The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Nobody Expects the [SCOTUS] 5-4 Decision! (Read the OP)
Refusing a breathalyzer, drunk or not, ends up with your license being revoked automatically for (I believe) 1 year in NYS. Don't know about how other states deal with it.
Add to the fact that breathalyzers often are not correctly calibrated by the cops and have an error of margin regarding the number it gives (that is ignored) and can be set off by things like chewing the wrong sort of gum or eating the wrong type of food before blowing into it and most of those things aren't maintained properly or cleaned properly then yeah you're not just testifying against yourself you're testifying against yourself with a handicap basically.
Cite for your assertions about gum/food?
IIRC MythBusters had a whole episode on urban myths about breathalyzers, and found that they are actually extremely accurate.
Refusing a breathalyzer, drunk or not, ends up with your license being revoked automatically for (I believe) 1 year in NYS. Don't know about how other states deal with it.
Add to the fact that breathalyzers often are not correctly calibrated by the cops and have an error of margin regarding the number it gives (that is ignored) and can be set off by things like chewing the wrong sort of gum or eating the wrong type of food before blowing into it and most of those things aren't maintained properly or cleaned properly then yeah you're not just testifying against yourself you're testifying against yourself with a handicap basically.
Cite for your assertions about gum/food?
IIRC MythBusters had a whole episode on urban myths about breathalyzers, and found that they are actually extremely accurate.
Love to see links if anyone has them for studies (other than the TV show :P)
0
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Refusing a breathalyzer, drunk or not, ends up with your license being revoked automatically for (I believe) 1 year in NYS. Don't know about how other states deal with it.
Add to the fact that breathalyzers often are not correctly calibrated by the cops and have an error of margin regarding the number it gives (that is ignored) and can be set off by things like chewing the wrong sort of gum or eating the wrong type of food before blowing into it and most of those things aren't maintained properly or cleaned properly then yeah you're not just testifying against yourself you're testifying against yourself with a handicap basically.
Cite for your assertions about gum/food?
IIRC MythBusters had a whole episode on urban myths about breathalyzers, and found that they are actually extremely accurate.
Love to see links if anyone has them for studies (other than the TV show :P)
Gum doesn't set them off though hand sanitizer can distort readings. I couldn't find anything with a cursory search on either food or cleaning. Storage appears to, at least when properly done, result in really tiny changes in accuracy, but I don't have access to that paper now so I can't really look in more detail.
So recently the court ruled in the McNeely case that blood tests for DUII cases require a warrant be sought in some (but not all) cases, depending on the circumstances.
As I previously stated, at least in my state, this is the normal practice. If you want blood and don't have consent, you get a warrant and do not rely on exigency except in serious crash situations where suspect is about to be taken from the scene for emergency medical treatment, etc. In those cases most police will ask for an "exigency draw" and then go get a warrant and come back and get a warrant-authorized blood draw as well.
So McNeely is not controversial to me at all, and I don't disagree with it (though it's a weird plurality opinion and basically says "each case is judged on its own facts" which isn't always the best guidance for people actually on the street :P)
The cases they granted cert to now are summarized:
The three apparently were chosen because they involve different legal scenarios: in two of the cases, the individuals were convicted for declining to take a test — one a blood test, the other a breath test. In the third case, the individual was convicted of drunk driving after he refused field sobriety tests and then was taken to a hospital for a blood test against his wishes. The Court will be reviewing that individual’s punishment for refusing the field tests — a two-year suspension of his driver’s license — instead of the jail time and fine he got for the drunk-driving conviction.
My gut reaction: Refusal to take a breath test should not be criminal in my opinion and I think the first two plaintiffs may get a favorable decision. I am okay with other punishments for refusing the test (fine, license suspension). The third case is interesting because the court is not going to rule whether he should have been convicted for DUII or whether his refusal should have been used against him, but is only ruling on the non-criminal punishment for refusing the test.
I don't know of case law saying a breath test is testimonial, but it is a search (just like a blood draw or urine test). As I said, in my state the courts recently have gone back and forth on whether it is coercive to tell someone that if they refuse the test, they will be fined and their license suspended. The latest decision (I think) is this: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S060134.pdf A good read if you want to kind of browse through some of the issues in these cases that SCOTUS might be talking about wrt implied consent laws.
Refusing a breathalyzer, drunk or not, ends up with your license being revoked automatically for (I believe) 1 year in NYS. Don't know about how other states deal with it.
Add to the fact that breathalyzers often are not correctly calibrated by the cops and have an error of margin regarding the number it gives (that is ignored) and can be set off by things like chewing the wrong sort of gum or eating the wrong type of food before blowing into it and most of those things aren't maintained properly or cleaned properly then yeah you're not just testifying against yourself you're testifying against yourself with a handicap basically.
Cite for your assertions about gum/food?
IIRC MythBusters had a whole episode on urban myths about breathalyzers, and found that they are actually extremely accurate.
The Mythbusters episode was on ways to "beat" a breath analyzer. For example, the myth of placing a penny under your tongue. All were busted.
Mythbusters did not tackle accuracy issues with the breathalyzer. For example, if I were to take cough syrup with alcohol in it, or eat food with alcohol, immediately prior to the test, it would distort the results. But the distortion will be towards a higher BAC, meaning that the test is conservative. I think in some states you are allowed to request a blood test after a failed breathalyzer, specifically because of these factors.
Refusing a breathalyzer, drunk or not, ends up with your license being revoked automatically for (I believe) 1 year in NYS. Don't know about how other states deal with it.
Add to the fact that breathalyzers often are not correctly calibrated by the cops and have an error of margin regarding the number it gives (that is ignored) and can be set off by things like chewing the wrong sort of gum or eating the wrong type of food before blowing into it and most of those things aren't maintained properly or cleaned properly then yeah you're not just testifying against yourself you're testifying against yourself with a handicap basically.
Cite for your assertions about gum/food?
IIRC MythBusters had a whole episode on urban myths about breathalyzers, and found that they are actually extremely accurate.
The Mythbusters episode was on ways to "beat" a breath analyzer. For example, the myth of placing a penny under your tongue. All were busted.
Mythbusters did not tackle accuracy issues with the breathalyzer. For example, if I were to take cough syrup with alcohol in it, or eat food with alcohol, immediately prior to the test, it would distort the results. But the distortion will be towards a higher BAC, meaning that the test is conservative. I think in some states you are allowed to request a blood test after a failed breathalyzer, specifically because of these factors.
Defense attorneys here can ask for discovery of recent calibration history on the machine, and there are several specific steps/foundational facts that need to be established before you can put the BAC number into evidence.
+3
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Frankly I am not sure how a breathalyzer is not considered a reasonable search in the first place. Its not invasive, its not time consuming, there is a legitimate government interest in keeping drunks not driving, you're participating in a non-protected activity which carries significant risk to livelihood of bystanders.
Doesn't it become unreasonable the minute I need to be coerced to comply. I wonder what would happen if someone invented a way to test BAC using a radar gun.
No, it does not. For instance, police can search your glovebox if its unlocked, or may frisk you if they stop you on the street (to check for weapons). Because the potential for weapons makes such a search reasonable. You cannot refuse those searches and as they are also legal you are being "coerced" into complying.
Okay... hang on. I'm pretty sure you're wrong on this. Without probable cause they're limited to what's in plain sight in your car. Opening a compartment is a search, and requires cause/warrant. Locking it isn't relevant.
Stop and frisk was shut down by the courts as well iirc.
Edit: And that reminds me of the bullshit that is dogs trained to provide probable cause. Or more specifically, that there is literally no level of evidence that will make a court accept that a dog may be signalling because it was told to.
Stop and frisk was shut down but not frisk. You're confusing "have no reason to stop" to "have a reason to stop, such can frisk"
I believe that the same logic supports wingspan searches for cars on stop rather than arrest*(auto's have another specific exception as well but that requires reasonable suspicion )
Nothing prevents a state from having more strict laws/policy, but that is the federal structure as far as i can tell.
OK but if that is the case, why is drawing blood different from checking a glovebox? I think it is pretty clear that jamming a tube down my throat is different from snapping a picture from distance. Not that I know anything about actual jurisprudence.
1) Breathalyzers do not shove anything down your throat, unless technology has backslid quite a bit
<snip>
When I was stopped and breathalized, the police officer just had a short and polite conversation with me while hold a small black handhel device about 2-3cm infront and below my face (in the mic position if that makes sense)
The analogy is see is resisting arrest. Resisting arrest is a criminal activity regardless of whether or not the arrest is legitimate and this has withheld scrutiny by the court (I think).
A ruling that says you cannot be charged for refusing a reasonable search is like saying you cannot be charged for refusing a legitimate arrest (they are even the very same amendment). Once it's ruled that generally the breathalyzer is legit then refusal can be criminal as the state has the power to make that sort of thing criminal.
The analogy is see is resisting arrest. Resisting arrest is a criminal activity regardless of whether or not the arrest is legitimate and this has withheld scrutiny by the court (I think).
A ruling that says you cannot be charged for refusing a reasonable search is like saying you cannot be charged for refusing a legitimate arrest (they are even the very same amendment). Once it's ruled that generally the breathalyzer is legit then refusal can be criminal as the state has the power to make that sort of thing criminal.
Not sure the analogue is all that great here.
Unless there's a massive abuse of breathalyzer testing going on to fuck over people.
Taking the breathalyzer test takes few seconds, while arrest can fuck you over for weeks (plus any side effects like loosing your job).
Though i do think that people should be required to take the bloody test when asked (and if positive, go straight for a blood test, paid by the state).
Well yea, a good analogy is one that, when it breaks, it breaks in the favor of the position you're supporting. Lack of breathalyzer abuse and lack of immediate arrest consequences seem to belie that the states interest needs to be less than it would be in a resisting case.
I gotta be honest with you guys, I'm very uncomfortable with the entire structure we've built upon the idea that Driving Is A Privilege. There are vast swaths of the nation where being unable to drive is tantamount to being sentenced to poverty and dependence.
Driving (on public roads) is (and should be) a priviledge, given to those who have proven their ability drive, and have not shown themselves incapable of using this priviledge responsibly.
+1
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I gotta be honest with you guys, I'm very uncomfortable with the entire structure we've built upon the idea that Driving Is A Privilege. There are vast swaths of the nation where being unable to drive is tantamount to being sentenced to poverty and dependence.
There are many things this applies to, some even moreso than driving, e.g. Healthcare, electricity, running water, telecoms etc.
I gotta be honest with you guys, I'm very uncomfortable with the entire structure we've built upon the idea that Driving Is A Privilege. There are vast swaths of the nation where being unable to drive is tantamount to being sentenced to poverty and dependence.
I'm inclined to agree, though I think it probably needs more active monitoring than we do for most means of exercising our rights.
Unfortunately, automobiles didn't exist back when the bill of rights was written, and some wing of crazies would find a reason to oppose an amendment long enough to kill it.
Edit: I would be hugely in favor of enshrining a "Right to Mobility" that would include, but not be limited to, access to automobiles in places that don't have sufficient public transportation options.
I gotta be honest with you guys, I'm very uncomfortable with the entire structure we've built upon the idea that Driving Is A Privilege. There are vast swaths of the nation where being unable to drive is tantamount to being sentenced to poverty and dependence.
This doesn't change the fact that operating a giant hunk of metal and plastic going at obscene speeds around other people and other giant hunks of metal and plastic going insane speeds is something that can't be done without extensive regulation and enforcement of those regulations.
I gotta be honest with you guys, I'm very uncomfortable with the entire structure we've built upon the idea that Driving Is A Privilege. There are vast swaths of the nation where being unable to drive is tantamount to being sentenced to poverty and dependence.
This doesn't change the fact that operating a giant hunk of metal and plastic going at obscene speeds around other people and other giant hunks of metal and plastic going insane speeds is something that can't be done without extensive regulation and enforcement of those regulations.
This doesn't really bother me, as I'm in favor of that kind of measure with at least one of our other Rights.
I gotta be honest with you guys, I'm very uncomfortable with the entire structure we've built upon the idea that Driving Is A Privilege. There are vast swaths of the nation where being unable to drive is tantamount to being sentenced to poverty and dependence.
There are many things this applies to, some even moreso than driving, e.g. Healthcare, electricity, running water, telecoms etc.
Most, if not all, of those things should be rights. (except driving, driving should not be a right).
The problem is that it is a very short step from making access to a motor vehicle a right to having to provide one.
My main reason why driving a car should not be a right is simply the amount of damage one can do with one if they don't know how to operate it.
As well as difficulty of removing the said right from people who show themselves unable to drive a car responsibly.
Nyysjan on
+1
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited December 2015
I'm the kind of person who thinks the actual test should be more strict and thus not making speed limits go by the worst drivers or whatever. There is no reason I should ever be restricted to 25 MPH on a straight road with full visibility. Or 65 on the highway when no one is around. Not saying I want to be running at 200 MPH but, dammit, I have places to be and I'm not an idiot/bad driver.
/rant over
Edit: Also studies show speed limits do jack shit since a majority of drivers go at speeds they feel comfortable with.
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
I'd be fine with less cars overall (so many terrible drivers) but unless we start making towns in a way that doesn't make them so spread out then I can't say having only public transportation is feasible.
I gotta be honest with you guys, I'm very uncomfortable with the entire structure we've built upon the idea that Driving Is A Privilege. There are vast swaths of the nation where being unable to drive is tantamount to being sentenced to poverty and dependence.
There are many things this applies to, some even moreso than driving, e.g. Healthcare, electricity, running water, telecoms etc.
Most, if not all, of those things should be rights. (except driving, driving should not be a right).
The problem is that it is a very short step from making access to a motor vehicle a right to having to provide one.
My main reason why driving a car should not be a right is simply the amount of damage one can do with one if they don't know how to operate it.
As well as difficulty of removing the said right from people who show themselves unable to drive a car responsibly.
As a counter example, we have firearm ownership guaranteed as a right and that is at least as dangerous. I think Spool's optimal solution, though he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that driving be enshrined as right but still have regulatory and licensing schemes similar to firearm ownership.
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Although if we can get point to point in driverless electric cars it will be a lot less infeasable.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Related: if driving becomes a right, how about issuing one of these to able folks who need transportation? I'll take one! As soon as my dumb state decides it's not a motorcycle and requiring me to wear a helmet in a covered vehicle, ugh...
I gotta be honest with you guys, I'm very uncomfortable with the entire structure we've built upon the idea that Driving Is A Privilege. There are vast swaths of the nation where being unable to drive is tantamount to being sentenced to poverty and dependence.
Sure but even if driving is a right i am not sure that licensing and alcohol testing would unreasonable restrictions.
That being said, if you're going to continue to be a conservative i would be very careful about defining things to be rights because lack of them will sentence you to poverty and dependence. Because then we have education and health care and running water, and all sorts of services for which the government is suddenly obligated to provide to everyone.
Alternately you wreck all forms of regulation. That is, if driving is a right and so we can't have licensing/alcohol testing then what happens when "clean water" is a right? Do we not have the ability to enforce that water is actually clean?
I gotta be honest with you guys, I'm very uncomfortable with the entire structure we've built upon the idea that Driving Is A Privilege. There are vast swaths of the nation where being unable to drive is tantamount to being sentenced to poverty and dependence.
Sure but even if driving is a right i am not sure that licensing and alcohol testing would unreasonable restrictions.
That being said, if you're going to continue to be a conservative i would be very careful about defining things to be rights because lack of them will sentence you to poverty and dependence. Because then we have education and health care and running water, and all sorts of services for which the government is suddenly obligated to provide to everyone.
Well, and jobs. Not having one of those will sentence you to poverty and dependence pretty much everywhere.
I gotta be honest with you guys, I'm very uncomfortable with the entire structure we've built upon the idea that Driving Is A Privilege. There are vast swaths of the nation where being unable to drive is tantamount to being sentenced to poverty and dependence.
Well, for one, driving is a privilege. Full stop. And given your stance on health care as a "right" I'm a little surprised by this attitude. No one is entitled to operate heavy machinery free with zero regulation.
I'm the kind of person who thinks the actual test should be more strict and thus not making speed limits go by the worst drivers or whatever. There is no reason I should ever be restricted to 25 MPH on a straight road with full visibility. Or 65 on the highway when no one is around. Not saying I want to be running at 200 MPH but, dammit, I have places to be and I'm not an idiot/bad driver.
/rant over
Edit: Also studies show speed limits do jack shit since a majority of drivers go at speeds they feel comfortable with.
If you hit me while driving ~30mph there is a better than even chance that I will only be injured. If you hit me while driving ~40mph I will die.
0
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Although if we can get point to point in driverless electric cars it will be a lot less infeasable.
Or better public transportation. I wish we had a proper railway system then the half-a--ed "Amtrak in a handful of areas and freight trains go first" shebang we have now.
speed limits iirc are actually pretty effective at controlling driver behavior, but that doesn't mean everybody will drive the posted limit.
like, if a state decides 'okay, we want people driving between 70 and 75 in this area', the way to get that behavior is to set the speed limit to 60 or 65
the problem with this is that it makes enforcement kind of a crapshoot, but that isn't that big a problem really
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I gotta be honest with you guys, I'm very uncomfortable with the entire structure we've built upon the idea that Driving Is A Privilege. There are vast swaths of the nation where being unable to drive is tantamount to being sentenced to poverty and dependence.
Sure but even if driving is a right i am not sure that licensing and alcohol testing would unreasonable restrictions.
That being said, if you're going to continue to be a conservative i would be very careful about defining things to be rights because lack of them will sentence you to poverty and dependence. Because then we have education and health care and running water, and all sorts of services for which the government is suddenly obligated to provide to everyone.
Alternately you wreck all forms of regulation. That is, if driving is a right and so we can't have licensing/alcohol testing then what happens when "clean water" is a right? Do we not have the ability to enforce that water is actually clean?
This horrible dystopia, where everyone has health care, clean water, the ability to travel to/from a meaningful, well paying occupation, and/or personal or cultural events like family reunions or movies... If only Orwell had been more of a visionary, he could have painted the true political horror. :razz:
That said, I'm a big advocate of, say, guns as a right, but you know, if someone gets a 0.12 BAL and then shoots, harmlessly in this case, but dangerously close to not being so, through my window, I want the cops to show up, give them a breathalizer they aren't allowed to refuse, and then take away their ability to have a gun at least for a long time, if not permanently. That has a near perfect analogue with the idea of a drunk driving being pulled over for repeatedly crossing the yellow line. While rights should be restricted to the least reasonable extent, they cannot be unqualified, as that will impugn on other people's rights.
I agree with your first statement. Licensing and alcohol testing (with reasonable suspicion) are still reasonable in the context of it being a right.
The problem is that it is a very short step from making access to a motor vehicle a right to having to provide one.
Given how necessary car ownership is to being a functioning human being anywhere outside of an urban environment, it should well be a right. Or, in a broader sense, access to transportation should be a right. In the next few decades, it could be something self-driving cars will resolve, since it imposes much less of an economic burden to provide either a car or a driver to all individuals.
I gotta be honest with you guys, I'm very uncomfortable with the entire structure we've built upon the idea that Driving Is A Privilege. There are vast swaths of the nation where being unable to drive is tantamount to being sentenced to poverty and dependence.
Due to land use policies, not any laws of physics. I'd rather we changed our zoning code than made repeat DUI's meaningless because cars are important.
For me the concern over the cases kind of boils down to criminalizing saying no to a cop who doesn't have a warrant. If there is a warrant then nothing you can do, the system is setup that way and at least has the potential of a check on abuse of authority cops. If they just can claim reasonable suspicion and my options are either comply or get arrested...well, those aren't options. At the same time, operating a car is dangerous work that threatens other people. So the right to be let alone, and the right against unreasonable search are understandably curtailed. The issue, to me, is what extent is appropriate and what extent is coercive. Especially given the unique nature of driving.
I can't see an argument that says that Cars are a right that doesn't also just say that investing way more heavily into proper public transit satisfies the same need. Or at least similar need.
And public transit is also a way better thing to invest in for a ton of reasons.
Would it end up like being clocked by a radar gun? Like I know if you want to be a real pest you can file for discovery and get maintainance and calibration records for the particular unit to challenge their results
I can't see an argument that says that Cars are a right that doesn't also just say that investing way more heavily into proper public transit satisfies the same need. Or at least similar need.
And public transit is also a way better thing to invest in for a ton of reasons.
I definitely agree, but there are big parts of the country where solid public transit would be very difficult to pull off and hard to support financially.
I lived 3 miles of dirt road out from a town where the biggest grocery store was primarily a gas station. Ain't nobody paying tax dollars to bus me twenty miles to a Wal-mart.
I'm the kind of person who thinks the actual test should be more strict and thus not making speed limits go by the worst drivers or whatever. There is no reason I should ever be restricted to 25 MPH on a straight road with full visibility. Or 65 on the highway when no one is around. Not saying I want to be running at 200 MPH but, dammit, I have places to be and I'm not an idiot/bad driver.
/rant over
Edit: Also studies show speed limits do jack shit since a majority of drivers go at speeds they feel comfortable with.
If you hit me while driving ~30mph there is a better than even chance that I will only be injured. If you hit me while driving ~40mph I will die.
If I hit someone going 30 or 40, then they decided to jaywalk at a really bad time. Not saying I'm the best driver bit there is no way I'd hit anyone at that speed unless they literally jumped in front of me.
Keep in mind I am very cautious in any area with people. My grief is more with the highway and being required to go 65 when there is no one* around me and it's a straight shot.
* I know technically no one can catch you if they aren't there, but hey, I don't like breaking laws, even flawed ones.
Posts
IIRC MythBusters had a whole episode on urban myths about breathalyzers, and found that they are actually extremely accurate.
MWO: Adamski
Love to see links if anyone has them for studies (other than the TV show :P)
Gum doesn't set them off though hand sanitizer can distort readings. I couldn't find anything with a cursory search on either food or cleaning. Storage appears to, at least when properly done, result in really tiny changes in accuracy, but I don't have access to that paper now so I can't really look in more detail.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/04/opinion-recap-limit-on-dui-blood-testing/
As I previously stated, at least in my state, this is the normal practice. If you want blood and don't have consent, you get a warrant and do not rely on exigency except in serious crash situations where suspect is about to be taken from the scene for emergency medical treatment, etc. In those cases most police will ask for an "exigency draw" and then go get a warrant and come back and get a warrant-authorized blood draw as well.
Here is Arizona (I googled that state because I know they have pretty tough DUII laws) ruling that blood draws need a warrant and consent has to be clear if you're going to rely on it: http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional/arizona-supreme-court-bars-dui-blood-tests-without-warrant/article_a45c0a2f-1a47-5ef9-a52d-c2669ed312d6.html
So McNeely is not controversial to me at all, and I don't disagree with it (though it's a weird plurality opinion and basically says "each case is judged on its own facts" which isn't always the best guidance for people actually on the street :P)
The cases they granted cert to now are summarized:
My gut reaction: Refusal to take a breath test should not be criminal in my opinion and I think the first two plaintiffs may get a favorable decision. I am okay with other punishments for refusing the test (fine, license suspension). The third case is interesting because the court is not going to rule whether he should have been convicted for DUII or whether his refusal should have been used against him, but is only ruling on the non-criminal punishment for refusing the test.
I don't know of case law saying a breath test is testimonial, but it is a search (just like a blood draw or urine test). As I said, in my state the courts recently have gone back and forth on whether it is coercive to tell someone that if they refuse the test, they will be fined and their license suspended. The latest decision (I think) is this: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S060134.pdf A good read if you want to kind of browse through some of the issues in these cases that SCOTUS might be talking about wrt implied consent laws.
The Mythbusters episode was on ways to "beat" a breath analyzer. For example, the myth of placing a penny under your tongue. All were busted.
Mythbusters did not tackle accuracy issues with the breathalyzer. For example, if I were to take cough syrup with alcohol in it, or eat food with alcohol, immediately prior to the test, it would distort the results. But the distortion will be towards a higher BAC, meaning that the test is conservative. I think in some states you are allowed to request a blood test after a failed breathalyzer, specifically because of these factors.
Defense attorneys here can ask for discovery of recent calibration history on the machine, and there are several specific steps/foundational facts that need to be established before you can put the BAC number into evidence.
When I was stopped and breathalized, the police officer just had a short and polite conversation with me while hold a small black handhel device about 2-3cm infront and below my face (in the mic position if that makes sense)
Took about 10 seconds for the whole thing.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
A ruling that says you cannot be charged for refusing a reasonable search is like saying you cannot be charged for refusing a legitimate arrest (they are even the very same amendment). Once it's ruled that generally the breathalyzer is legit then refusal can be criminal as the state has the power to make that sort of thing criminal.
Unless there's a massive abuse of breathalyzer testing going on to fuck over people.
Taking the breathalyzer test takes few seconds, while arrest can fuck you over for weeks (plus any side effects like loosing your job).
Though i do think that people should be required to take the bloody test when asked (and if positive, go straight for a blood test, paid by the state).
There are many things this applies to, some even moreso than driving, e.g. Healthcare, electricity, running water, telecoms etc.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I'm inclined to agree, though I think it probably needs more active monitoring than we do for most means of exercising our rights.
Unfortunately, automobiles didn't exist back when the bill of rights was written, and some wing of crazies would find a reason to oppose an amendment long enough to kill it.
Edit: I would be hugely in favor of enshrining a "Right to Mobility" that would include, but not be limited to, access to automobiles in places that don't have sufficient public transportation options.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
This doesn't change the fact that operating a giant hunk of metal and plastic going at obscene speeds around other people and other giant hunks of metal and plastic going insane speeds is something that can't be done without extensive regulation and enforcement of those regulations.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Most, if not all, of those things should be rights. (except driving, driving should not be a right).
My main reason why driving a car should not be a right is simply the amount of damage one can do with one if they don't know how to operate it.
As well as difficulty of removing the said right from people who show themselves unable to drive a car responsibly.
/rant over
Edit: Also studies show speed limits do jack shit since a majority of drivers go at speeds they feel comfortable with.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
As a counter example, we have firearm ownership guaranteed as a right and that is at least as dangerous. I think Spool's optimal solution, though he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that driving be enshrined as right but still have regulatory and licensing schemes similar to firearm ownership.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Sure but even if driving is a right i am not sure that licensing and alcohol testing would unreasonable restrictions.
That being said, if you're going to continue to be a conservative i would be very careful about defining things to be rights because lack of them will sentence you to poverty and dependence. Because then we have education and health care and running water, and all sorts of services for which the government is suddenly obligated to provide to everyone.
Alternately you wreck all forms of regulation. That is, if driving is a right and so we can't have licensing/alcohol testing then what happens when "clean water" is a right? Do we not have the ability to enforce that water is actually clean?
Well, and jobs. Not having one of those will sentence you to poverty and dependence pretty much everywhere.
Well, for one, driving is a privilege. Full stop. And given your stance on health care as a "right" I'm a little surprised by this attitude. No one is entitled to operate heavy machinery free with zero regulation.
If you hit me while driving ~30mph there is a better than even chance that I will only be injured. If you hit me while driving ~40mph I will die.
like, if a state decides 'okay, we want people driving between 70 and 75 in this area', the way to get that behavior is to set the speed limit to 60 or 65
the problem with this is that it makes enforcement kind of a crapshoot, but that isn't that big a problem really
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
This horrible dystopia, where everyone has health care, clean water, the ability to travel to/from a meaningful, well paying occupation, and/or personal or cultural events like family reunions or movies... If only Orwell had been more of a visionary, he could have painted the true political horror. :razz:
That said, I'm a big advocate of, say, guns as a right, but you know, if someone gets a 0.12 BAL and then shoots, harmlessly in this case, but dangerously close to not being so, through my window, I want the cops to show up, give them a breathalizer they aren't allowed to refuse, and then take away their ability to have a gun at least for a long time, if not permanently. That has a near perfect analogue with the idea of a drunk driving being pulled over for repeatedly crossing the yellow line. While rights should be restricted to the least reasonable extent, they cannot be unqualified, as that will impugn on other people's rights.
I agree with your first statement. Licensing and alcohol testing (with reasonable suspicion) are still reasonable in the context of it being a right.
Given how necessary car ownership is to being a functioning human being anywhere outside of an urban environment, it should well be a right. Or, in a broader sense, access to transportation should be a right. In the next few decades, it could be something self-driving cars will resolve, since it imposes much less of an economic burden to provide either a car or a driver to all individuals.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Due to land use policies, not any laws of physics. I'd rather we changed our zoning code than made repeat DUI's meaningless because cars are important.
For me the concern over the cases kind of boils down to criminalizing saying no to a cop who doesn't have a warrant. If there is a warrant then nothing you can do, the system is setup that way and at least has the potential of a check on abuse of authority cops. If they just can claim reasonable suspicion and my options are either comply or get arrested...well, those aren't options. At the same time, operating a car is dangerous work that threatens other people. So the right to be let alone, and the right against unreasonable search are understandably curtailed. The issue, to me, is what extent is appropriate and what extent is coercive. Especially given the unique nature of driving.
And public transit is also a way better thing to invest in for a ton of reasons.
I lived 3 miles of dirt road out from a town where the biggest grocery store was primarily a gas station. Ain't nobody paying tax dollars to bus me twenty miles to a Wal-mart.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
If I hit someone going 30 or 40, then they decided to jaywalk at a really bad time. Not saying I'm the best driver bit there is no way I'd hit anyone at that speed unless they literally jumped in front of me.
Keep in mind I am very cautious in any area with people. My grief is more with the highway and being required to go 65 when there is no one* around me and it's a straight shot.
* I know technically no one can catch you if they aren't there, but hey, I don't like breaking laws, even flawed ones.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy