supreme court has ruled on DUI vs the Constitution, and a little of the technical reasons why breathalyzers are bogus: http://drunkdrivingdefense.com/general/lawrence-taylor.htm
Refusing to take a brethalyzer test is a constitutional right under the 5th amendment
Courts are almost never willing to extend the privilege against self-incrimination to the collection of ordinary physical evidence - hair, fingerprints, blood samples and so on - paricularly when the procedure is non-invasive - and least of all when you look and smell as drunk as a skunk.
You are very much in your right to refuse a brethalyzer test. The courts have upheld that time and again. However, since you do not have a constitutional right to drive, the courts have also held that states are free to revoke your privilege to drive if you refuse to take the test.
Why don't people understand that?
They execute people for drunk driving.
Half powder, no exit wound == less mess.
Curious this is hitting the wires just as the TSA Aiport search furor is fading. Maybe it was delayed. There's not much difference between the two -- in both cases many innocents are being hassled, very specifically to create deterrence through fear, precisely what the US 4th Amend. was written against.
Oddly, the road dragnet will catch more violators than the airports ever will, yet these officials seem more concerned with preserving rights. I guess they know they will have to justify themselves in court, while the TSA has yet to be brought to heel. I think Schneier is trying
I worry when they start naming side arms as "Law Givers."
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
You could refuse an alcohol test? WTF! Seriously something wrong there - and now people complain because what? The "right" to refuse to be tested for being drunk while driving has been taken away? The only ludicrous part about this is that the presence of a judge is required to make testing possible.
In my country (where I drink, and catch a cab home) face-palm is my reaction to the idea that police can't alcohol test people driving out of a pub carpark - but face-palm doesn't cover my reaction to discovering on a recent trip to the US, that in a state where driving whilst drunk, and/or driving with an open alcoholic drink container in the vehicle *is* illegal... I can drive-in to a roadside stand, buy, and consume, a refreshing frozen daquiri without leaving my vehicle.
Drunk driving laws are some of the most bizarre, irrational laws on the books. If a person is intoxicated, drives home and arrives without incident, there is no victim. The laws are predicated upon "probability", and it's tantamount to saying "statistically, left-handed people are slightly more likely to commit crimes, therefore we should pre-emptively jail them." (I made that up for the sake of illustration; my apologies to all the lefty-freaks).
According to MADD (a rather dubious organization at best), 10,839 will die due to drunken driving in 2010 (http://www.madd.org/statistics/). Now, I'm no fan of people dying, and if you're one of those 10,839 it sucks to be you, but inconveniencing hundreds of thousands of motorists with what should be unconstitutional search and seizure (the Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz case, in which the SCOTUS found DUI checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment, but not enough to really bother with, because the "substantial government interest" warranted the constitutional violations, is clearly an incorrect decision) ain't right.
To put that number in context, it represents somewhere around 0.003613% of the population. More than three times as many people killed themselves in 2005 (http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html#2005). 15,000 people were murdered in 2009; 89,000 were raped; 806,843 were assaulted (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm). And yet often 10 or more police officers per instance spend hours stopping every car, without any probable cause. Beyond the farce of a criminal law based on probability, it is a horrible misuse of resources. It's right up there with all the "think of the children" things one mustn't question in polite society.
So give the cops an alternative? Do we just get rid of the BAC Test? How about we just ask the driver in question "Are you too drunk or impaired to drive?" and if they say "No", the cops just let them go? If you were Dictator for the Day how would you change the BAC Test/Drunk Driving Laws so they are fair and just for everyone.
Once again we have the incredibly weird "What would Hitler do?" obsession. It's only a step away from jumping up and saying "look at that man, he's drinking his coffee the same way Hitler would".
I see posts like the above as either a nasty little attempt at emotional manipulation or a sign of chronic mental illness. I think it is the former so I shall call you a manipulative liar lower than scum at a sewerage treatment works who is happy to dance on the graves of millions to push his trivial little point instead of merely a madman.
It's posts like the above that make it impossible to discuss many things rationally here.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1262518
Title: "Jehovah's Witnesses and human tissue donation."
Abstract: "Because of their religious beliefs members of the Jehovah's Witnesses sect do not permit human tissue donation, not even such a routine and life-saving procedure as blood transfusion. A group of 30 adult Jehovah's Witnesses was compared with groups of donors and nondonors on a variety of personality measures. Donor status is associated with a well-integrated body image and acceptance of mortality, while nondonor status correlates with a less-well-integrated body image, concern about body integrity, and anxiety about death. However, while Jehovah's Witnesses vigorously oppose human tissue donation they appear to do so on strong religious grounds rather than because of personal anxiety and thus are dissimilar to non-donors at large."
Sure seems like another church could be slightly less strenuous on the same grounds, perhaps by adding the word "involuntary"... anyone else thinks the Pastafarians should add this doctrine to their cannon? Just Saying...
-- Terry
The SCOTUS ruled (6-3) these roadblocks do indeed violate the Fourth Amendment (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz), but that's OK because the government has a "substantial government interest" to reduce drunk driving. It is a very wrong and scary decision - imagine applying that logic to other constitutional protections: "It's OK to suppress free speech because the government has a 'substantial government interest' in keep things peaceful"; "It is OK to ignore due process because the government has a 'substantial government interest' in reducing crime."
That idea used to sound better back when refusing to be searched wasn't considered "probable cause".
Refusal to be searched is not probable cause. Sample decision:
United States v. Fuentes (1997, Ninth Circuit): "Mere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause."
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Will the police still proceed with the blood draw? If the police proceed and the appellate court decides that it was a violation of your civil rights, does the evidence just get tossed? Does tort law enable you to sue the police department for damages?
Maybe they should start carting an appellate judge's rubber stamp too.
If there is an officer giving testimony against the driver and a judge hearing the case and issuing a judgement,that sounds like an ad hoc court proceeding. In that case, couldn't the driver request a lawyer? The driver should have some right to representation as anyone else in court.
I really think you hold a distorted view of how U.S. citizens view things.
We're pretty evenly divided up between those who are BEGGING for more socialism in our government, and those who understand perfectly well that other forms of government are in a "functional, working" form despite being examples of "democratic socialism" YET don't want that for OUR government.
(I consider myself in the later of those 2 camps, BTW.)
The biggest problem we've got in today's USA? Government has grown too big and powerful, and it doesn't really matter which of the two major parties has a candidate in political office. Both of them are going to make political decisions that are #1. self-serving in some manner, and #2. increase the size and scope of government's control over its citizenry. The "pro socialism" camp out there doesn't even necessarily realize that's what they want. They simply like to vote in favor of any govt. program that promises it will do something for the "common man", the "poor", or will "penalize the rich" in some manner. In reality though - that pretty much gets translated to socialist policies each and every time. Meanwhile, anything promising to "level the playing field" by taking from the rich to give to the poor? There are plenty of loopholes in it that ensure any friends of politicians are exempted, and if anything? It selectively penalizes emerging competitors to companies in the favor of the people "calling the shots".
What you refer to as the "whole gun thing" is simply a case of many of us trying to retain a basic right to keep and bear arms that was specifically written in our Constitution. Again, if you're a fan of "democratic socialism", I don't really expect you to understand.... but it's a prime example of us valuing individual rights of people over some fuzzy, over-arching concept that the nation will be a "safer place" if people are prevented from possessing or using a certain type of personal property.
Linda G Unfried
626 Druid Hills Rd
Temple Terrace, FL 33617-3861
(813) 980-0051
Age: 60-64
Household: Karl L Unfried
You mean to say that in your fucked up country, people can refuse breathalyser tests when pulled over? I'm even more glad I live somewhere relatively sane now.
Set up some cones on street in say a sharp s-turn shape that no drunk person could possibly navigate. If you fail to drive through without knocking down a cone or two, you've got your probable cause.
Posted by timothy on 2011-01-01 1:02
from the ends-justify-the-means dept.
schwit1 writes "With New Year's Eve only days away,
Keep it up boys! Keep pushing. Push, push push.
In this game the winner is not obvious in the beginning.
I'll just sit here and read up on the French Revolution.
What was it that they used? Guillotine?
When George W. Bush said your constitution is just a God damn piece of paper, the rest of you really took it to heart.
When alcohol related driving deaths represents 40% of all driving fatalities (in the US, in 2006), then it seems we're right up against the defining line of what is reasonable and what is not. Does increasing that percentage to, say, 99% then pass the test of what is/is not reasonable?
That's advocating the devil's position: Personally, I'd rather take the route where being convicted of a DUI ends permanently one's legal ability to drive. One strike you're out.
damaged by dogma
Am I the only one worried about escalation here? Cops start bringing judges to roadblocks, and drunk drivers start carpooling with Supreme Court justices. Where will the madness end?
WTF? Driving is a privilege, not a right, not even in the US. You'll need a licence for it, and in addition you'll choose to accept certain rules and regulations by choosing to drive.
In any sensible jurisdiction, if you choose to drive, you'll accept you could be stopped and breathtested at any time and if you refuse, you'll be, and you should be, automatically subject to a blood test.
If you don't like the breathalysing, then don't drive. As simply as that. This has nothing to do with being a police state.
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
Just ask for an attorney to be present.
The whole issue here is the implied consent, not having judges on site (which is what people here seem to be flipping out over).
These work like a normal DUI checkpoint. Most people have been through them. They have the road blocked, you drive up, they ask for you license. When you hand it to them they smell your breath and the car and shine a flashlight into your eyes to see how they dilate. If any of those offer probably cause they ask you to pull over and go through a sobriety check. Failing that they generally give a breathalyzer test and failing that you get arrested. You, through the fifth amendment, have a right to voluntarily refuse. They, through how our legal system work, then have a right to request a judge review the case and issue a warrant, usually for a blood test as you have no physical control of that (no warrant could make you blow through the tube hard). All of that is perfectly legal and has been since the US was first founded and, IMO is just fine.
Now, people who drive drunk often have tricks, most do not work. One of them that might maybe work is to simply refuse everything and wait for a judge to be consulted, review the case, issue the warrant, get a medical technician down there, and draw blood. A process that can even take a couple of hours on busy nights. During that time you metabolize alcohol and have a chance to fall below the legal limit, especially if you were barely over the limit to begin with.
The *only* difference is that the Judge and medical worker are on site. If, as stated in some of these articles Florida has some "implied consent" then the issue is there, not with this type of checkpoint. They could have a drunk tank collect up people, drive the to the county building, issue the warrants, and take blood already on the simple refusal. This isn't a change in law or a change in practice, it is a change in the amount of time needed. They make the argument (and again, this part is *not* new by any means) that by accepting your drivers license that you have already pre-agreed to take a breathalyzer test any time, anywhere, and for any reason. Not really sure though why you can't suddenly decide that to not be the case as you can certainly decide in a question by question case to exercise your fifth amendment rights, further the fourth amendment isn't a tiny one either and is fairly explicit about refusal not being evidence for a warrant. Obviously given the amount of time this has been in effect it either hasn't been challenged or has and some crazy judge found it constitutional. I suspect that a constitutional fight against an "implied consent" would win (but, as we have seen with our current courts the constitution is seen as a "living document" where the bigger question is can you rationalize it to say what you want it too so who knows), I suspect they know that, and like many other crappy laws they only enforce in places that they know they would not loose.
As for the Judge on site, many other states do them and its a pretty good idea. In most states they can't detain for refusal of the breathalyzer unless they have fairly strong probable cause - basically if they would have detained you and gotten blood before they still can. If the police have probable cause to require testing and given that the most accurate gathering of facts will occur this way it is quite within the intents of our judiciary system to do this. Further with the Judge on site they can personally oversee the idea of probable cause and the treatment of the detainees by the police. Lastly it certainly works well on the whole "speedy justice system". For everyone but the person that is only slightly over the legal limit who would have gotten away with it this is a win. There isn't a constitutional argument that it is his right for a slow gathering of facts simply because that would favor them.
I would bet Florida is on shaky grounds with it not because of the judge on site, but because implied consent is, well, stupid. Having a Judge on site is a pretty good idea IMO.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
I believe a refusal to take a test is equivalent to a plea of guilty in Florida. I don't know if that only relates to drunk driving penalties or whether that extends into convictions for hit and run or traffic homicide while drunk driving. But at the very least it is expensive already for a DUI conviction and insurance companies get a great shot at a drunk driver's wallet for years to follow.
Fighter jets aren't public. They are owned by the military. Roads are public.
Roads are owned by the government, and thus are public.
Fighter jets are owned by the military, which is a part of the government, and thus are public.
I do not need a license to use the swings at a public park or to watch a concert on public tv. I don't need a license to visit a public museum or ride public transportation.
That's all true, but there is nothing in the use of those services that could be a significant threat to public safety; driving a car irresponsibly could be a significant threat to public safety, thus why a license is required to use one.
They have vikings, overpriced beer, a crappy economy, beautiful scenery and beautiful women.
That's 3 vs. 2 in favor of. Iceland, I say.
Really, this is why the process exists. Talk to your legislators, Floridians.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
File a bug on that, would you? Severity CRITICAL.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I remember, some 20 years ago, driving around with my dad in Florida, and running into a police "checkpoint". I'm still not sure what the reasoning was, it was more of a, "Can I see your license/registration/proof of insurance please?" Then they'd wave you on. I guess it was either a "DUI checkpoint" where they were checking for people who smelled of booze, or maybe an "insurance checkpoint", but they definitely asked for every bit of road-related documentation. I remember seeing them a couple of other times, too...and if you pulled a u-turn when you saw the road was blocked ahead, they had spare cruisers sitting there waiting to chase you down. I haven't seen anything similar in years, though.
(In the end, they gigged my dad for having an expired license plate...he had gotten his renewal sticker in the mail, but forgot to put it in the car/on the license plate, so technically his registration was out of date by a month or two. I forget if he managed to get a reduced fine by proving that he had renewed, just forgot, or if he got to pay the full fine. He wasn't pleased.)
Captcha: compel
If you are forced to take a breathalyzer, immediately take your own blood, label it and date it. Have the officer sign off on it and call your lawyer -- before the breathalyzer.
If you blow a false positive, at least you have something to bring to court.
They won't do anything about that though, since that would be political suicide.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The police always laud their catching of X number of "drunk drivers" but I wonder how many innocent people are subjected to (temporary) detention and invasive searches (aptitude tests, breathalyzers, urine/blood tests) to catch how many "drunk drivers". I would guess that the overall numbers are quite high (50 innocents/1 DD). Would it be acceptable to trash 10 innocent peoples homes (I've heard more than a few horror stories from people who come home to their home ripped apart and find out that the police served the search warrant on the wrong address) to catch one robber? Why do we allow such an invasive and blatantly unconstitutional acts when there is so little to gain? Drunk drivers deserve punishment but not at the cost of all of our rights.
The truth is that most people with a few drinks in them are over the legal limit. The second truth is that they're perfectly capable of driving where they're going.
When the government first came up with the idea of drunk driving laws, they asked the AMA to give them a guideline on at what BAC they felt someone would be impaired behind the wheel. The answer? A BAC of .14.
Of course the anti drinking...errr...anti drunk driving folks started there and worked their way down to .08 and in some places, .05.
What most average joes dont understand is that moderate social drinking is technically illegal. And those couplea beers after work could get your license suspended, a little jail time, bail, car towing, lawyers, court fees, 'drunk driving school' fees, etc, etc. Its quite the cottage industry. And you might lose your job or have a hard time finding a new one, certainly your choices will be limited. And you will probably lose any security clearances. Of course, if you didnt have a drinking problem before your DUI arrest, you just might after the conviction and the costs pretty much wreck your life.
THAT'S the problem with these checkpoints, is that they're not nabbing the blind drunk jackass thats going to kill a bus full of nuns and orphans, they're going to catch everyone who just had a few drinks after work or at a party, and fark their lives up. They werent swerving or wandering out of the lane, failing to stop, speeding while laying on the hood drinking a fifth of jack daniels firing off a pistol in the air. They were just a little over an arbitrary limit that doesnt mean anything, measured by a machine that cant accurately assess much of anything. Particularly with these sorts of penalties.
Of course, I'm sort of all for paying a price for what you actually do wrong and any damages caused, not for penalizing you for what you might do.
See http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r25242764-Mobile-guard-towers-at-Wal-Mart-and-Target-WTH- for videos and a discussion.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I understand the reason, but what's next?
Judges traveling with the police and instantly writing whatever warrant is needed on the spot?
We could just roll them into a judicial police force in that case... sort of like Judge Dredd?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
> If a cop asks you to take a breathalyzer test you should ask to see the calibration sticker. No up to date cal, no good. Then ask him to explain how the device works, in detail. His ignorance of the device will be important should you end up in court over the issue.
But refusing itself may be a crime, so be careful there, too. You need some kind of admissible evidence that you weren't drunk and they make that pretty hard to get. Any time someone gets off on a conviction (e.g. because they were innocent), they have a dozen other things to get you with.
The best advice I can give is to drink at home or take a cab. And even then, you'd best avoid public intoxication. Oh, and don't sit up front. Also, don't be in the car alone while it's running. The designated driver damn well better keep the keys on his person. Yeah, just having the keys to the car is enough to get you in trouble when you're drunk. You don't actually have to drive or even intend to drive.
Fortunately for me, I simply don't like drinking. I've never even had enough to get drunk.
The really funny thing is that in the state of Florida, the company that provides the breathalysers refuses to turn over the source code to allow defense attorneys to show exactly how they are calibrated. So if you agree to a breathalyser test, you can have the results thrown out once your attorney tries to subpoena the source code. Then all the state attorney has is the officer's testimony as to how intoxicated you were.
See how you like it when the jackboot of government aggression is on someone else's foot?
SoftwareLiberationFront.org
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34719276
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34647708
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34665368
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924664&cid=34669668
Don't listen to "pwuffesuh haiwypheet". He's only an ITT Tech student.
That's not how it works in Florida. Except for certain administrative (non-criminal) violations like minors drinking alcohol, you can't be given a breath test unless you are already under arrest for DUI. Therefore, if you are being offered the breath test and you refuse, you are already under arrest for DUI. A law enforcement officer has found probable cause to arrest you for DUI. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that a judge could issue a warrant to conduct some sort of chemical test on your person since you are already under arrest for DUI. Other states have different laws and rules on breath tests. This is how it works in Florida. Questions about separation of powers aside, if you don't want a judge to issue a warrant for your blood, I'd suggest not getting arrested for DUI. The best bet would be not to drink alcohol and drive while impaired.
You may not be suggesting that but the AC you are complimenting can most definitely be summed up with what I wrote. For example this bullshit over a breath test - "letting a few drunk drivers slip, as bad as that is, is an acceptable cost to keeping your civil liberties intact". Apply it to the TSA grope squad and he may have a point, but it this instance it is just pure overblown emotive bullshit.
To put the the faux patriotism arguments in perspective: it's calling in the spirit of Paul Revere to hide that it's really about arguing for Benedict Arnold.
You mean in most states of america, you can just refuse to be breath tested!? And they'll just let you drive off!?!! What's the point of trying to prevent DUI if you allow drunks to refuse the test?
Here in QLD Australia, if you refuse to have your breath tested, then you get exactly the same ticket as if you were over the maximum possible drink driving penalty. The wording is basically:
"If your BAC [blood alcohol content] is higher than 0.05% but lower than 0.15% [then you get the minimum penalty]. If your BAC is higher than 0.15% or you fail to provide a specimen of breath or blood [say good bye to your drivers license]"
This already appears mandatory in wa state. I was pulled over, not given solid reason why, detained, not offered breath test, asked (in a dirty police station) if I would do a blood test, said I preferred not to, told I would loose my license for a year, then said well I'll do a blood test then, told it was too late, jailed for 5 days...now, case pending, awaiting the courts to acknowledge error. Good luck Florida.
Here the offence for driving whilst influenced by alcohol has been revised to be "Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol" which in the jurisdiction is 0.05 for normal drivers, 0.0 for provisionally licenced drivers (recently licenced ones) and variously for other categories of drivers like Taxis and Trucks.
As a result the offence is not a subjective one about onces capacities to drive but rather just the amount of alcohol in your blood.
As a consequence, the application of "Random Breath Tests" or RBT is a fundamental part of driving. The police require no warrant to randomly sample the driving populace for testing their breath for the presence of alcohol. A result in excess of the PCA means a test at a more accurate machine and subsequently a blood test if a driver refuses the breath test.
As a driver, my privacy is not invaded, I am not "targeted by the state" but rather a part of the duties attached to my _licence_ to operate a motor vehicle is the requirement to drive with less than the PCA in my blood. End of story.
You USA folk need to get clear on the distinction between rights and duties, one cannot have one without the other.
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
Any chance someone could explain how this works in Florida at present? I'm trying to work out what the point would be of alcohol testing if anyone who is likely to be over the limit can refuse to take the test...
Virtually serving coffee
They're not searching your "persons, houses, papers, and effects", they're making sure you're in a fit state to operate a large, potentially lethal, machine in a public place, as required by the driving license that you voluntarily applied for.
Would you let bus drivers drive drunk? Airline pilots? I'm betting you'd be all for revoking their licenses if caught.
One rule for them and a different rule for you...?
No sig today...
Refusal to take a breath test is only probable cause if there is no other reasonable explanation for the refusal.
For instance a civil rights campaigner might refuse. There would be an obvious reason why such a person would refuse. Their refusal is not evidence of probable cause.
There are many other reasons why a person might refuse to take a breath test.
this is why victims are _not_ the best experts on how to deal with a social problem. I believe I've heard spokespersons for MADD say that _anything_ should be done that would reduce drunk driving. Really? _Anything_?
It's much like media discussion of capital punishment. They put the parents of the person murdered in front of a camera to say, "Sure, fry the bastard." Well, duh. But there are _other_ reasons why capital punishment is a bad idea for a society.
What Luke didn't know is that Boss Hogg and Cletus were setting up the road blocks and that Boss Hogg was also the judge.
This is all a bit of drunk driving theater.
You do realise that him giving up trying to educate you doesn't actually count as him being "blown away"?
Only an idiot mistakes exasperation for an admittance of defeat.
What does that have to do with DUI?
In 5 Years, the NAZIs killed 12 million people living inside their own country.
How is the USA like that? That doesn't include the millions killed in actual fighting.
Even pessimistic estimates have the USA killing less than 151K in Iraq and 50K in Afgan wars. OTOH, any killing is bad and should be avoided - especially when the cause - like DUI - can be prevented.
I'm concerned about the judges being on-site. It seems like a very clear separation of powers violation. Doesn't a judge need to be in a court house to be considered a judge? Can a judge rule from a church instead - from his home? The wheels of justice need to move slowly - if the judge is there, where's the right to legal representation for the alleged criminal?
BTW, about 35K people die every year on roads in the USA. That number used to be 50K 10 yrs ago, so all the airbags and anti-lock breaks appear to be working.
This is specifically about checkpoints where people are arbitrarily asked to take a test whether or not they appear to be intoxicated. That's not the same as being pulled over because you were driving erratically or the police have other reason to suspect you were drinking. In the this case it's random. You could be stone cold sober and be asked to take a test. Refuse and the onsite judge orders your blood taken.
Very different things.
Perhaps the cops could sit outside the bars and stop people from driving drunk in the first place.
But you know, why would they want to actually prevent drunk driving when they can make a lot more money convicting people who have already done it.
:T:R:A:N:S:
http://galvestondailynews.com/story/201834 The prosecutor and deputy were smart and refused the breath test.
Alcohol is more of a threat to our well being and safety than any terrorist ever could be.
If Osama Bin Laden wants to kill Americans... he should move here and open a bar.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
This story isn't really about drunk driving; it's about judges issuing warrants in situations where neither the judge nor the cops asking him, have any reason to even vaguely suspect that a crime may have happened. The drunk driving angle is just there to get the sympathy and support of people like you.
Do you realize that the "anti-terrorism" crap was justified as being merely an extension of non-terrorism laws? PATRIOT was sold as letting the cops do to suspected terrorists, what they get to do to suspect drug traffickers or mobsters. There was a time when going after drug traffickers was popular too (like going after drunk driving is) which is why people allowed that. Except this time we're paving the way for something even more radical, getting rid of the "suspected" part.
"I don't understand why you're resisting the idea immediately issuing warrants for randomly-selected people who don't disclose their SSD contents; we've been doing the same thing in the hopes of possibly catching drunk drivers for years; this just brings anti-piracy sweeps in line with the rest of long-established laws." That's what they're going to say when you complain about PATRIOT3.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Soon they won't need a breathalyzer. They'll just be able to point something at you to see your blood alcohol content. Then instead of them searching something that is inside of you (your breath) they will be looking at something you put in the public domain (your odor). At that point is it illegal search and seizure? Or is it the same as an officer noting erratic driving and pulling you over for that?
Aren't more than half of the DUI convictions by repeat offenders? Can we work this at the sentencing phase after a fair trial? Take away more licenses or stiffer punishments or something, but do it *after* a proper trial. Checkpoints are just too much like, well, checkpoints.
The link in your sig was very enlightening. If I had mod points you get +6.
no comment
Kenny Rogers called.
He says you can't outrun the Long Arm of the Law.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
+1 Wrinkle in Time
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I know here in Pennsylvania, when you sign your license, agree to what they called Informed Consent.
So by putting your signature on a license, if the police ask you to take a Breathalyzer or blood test, you have to, or it's an admission of guilt and it's the same penalty as a DUI. It's not infringing on your rights when they ask you, since you already signed them away.
After all, being able to drive isn't a right. The roads are owned by the state or municipality, and to use them you have to agree to follow their rules.
This is all cute with the streamlining and everything, but where's the service angle? Can we streamline the speeding tickets so that I can pay with my credit card when they pull me over? Can I file for defensive driving or deferred adjudication at the time I'm pulled over also? These are the tell tale indicators that the state has stepped over the line. If we're going to streamline, regardless of the constitutionality of the "onsite judge", then it better include better service for citizens, not just stronger prosecution for "criminals"
What the shit?
Americans can refuse a breath test?
That's stupid. Time to amend that constitution of yours then I suppose.
What I've written on the other thread is probably far more clear.
I'm an American in South Korea. They do random roadblocks (although mostly they just knock on your car window while stopped at a light) and make everyone blow into a cell phone sized breathalyzer. No one refuses, bitches or claims their rights are violated because...what right do you really have to drive drunk? Drunks get caught and go to jail. It works well and I hesitate to drive after drinking. Here's the really cool part...I could take a taxi, but even cheaper is a "proxy driver." A person comes to your car and drives you home in it, leaving you and your car at home and no DUI. And it's about 70% of the price of a taxi, which in Korea is already very cheap. I wish that would work in America, but the proxy drivers could make no money...too many wankers would cry about "you scratched my xyz." or some such nonsense and the insurance and bonding in America would make it unfeasible.
You can't prove that... but I can prove, quite easily, that officers in multiple jurisdictions have arrested taxi passengers for public intoxication. As well as (for example) in Austin, walked into a bar and arrested *everyone* for PI; in Virginia, arrested someone for PI for drinking a beer on his porch.
You just have to love the combination of religious zealots, self-righteousness, and authoritarianism.
hairyfeet went to "ITT Tech" for Pete's sake - hairyfeete couldn't educate me on this art & science if his LIFE depended on it:
NOW, By comparison to his "ITT Tech" student status?
I have multiple degrees in the computer sciences, & years of actual published articles or softwares I appeared in respected publications for my work on them & 17++ yrs. of hands-on experience in the trenches from network administration, to programmer-analyst work, to security/forensics experience, professionally...
Somehow? I doubt "ITT TECH MAN", hairyfeet, does! I know he doesn't - I've asked him on that before, & he RAN!
---
SO - FROM YOUR POINTS HERE:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34734160
Each of your "points"?
Quoted & disproved, "point-by-quoted-point" as is my style in blowing away undereducated trolls like yourself, on the value of HOSTS files as an added layered security measure:
"I also personally consider it a public service to point people to solutions [superantispyware.com] that actually [comodo.com] work [malwarebytes.org]" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Saturday January 01, @06:56PM (#34733612)
Yea, they work alright (about as well as you say HOSTS files do) - NOT: Nothing alone is 100% effective:
---
MULTIPLE EVIDENCES OF ANTIVIRUS &/or ANTISPYWARE PROGRAM FAILURES + SHORTCOMINGS:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/win_2000_virus_tests/
http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1839
http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/11/07/1545238.shtml
---
(Want more?)
There is NO WAY THEY CAN KEEP UP WITH NEW MALWARES BEING MADE either... and you say they "work"? See above!
(They're "better than nothing", & I use them myself, for added LAYERED SECURITY - but, I don't put my entire FAITH ON THEM, as you appear to do!)
---
"You have 190,000 to 340,000 infected websites at this very moment and that list will change by the thousands per minute as sites are cleaned, new sites are infected, new vulnerabilities found, etc." - by hairyfeet (841228) on Saturday January 01, @06:56PM (#34733612)
So would "your solutions", see above, on the SAME NOTE!
(Which aren't really "your tools" - you only use the tools of others like a trained chimpanzee, except that I am kept "up-to-date", by the minute, by these reputable sources for HOSTS file data!)
AND, AGAIN? I don't only "just use hosts" - I use this for my "layered security" setup:
---
HOW TO SECURE WINDOWS 2000/XP/SERVER 2003 & even VISTA, + make it "fun to do" using CIS TOOL & beyond:
www.bing.com/search?q="HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP"&go=&form=QBRE
---
It works, and practices the current trend of "layered security", which HOSTS are a part of!
In fact, that guide of MINE?
On 15 forums it's featured on since 2008, w/ over 750,000 views on how to secure a modern Windows setup (making it the MOST viewed in fact, & I stopped checking counts in 2008 + 1 forum it was on went down & lost 1 example of it having over 100,000 views) & has been made a:
---
1.) Sticky/Pinned Thread
2.) Essential Guide
3.) 5/5 star rated
4.) Most Viewed in forums sections its in
Wherever it is featured! Have YOU done the same? No.
---
It even got me PAID for it, @ PCPitstop -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/
See Jan. 2008 (completely unexpected, but in January 2008 it won me a $100 prize there for its content)... That's the "total gamut" of "layered security" I use in addition to the HOSTS file (though I consider IT my "arc reactor core" of that security guide).
etc./et al...
---
"That is the nice thing about math, it doesn't lie or believe in anecdotes." - by hairyfeet (841228) on Saturday January 01, @06:56PM (#34733612)
you're applying semantics and grasping at straws. this thread is not about pubic intoxication.
You are aware that in certain jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia, there is so-called "zero tolerance" for drinking and driving-- which means, you have a glass of wine, you drive home, you're pulled over or stopped at a checkpoint, you tell an officer you drink alcohol at dinner, you go to jail, even if you would have blow "ZERO"?
Your point is logically consistent, but irrelevant and demonstrates that you think my freedoms should be restricted in the name of your zealotry. I should not have to take a cab to not be arrested by your Gestapo. And in response to your zealotry, I'm not "grasping at straws." I'm concluding that the only way for freedom-loving Americans to deal with fools such as you and the 'MADD' woman here, begins at the ballot box, but is rapidly proceeding to the need for the bullet box.
Tolerance only goes so far-- which is to say, if your intent is to restrict my freedom, I'm perfectly willing to accept that our freedom must be renewed with the blood of patriots from time to time, and that implies putting a knife in your gut if you don't give up in your attempt to restrict the rights of others.
Got the argument? I suspect not.
In my state of Connecticut i will lose my license for 6 months if i refuse. I don't drink and don't plan on ever drinking but, if i get pulled over for that i will refuse.
Won't they also need a licensed phlebotomist on site to draw the blood before you have a chance to sober up?
I got one just last Spring. I hadn't had that much and I bugged out early that night around midnight specifically because I didn't want to drink too much. Finishing my last drink and immediately leaving is what probably did me in. I pulled a left-hand turn into the right-hand lane and a cop who I *saw* whipped in behind me and pulled me over. I wasn't drunk or buzzed, but let me tell you, getting arrested is a humiliating situation and not one I'm all that eager to repeat. But, the system behind it all is what really amazed me. Law enforcement out here has cracked down on traffic offenses to make up for budget shortfalls. If my attorney is to be believed we're talking upwards of 10-15X the number of tickets issued, and just seeing the number of cars pulled over in my town is evidence enough.
But, I lucked out and qualified for a divergence which will wipe my record after one year save no further infractions. However, I'm required to attend a few AA meetings and do community service. *All* of the designated charities and AA are actually thinly veiled Christian organizations. I lucked up on my community service and found a lax IT comrade willing to breeze me through my hours. And, *everyone* gets their hand in your pocket when you get a DUI. You get ripped off by the tow service which does everything they can to sit on your vehicle as long as they can. If you're smart and get a lawyer, he'll hit you up as well. Then, there's your court fees and fines. Plus, your drug tests and the probation officer you have to call in to once a month. It's all really a joke. The law enforcement side is probably more interested in revenue than "public safety", as is the social services side.
One last note. I had a mandatory "drugs/alcohol bad" class with about 20 or so people in attendance. The vast majority were at or barely above the limit here of 0.8. Now, the state wants to lower the limit to 0.6 (I wonder why?).
I get your argument but i was catering to the reality that a lot of people who carelessly abuse alcohol cause injury to others and that once in the process of consuming alcohol, judgement drops exponentially. I drank 4 beers tonight.. I spread them out over 4 hours and drove home quite sober and well below the legal limit. had i done them in brevity or chose to drink liquor in abrupt succession, I would have used a cab.
A: "British law firms". No such thing. Law practitioners in what is now the United Kingdom were required to be sole practitioners until the 19th century. The first law firms in the British Empire were established in the 18th century under the auspices of the Quebec Act (1765) which recognized the pre-existence of legal partnerships and corporations under the French system. Since the Quebec Act resulted in a hybridized civil code and common law system, practitioners of English and Scots law with Quebec-based businesses could do something then unique in the Empire: form limited liability partnerships. Most especially, lawyers were allowed to advocate in spite of not having completed a law education in the City of London, a practice established in 1234, which made it difficult for colonists to become lawyers (and especially advocates). This *ENRAGED* many practitioners of law in North America since (a) there were substantial economies of scale enjoyed by such partnerships and (b) there were tariff advantages within the Colonies. This is not too surprising, since the Quebec Act enraged many people in the 13 colonies (especially allowing Roman Catholics to act as lawyers, judges, and officials) and even caused some friction in the other British colonies in the region (the Law Society of Upper Canada formed in reaction, for example, to advocate for practitioners of English law further up the St Lawrence).
In the reconstruction era, several of the regulators in the various states and in the U.S. began to allow law professionals to form partnerships in similar ways. This was reasonably successful, and the practice spread throughout the USA and back to England (for solicitors only initially) and Scotland.
While several of the authors of the U.S. Constitution held law degrees, and had practised law (usually exclusively in their home colony), and could reasonably be considered "British lawyers" (although more properly English lawyers; the one or two Scots involved also practised English law) at the time of the Revolution, the only thing that could reasonably be called a "British law firm" in the 1770s-1790s were in Quebec and were generally hostile to the Revolution, since the Treaty of Paris was turning out to be a good deal for the former Nouvelle France compared to the chaos, expense, and violence in the 13 colonies to their south.
B: "many of the amendments (including the 4th) were crafted by British law firms"
If you substitute "British law firms" for "English advocates" you are part way there, because much of the Bill of Rights directly reflects the contents of the (English) Bill of Rights 1689, which outlined the rights of Englishmen which many of the Revolutionaries fought for.
The English Bill of Rights in its accusations and claims should remind people of the (U.S.) Bill of Rights -- the first, the second, the third, the fifth and the eighth in particular. However the Fourth Amendment is a novel codification of what was then a rapidly evolving area of statute and case law in England; it was the better part of 50 years before a similar set of rules with respect to warrants and evidence were sufficiently entrenched in English law that future Parliaments would not dare weaken them without at least careful primary legislation (i.e., a "constitutional amendment").
"refusal constituting probable cause" - the Roman Law principle nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare has been in legal force in a modern sense in what is now England since the Englis
I thank my lucky stars that I have a prescription for drugs that have a serious detrimental effect on my driving, I can run over all sorts of folks and it's okay!
In my state if you hit somebody after you've been drinking and they die, it's murder and you get a minimum of 12 years.
Kill someone while you are driving on a legal prescription though and you'll get a max of 2 year.
All of these are examples of stupid laws - I don't care why you killed someone, whether you were high, drunk, medicated or stupid, you should be tried on the result, not the reason. Hate crimes and crimes of passion are the same, stupid and short sighted.
The police are obviously not doing statistical sampling. They have TV cameras and from observation, believe that a car driven by a driver that is being handled in a non-normal way should be checked. I would not want that driver to end up killing or maiming some innocent victim. If you do not want the test, then is it more than likely that you (the individual) has something to hide?
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
You use that word, but I don't think you know what it means.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
This is uncool at many levels. Breathalyzers are known to be very inaccurate (take a sip of a drink, wait 5 mins, blow, get an off the charts reading). Intoxication varies a lot by individual (hence most places use sobriety tests like balance, etc), using only one metric isn't useful. One guy is passing out at .03 (but is legal), but another will be at double that and score above-average on proficiency tests but the law calls him intoxicated? It all depends on where your start point is (granny's driving ability reduced by 75% is different than your ability reduced by 75%), and your body's specifics.
For those of us who actually believe in the 4th amendment, the idea that merely driving through a public access area is enough Probable Cause to be stopped, and refusing an illegal search at that point will result in the police forcibly taking your blood is horrific.
More reason to avoid Florida, America's Wang.
Well-- look, I once had a guy who spent the afternoon drinking at the local pub try to take his lorry home, plowing it into the back of my car when I slowed to turn (he evidently was totally unaware), spinning us three times until we hit a retaining fence and, fortunately, we did not clear the fence nor did our fuel tank explode, though the rear of the car was ripped in two and if the front had been what hit the wall, we likely would have been splattered along it.
I'm not in favor of drunken driving. I'm just in no way convinced that these methods are in any way effective, and I don't trust law enforcement that has a financial or zealotry stake, and whose end seems punative, or anything else than effectively removing impaired drivers from the road.
I'd be perfectly fine if officers showed up at every bar, pub and public establishment that served alcohol, and simply prevented people who are impaired from driving. Makes a lot of sense to me, if they don't abuse people and seek anything but the practical goal.
In the above case, the officer who arrived actually let the lorry driver wait and sober up, before administering a breathalyzer.
I've also lived in a number of jurisdictions where I've seen the bartender literally run out and stop people if they heard they were going to drive after a few drinks-- and in others, where there are plenty of 'random' drunk driving stops, and people getting arrested and charged on pretty flimsy evidence, where it seems to me there's no effective disincentive, because people seem to conclude, "it doesn't really matter if I'm drinking or no, I'm still going to get pulled over and arrested, and my chances are pretty low."
I'm saying this is ineffective and from what I've seen, ripe for abuse of all kinds. Sure, only a fool wants people who might kill someone, on the road. But there's plenty of room, for these things to turn into abuse of citizens and rights, while at the same time, it's darn hard to get the ,multiple offender who gets into a five ton dump after drinking a bottle of vodka-- that happened here in where I am-- and plows into a family of three.
And as I see it, if you're not getting your priorities right, and finding a way to stop the people who are causing the real damage, and instead harassing citizens with ineffective procedure-- then you're somewhere along the spectrum from not doing anything effective, to actually threatening our freedoms and making the problem worse.
In the UK, if you refuse a breath test, they do you for the equivalent of failing it.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
there is a lot of common sense and fairness in your argument but as a self-employed businessman (the highest tax bracket in the US) who has no kids or debt to write-off.... I don't lose a lot of sleep on the fact that some american who would have caused an accident like you described will pay 15 thousand in fines. I wish humans were a smart enough species(in general) to use this as an incentive to call a cab and spend 40 bucks to get home legally.