View Full Version : New Texas Law - DUI Process
This law bothers me more than the law allowing someone to be arrested for failing to evacuate.
By Andrea LuciaHOUSTON (KTRK) -- A new law targeting suspected drunk drivers is about to go into effect, giving police the power to bypass a judge when deciding whether a blood test is necessary. It's a law that's firing up debate among civil rights advocates, prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Prosecutors believe the new law will help them put dangerous drunk drivers behind bars. But criminal defense attorneys warn that the price will be a major violation of personal privacy and your constitutional rights.
Sticking someone with a needle and forcing them to give blood can bring out some strong emotions. But a new law set to take effect on September 1 will allow police officers to do so even without a search warrant, if they encounter a suspected drunk driver who is a repeat offender, has a passenger under the age of 15 or has a passenger die.
"It requires a warrant to search your home, but it no longer requires a warrant to search your human body," said criminal defense attorney Doug Murphy. "That's pretty severe.
ljlinson1206
07-28-09, 18:17
, if they encounter a suspected drunk driver who is a repeat offender, has a passenger under the age of 15 or has a passenger die.
"That's pretty severe.
Uhhmmm, let's think about this.
1) Repeat Offender
2) Has a minor(child) passanger
3) Or KILLS someone
Yea you're right, that's just too severe. Let's wait until they kill at least 3 or more people before we take action!!!!!!!!!
Driving is a privilege granted by the State, not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Acceptance of that little plastic card can do a lot of things in different jurisdictions, waive rights, imply consent, etc. I don't have a problem with this.
Please post a link to the article. I see lots of problems arising from this.
Compulsory blood sampling is SOP is many states. Texas is years behind the norm. It's been to higher courts in different circuits. Drivers in those states must consent for the sample, in the event of arrest. If the defendant does not cooperate with the blood draw, it's taken forcibly. Typically, the defendant is then charged with some version of obstructing police/justice/etc.
Driving is a privilege granted by the State, not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Acceptance of that little plastic card can do a lot of things in different jurisdictions, waive rights, imply consent, etc. I don't have a problem with this.
Let me preface with In My Opinion:
A privilege granted by the state yes, but the DUI will not result in just an administrative punishment. It will result in criminal punishment where the defendant has the right to trial by jury. And, the state will present evidence obtained while completely ignoring the 5th amendment IMO. Don't get me wrong, I understand the logic and applaud the sentiment, but this is only a easier step below torturing a confession out of your suspect. I look at it like I do the 2nd amendment; Unlike our modern media, I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (1st, 2nd, 5th amendments and all).
The repeat offenders out there doing this are a bad lot for sure and I'd like to see them all stopped, but I do not agree with this (even when the judge says so).
kaiservontexas
07-28-09, 21:03
I disagree I think this serves no good period. I can even forgo the constitution as an argument any medical procedure performed without consent is a violation of the Nuremberg Code. Are we becoming Nazis?
believeraz
07-28-09, 21:24
Uhhmmm, let's think about this.
1) Repeat Offender
2) Has a minor(child) passanger
3) Or KILLS someone
Yea you're right, that's just too severe. Let's wait until they kill at least 3 or more people before we take action!!!!!!!!!
And a judge will give an order for blood testing on each of those occasions. There's nothing wrong with the system. There is something wrong with end runs around Constitutional due process, specifically in forcible seizure of bodily fluids (personal property) without judicial oversight and a court order. Sure, it sounds good, but it's flawed in principal and leads to the good ol' fashioned slippery slope.
Uhhmmm, let's think about this.
1) Repeat Offender
2) Has a minor(child) passanger
3) Or KILLS someone
Yea you're right, that's just too severe. Let's wait until they kill at least 3 or more people before we take action!!!!!!!!!
The law, if it manages to stand up past one case in court, is about the most asinine thing that I have heard come out of our legislature... well maybe not the most asinine.
1) Repeat offenders shouldnt be there to begin with. If they would HAMMER offenders right off the bat instead pussy footing around the problem wouldnt be as bad as they have let it get. Get busted, loose the car, the license, go to jail.
2) See above
3) Already have laws on the books doe deal with manslaughter, vehicular homicide... The dead person isnt deader cause they were killed by a drunk, or a gun or drugs...
Instead of creating more excuses/loopholes around the Constitution, write enforcable laws and dont make excuses for not enforcing them.
Been doing dwi's for years and never seen a judge turn own a blood draw. Like the previous posters said with a DL you give implied consent, driving is not a constitutionally protected right. Have a loved one get killed by a repeat offender drunk and most people will think different.
I would actually prefer to see the DWI laws rewritten to lower BAC from .08 to any detectable amount of alcohol in your system, like it is for minors. Any amount of ETOH in your body impairs driving ability and divided attention tasks. At least this would eliminate all the SFST's that have to be done roadside and its either blood, urine, or breath test to deal with.
And a judge will give an order for blood testing on each of those occasions. There's nothing wrong with the system. There is something wrong with end runs around Constitutional due process, specifically in forcible seizure of bodily fluids (personal property) without judicial oversight and a court order. Sure, it sounds good, but it's flawed in principal and leads to the good ol' fashioned slippery slope.
The practice, and decisions upholding it, use longstanding exceptions for exigency and search incident to arrest. They further uphold the practice through the waiver of due process and consent when the DL is obtained.
The scientific validation of standardized field sobriety testing is an additional protection. All together, the courts have felt that the defendant's rights are adequately protected.
The strongest argument is based on science... Blood should be sampled as soon as possible after arrest. Adding time for a SW between the arrest and sample causes a destruction of evidence through the metabolization of the alcohol. One can only extrapolate the BAC so much.
Heck, one might even argue that with all of the PC above, there's inevitable discovery anyway.
One venue that was saddled with the search warrant requirement was able to circumvent it by having a judge issue a court order for the seizure of blood from defendants meeting certain criteria. (Not wholly dissimilar to the model that Texas appears to be following.)
The law, if it manages to stand up past one case in court, is about the most asinine thing that I have heard come out of our legislature... well maybe not the most asinine.
It's been past case after case after case. Again, Texas is years behind other states.
I sense an underlying tone of "something" in you repeating Texas being "behind" other states. Perhaps I am reading too much into this.
God blessed Texas. And we are happy to be "behind" in most laws. Especially when it comes to ugh, gun control laws.
Internet inflections being what they are, I apologize if I read too much into your repetitiveness of Texas' BE-hind status! :D
dog
I grew up in Alaska. We always found this "Texas sized" stuff kinda cute.
browningboy84
07-29-09, 00:35
WGG,
First let me state my background. I have been a firefighter for 4 years now, and been in EMS for 3 now. I am a paramedic and work full time in EMS. That being stated, I live in Georgia. If you are suspected of DUI, you can either submit to a BAC test via breath, urine, or blood, or you will be charged with DUI due to your refusal to submit to a test.THis is Georgia's policy on consenting to a BAC test. This is an automatic conviction, unless the DA can get it thrown out on a technicality.
In September of last year, a 44 year old man hit a carload of teenagers. He was DUI 4 times over the legal limit. He killed one teenager, and one girl lost her leg, and another girl will never walk again! I worked that wreck, and that dead teenager haunts me. The driver refused a BAC test. I am a big proponent of the Constitution and EVERY ammendment in it, but "with great power comes great responsibility". I come from a family that can trace our medical roots back to the Alabama militia in the Civil War. Medicine is in my blood, and I love my job except dealing with the carnage that alcohol causes. I would also love to see DUI for anyone with any alchohol in their system.
WGG, do not take this personal, but you will never fully understand the carnage that impaired drivers can cause until you work in public safety, or have a loved one who has either been injured or killed by a drunk driver. Only then can you understand the full carnage of what will happen. What if it was your child? There is a reason that the drinking age is 21, in hope that by the time you are 21, you will take responsibility for your actions. Remember, laws are not made for law-abiding people. They are made for those who do not follow the rules.
On a sidenote, I have been working a wreck and a drunk driver hit the fire truck that was blocking the road while I was running the pump on the fire truck. I had some minor scratches from the road rash, and some soiled underwear, but otherwise fine. Drunk drivers are attracted to red lights, so I am affected by them. That is why I would love to see the DUI limit lowered!!!! Mods, if I have offended anyone with this post, I am sorry. I just have seen the carnage firsthand, and I am very opinionated about it.
Slippery slope.
DUI = Overblown Sensationalism
Slippery slope.
DUI = Overblown Sensationalism
Lets have one more for the road...
2891
ThirdWatcher
07-29-09, 04:21
Like the previous posters said with a DL you give implied consent, driving is not a constitutionally protected right. Have a loved one get killed by a repeat offender drunk and most people will think different.
I would actually prefer to see the DWI laws rewritten to lower BAC from .08 to any detectable amount of alcohol in your system, like it is for minors. Any amount of ETOH in your body impairs driving ability and divided attention tasks. At least this would eliminate all the SFST's that have to be done roadside and its either blood, urine, or breath test to deal with.
I agree.
In my state, we need probable cause (but not a warrant) to take blood (forcibly, if necessary) for people arrested for Vehicular Homicide or Vehicular Assault (DUIs have the right to refuse).
I've done my share on next-of-kin notifications over the past three decades and no family member ever accused me of being a Nazi. Frankly, I look at it in just the opposite way: it is the drunk drivers of this country that slaughter innocent people as surely as the Nazis did, not the LEOs (and firefighters and EMS) that have to clean up after them.
I know I come off kinda strong, but I still have bad memories of a lot of the fatals I've investigated. I still remember the name of the 18 year old young man that was killed in the very first fatal crash I investigated. He would have been 48 years old this year. RIP
I guess I'm more concerned with the rights of the innocent.
Here in PA you can refuse to give blood or even participate in the standard field sobriety test. Of course your license will be suspended for one year. You make the decision.
In Washington, when you apply and receive your license you sign an "Implied Consent waiver", meaning you waive your right to refuse a breath and/or blood test, depending on the circumstances.
It's really nothing new...........
But I agree, hammer the first time offenders into oblivion so they'll really think twice about ever doing it again.
Had a Deputy friend killed by a DD years ago while he was on duty and headed home...he burned in his car.
Folks
I am in no way condoning drunk driving and am fully aware of the terrible carnage that results from it. I believe that the state legislatures need to modify their laws so that first offenders loose their licences for a much longer period of time (say 5 years) and they be required to attend long term counseling. A second offense should result in permanent license revocation.
I do not believe anyone should be able to compel me to give breath, blood or a DNA samples unless a judge has reviewed the particulars of my case and issues a warrant. If I refused a request to take any of these tests I would expect to have my license taken for the same amount of time as a convicted first offender.
I agree.
In my state, we need probable cause (but not a warrant) to take blood (forcibly, if necessary) for people arrested for Vehicular Homicide or Vehicular Assault (DUIs have the right to refuse).
I've done my share on next-of-kin notifications over the past three decades and no family member ever accused me of being a Nazi. Frankly, I look at it in just the opposite way: it is the drunk drivers of this country that slaughter innocent people as surely as the Nazis did, not the LEOs (and firefighters and EMS) that have to clean up after them.
I know I come off kinda strong, but I still have bad memories of a lot of the fatals I've investigated. I still remember the name of the 18 year old young man that was killed in the very first fatal crash I investigated. He would have been 48 years old this year. RIP
I guess I'm more concerned with the rights of the innocent.
I'm an accident investigator as well and know completely where you are coming from. I have thousands of pics from my crash scenes of the most horrible crashes involving drunk drivers. I think if a segment of the general public were to take a good long look at the carnage perpetuated by drunk drivers then public opinion will change. I remember seeing a mom, her husband and their three year old son burn alive in a bad crash where they were rear ended by a drunk driver. The car was too mangled to get them out, firefighters and the jaws of life were still minutes away from the scene when I got there. Burning flesh and and three people screaming for help changed my life forever. I bust every single impaired driver (alcohol or drugs) that I possibly can now because of that crash.
Powder_Burn
07-29-09, 11:41
This law bothers me more than the law allowing someone to be arrested for failing to evacuate.
By Andrea LuciaHOUSTON (KTRK) -- A new law targeting suspected drunk drivers is about to go into effect, giving police the power to bypass a judge when deciding whether a blood test is necessary. It's a law that's firing up debate among civil rights advocates, prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Prosecutors believe the new law will help them put dangerous drunk drivers behind bars. But criminal defense attorneys warn that the price will be a major violation of personal privacy and your constitutional rights. Sticking someone with a needle and forcing them to give blood can bring out some strong emotions. But a new law set to take effect on September 1 will allow police officers to do so even without a search warrant, if they encounter a suspected drunk driver who is a repeat offender, has a passenger under the age of 15 or has a passenger die. "It requires a warrant to search your home, but it no longer requires a warrant to search your human body," said criminal defense attorney Doug Murphy. "That's pretty severe.
Localities have already hired full time phlebotomists/nurses and have magistrates on standby to issue warrants on all DWI suspects. At first, we had "no refusal weekends" on a very limited basis but now the calendar continues to expand. One municipality trains the officers to do the blood draws from suspects themselves. Random police checkpoints also gained some support in the last legislative session. I find the concept of the government forcefully taking bodily fluids and interrogating random drivers to be invasive and disturbing. This situation seems strikingly similar to those who would take our 2nd Amendment rights due to the nightmare of Columbine and Virginia Tech. I just attended a national driving school required by my employer and learned that driving impairment through the use of a cell phone is similar to that of DWI. Subsequently, I will be terminated if I am ever involved in a accident while talking on on a cell phone. While the level of impairment is similar between the two, aggressive DWI enforcement is applied to the point that rights are infringed upon while cell phone use while driving remains largely accepted. If a simple first-time DWI case did not generate an average of $15,000 in stimulus to the system, I wonder if there would be motivation to encroach on our freedoms in the first place.
Everybody wants to prevent DWI tragedies and thankfully they are the exception and not the rule. Having lost a relative via DWI and also having been the loser in an RX-7 vs. F-350 head-on with a drunk multi-DWI driver, I can relate. However, I will never accept erosions to freedom that can impact this and future generations.
As emotional as the pictures and stories are, isn't this exactly what we conservatives have been bashing Obama/Sotomayor for on the "empathy" issue? This is no different to me as the "it's for the children" arguments of the gun banners, or "If it saves one more life." Rights do and have cost a lot of people (innocent all too often) lives, injury, etc. Constitutional guarantee's are historically dear.
We don't end run the Constitutional provisions on empathy. We do it when there is clear state's interest. That's certainly arguable (in states' favor) here. But that should be the reason for it. We don't do it because people have witnessed horrible things. Isn't Brian Miller (writer and head of Cease Fire New Jersey) anti-gun because his brother was killed with a gun?
I'm all for busting these people under color of authority. But we've got all sorts of other laws? And as others have repeated...Why are repeat offendors out on the roads? What about homicides wither influenced or not, etc...
Here is a link to the new law.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/pdf/HB00747I.pdf
Cascades236
07-29-09, 15:26
DUI is a white collar crime. Politicians, doctors, cops, military, etc etc etc have all seen their own arrested for DUI. Until we stop treating it with kid gloves, the plague shall continue.
Of course the defense attorneys are going to cry over this... it's going to make it more difficult to get their insta-cash plea bargains.
TriumphRat675
07-29-09, 20:44
WGG,
In September of last year, a 44 year old man shot up a carload of teenagers. He had a high powered assault rifle. He killed one teenager, and one girl lost her leg, and another girl will never walk again! I worked that shooting, and that dead teenager haunts me. The shooter bought his high powered rifle legally. I am a big proponent of the Constitution and EVERY amendment in it, but "with great power comes great responsibility". I come from a family that can trace our medical roots back to the Alabama militia in the Civil War. Medicine is in my blood, and I love my job except dealing with the carnage that guns cause.
WGG, do not take this personal, but you will never fully understand the carnage that guns can cause until you work in public safety, or have a loved one who has either been injured or killed by a gun nut. Only then can you understand the full carnage of what will happen. What if it was your child?
Just throwing that out there.
mskdgunman
07-29-09, 21:03
While I'm not a DUI guy, in Florida, we can have EMS forcibly take blood from a suspected DUI while at the scene of an accident involving death or "great bodily injury". In my experience (which is limited as far as DUI's go), I've only had the paramedics pull blood on a couple occasions. We can also REQUEST either a blood or urine sample during a regular DUI investigation in the event that your BA results are 000 as whatever you're under the influence of apparently does not show up in the breath (ie drugs). In any event, a refusal of any of the tests is grounds for immediate (administrative) suspension of a DL.
If all else fails, the SAO can always subpoena blood test results from the hospital if the suspect is transported for treatment. The hospitals test for everything and it's simply a matter of paperwork to get it.
Maybe some DUI enforcement folks with more knowledge will chime in
I sense an underlying tone of "something" in you repeating Texas being "behind" other states. Perhaps I am reading too much into this. God blessed Texas. And we are happy to be "behind" in most laws. Especially when it comes to ugh, gun control laws. Internet inflections being what they are, I apologize if I read too much into your repetitiveness of Texas' BE-hind status! :D dog
My only point there is that the underlying legal issues have been addressed and resolved in other states. The trail has already been blazed, Texas is just a late comer to the practice. Sorry, each time I said it, it was intended as a reply to someone saying that the practice will never hold up in court.
Slippery slope. DUI = Overblown Sensationalism
Hundreds of DUI arrests over the years make me think otherwise, but okay.
Here in PA you can refuse to give blood or even participate in the standard field sobriety test. Of course your license will be suspended for one year. You make the decision.
In the event a driver refuses tests, officers are generally instructed to then use driving pattern, physical/behavioral indicators, and their training and experience to make an arrest decision.
Short: Refusing tests will generally get you just as arrested for DUI as taking the tests by anyone reasonably skilled in DUI interdiction. For a good drunk hunter, tests are really just a formality. That's where compulsory sampling is handy. If I've asked a driver to submit to FSTs, it's a pretty rare bird that isn't going to jail already.
It's also getting to the point where if you get a PBT (preliminary breath test) establishing a probable BAC >.08, arrests are upheld with that alone, bolstered by the officer's training, and experience. If you get the compulsory blood draw, slam dunk. SFSTs are relegated to gravy in those cases.
Lots of interesting discussion on the topic on the cop boards.
But I agree, hammer the first time offenders into oblivion so they'll really think twice about ever doing it again.
It's a great theory, but it only impacts the smallest portion of first offense drivers. The balance have larger substance abuse, social, behavioral, or other problems that will promote recidivism.
Further, it's just too expensive to really hammer people. The courts, and taxpayers, are unwilling to pay for it.
Alaskapopo
07-30-09, 05:45
This law bothers me more than the law allowing someone to be arrested for failing to evacuate.
By Andrea LuciaHOUSTON (KTRK) -- A new law targeting suspected drunk drivers is about to go into effect, giving police the power to bypass a judge when deciding whether a blood test is necessary. It's a law that's firing up debate among civil rights advocates, prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Prosecutors believe the new law will help them put dangerous drunk drivers behind bars. But criminal defense attorneys warn that the price will be a major violation of personal privacy and your constitutional rights.
Sticking someone with a needle and forcing them to give blood can bring out some strong emotions. But a new law set to take effect on September 1 will allow police officers to do so even without a search warrant, if they encounter a suspected drunk driver who is a repeat offender, has a passenger under the age of 15 or has a passenger die.
"It requires a warrant to search your home, but it no longer requires a warrant to search your human body," said criminal defense attorney Doug Murphy. "That's pretty severe.
We use breath up here and they can not refuse. But in cases involving serious physical injury or death we can take blood without a warrant. This is not a civil rights issue its about taking drunks off the road. I lost my brother to DUI and anything we can do to take drunks off the road is good in my view.
pat
Alaskapopo
07-30-09, 05:49
Slippery slope.
DUI = Overblown Sensationalism
WRONG. DUI Kills. In fact every 30 minutes someone in this country dies as the result of a drunk driver.
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-30-09, 05:51
As emotional as the pictures and stories are, isn't this exactly what we conservatives have been bashing Obama/Sotomayor for on the "empathy" issue? This is no different to me as the "it's for the children" arguments of the gun banners, or "If it saves one more life." Rights do and have cost a lot of people (innocent all too often) lives, injury, etc. Constitutional guarantee's are historically dear.
We don't end run the Constitutional provisions on empathy. We do it when there is clear state's interest. That's certainly arguable (in states' favor) here. But that should be the reason for it. We don't do it because people have witnessed horrible things. Isn't Brian Miller (writer and head of Cease Fire New Jersey) anti-gun because his brother was killed with a gun?
I'm all for busting these people under color of authority. But we've got all sorts of other laws? And as others have repeated...Why are repeat offendors out on the roads? What about homicides wither influenced or not, etc...
Driving is not a right its a privilege. You have a right to own a gun you do not have a right to drive. Nor do you have a right to drink. You sure as hell don't have a right to drink and drive.
Pat
CryingWolf
07-30-09, 08:59
Due process is a right. Police are not judges. How hard is it to get a warrant signed by a Judge in good standing, with probable cause based on good police work?
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Was it a Judge who told the police to go into peoples homes and confiscate their firearms, under the guise of public safety during Katrina? Was there a warrant signed?
I understand that some states may already have this in place, I think those states may be running into a gray area with the 4th amendment.
I feel for peoples passion and stories of drunk drivers killing innocent people. I think some of those drunk drivers if not all of them should be taken out and shot. But when we start bypassing due process and bypass the 4th amendment. Some of these same arguments and passion could be used against the 2nd amendment. How many stories do we hear about innocent people being killed by firearms.
In the end I will repeat: How hard is it to get a Judge in good standing sign a warrant, to get blood from a suspect, based on probable cause good police work?
This is a slippery slope for sure.
CryingWolf
07-30-09, 10:16
Food for thought in the belief that driving is a privilege. I think it is too but,,,
Right to Travel
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:
1. by lawfully amending the constitution, or
2. by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:
1. Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this: "...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.
2. The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.) We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?
Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect - laws that are not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling -- discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.
Driving is not a right its a privilege. You have a right to own a gun you do not have a right to drive. Nor do you have a right to drink. You sure as hell don't have a right to drink and drive.
This is a bit of a canard. It is a privilege. But just because you break the law while exercising your privilege, you DON'T forfeit your other (Fourth Amendment in this case) rights regarding things like search and seizure. Especially unconvicted. Or do you think that person's not convicted of a crime should lose their rights?
And you don't seem to have read my post carefully. I'm saying that legally, there may be a compelling state's interest that allows this. But the empathy stuff doesn't wash in the eyes of the law.
Alaskapopo
07-30-09, 13:19
This is a bit of a canard. It is a privilege. But just because you break the law while exercising your privilege, you DON'T forfeit your other (Fourth Amendment in this case) rights regarding things like search and seizure. Especially unconvicted. Or do you think that person's not convicted of a crime should lose their rights?
And you don't seem to have read my post carefully. I'm saying that legally, there may be a compelling state's interest that allows this. But the empathy stuff doesn't wash in the eyes of the law.
When you get your license you agree to certain things like taking a breath test or in certain cases a blood test. Its called implied consent. Don't want to do it then don't get a license and drive. Driving is not a right.
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-30-09, 13:23
Due process is a right. Police are not judges. How hard is it to get a warrant signed by a Judge in good standing, with probable cause based on good police work?
Was it a Judge who told the police to go into peoples homes and confiscate their firearms, under the guise of public safety during Katrina? Was there a warrant signed?
I understand that some states may already have this in place, I think those states may be running into a gray area with the 4th amendment.
I feel for peoples passion and stories of drunk drivers killing innocent people. I think some of those drunk drivers if not all of them should be taken out and shot. But when we start bypassing due process and bypass the 4th amendment. Some of these same arguments and passion could be used against the 2nd amendment. How many stories do we hear about innocent people being killed by firearms.
In the end I will repeat: How hard is it to get a Judge in good standing sign a warrant, to get blood from a suspect, based on probable cause good police work?
This is a slippery slope for sure.
It takes about 2 to 3 hours to get a warrant after hours where I am from. You only have 4 hours to get them to a breath test per the statute after the offense took place. Their blood alcohol level is going to be dropping that entire time hence your evidence is going away. There are search warrant exemptions and one of them is to prevent the destruction of evidence. In this case you don't have a due process right as you signed those rights away when you got your drivers license. You agree to certain things like taking a breath or blood test (depending on the state). Again driving is a privilege not a right.
Pat
When you get your license you agree to certain things like taking a breath test or in certain cases a blood test. Its called implied consent. Don't want to do it then don't get a license and drive. Driving is not a right.
Pat
Implied consent - In many common law jurisdictions, a woman who got married was deemed to have given her husband "implied consent" to have sex with her, a doctrine which barred prosecution of a husband for the rape of his wife.
I also believe I have a right to drive on the roads I pay for.
Alaskapopo
07-30-09, 13:57
Implied consent - In many common law jurisdictions, a woman who got married was deemed to have given her husband "implied consent" to have sex with her, a doctrine which barred prosecution of a husband for the rape of his wife.
I also believe I have a right to drive on the roads I pay for.
Red herring. Now back on topic. You don't have a right to drive on those roads. It is a privilege and to get that privilege you enter into a contract with the state to agree to follow certain rules. One of them is giving a breath or a blood test under certain circumstances. Don't like it then walk or take a cab. Just this last weekend in my area a DUI driver killed a 2 people in a head on on the highway. There is no excuse for DUI.
Pat
i live in texas and would support.
Folks who drive while intoxicated are putting my family and the lives of the people I love in jeapordy.
You don't have a right to drive on those roads. It is a privilege and to get that privilege you enter into a contract with the state to agree to follow certain rules. One of them is giving a breath or a blood test under certain circumstances. Don't like it then walk or take a cab. Just this last weekend in my area a DUI driver killed a 2 people in a head on on the highway. There is no excuse for DUI.
Pat
Show me the contract. I'll preface everything else I'll put here with the fact that I think drinking & driving is not only extremely dangerous but also pretty damn dumb. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of people have done it once if not several times in their life times.
Unless the person has injured another person or damaged someone's property than DUI is no different than using a cell phone, applying make-up, reading a newspaper, eating a Big Mac, reaching for something you dropped, etc. and they should all be treated the same. The whole point is that the person driving is impaired by either their actions or current state of mind and not focusing on their driving. There are many factors that cause a person to drive poorly. You may have sore muscles after a weight-lifting session and have slow reactions. You could be sleepy. You could be in a bad mood, or angry after a fight with your spouse. Should the government be allowed to administer anger tests, tiredness tests, or soreness tests?
Let’s look at a classic example of how to draft a law that will convince men to drive drunk. In fact, this is one of the best possible ways to make sure that there are more drunk drivers on the road than there otherwise would be. The general objective in this case is to make sure that all men who are thinking about sleeping off their intoxication in their vehicles choose to drive home instead. In order to achieve this result, all you have to do is draft and enact laws that punish sleeping in one’s car while intoxicated in exactly the same way that you punish drunk drivers. What you will have achieved by enacting such a law is to have increased the costs associated with choosing not to drive while intoxicated, while having simultaneously decreased the relative costs associated with driving drunk. When faced with the choice of sleeping in a truck cab versus his own bed a man is likely to opt for the latter choice and drive home, when the costs associated with either option are the same. After all, why not choose to drive home and sleep in your own bed, when you could get a DUI anyway just by sleeping in your car? If you are looking for laws to enact that will convince men to drive drunk, this should be one of the first options you consider.
If .10 does not deter people from drinking & driving neither will .08 as the limit. What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.
Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.
A sizeable number of people leaving a bar or a restaurant would probably qualify as DUI. But there is no way for the police to know unless they are tipped off by a swerving car or reckless driving in general. But the question becomes: why not ticket the swerving or recklessness and leave the alcohol out of it?
Bank robbers may tend to wear masks, but the crime they commit has nothing to do with the mask. In the same way, drunk drivers cause accidents but so do sober drivers, and many drunk drivers cause no accidents at all. The law should focus on violations of person and property, not scientific oddities like blood content.
I say again, I do not advocate drinking & driving, don't do it! But let's also open up some intelligent debate about it and not just the wringing of hands.
Let's just ban drunk driving! I know... we tried. Just like the drug war. Now the stupid cell phone is the menace to traffic safety.
Society is just becoming more and more irresponsible. All we can do is influence our children or whoever is closest to us. The rest? Well, thats where all the new laws come in. What other choice is there?
:( dog
How about an example of police running into a girl and then pinning a DUI on her to cover their asses??? Video in report. http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Cops-Set-Up-Woman-After-Crash.html
How about an example of police running into a girl and then pinning a DUI on her to cover their asses??? Video in report. http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Cops-Set-Up-Woman-After-Crash.html
Saw that........... embarrassing.
Most of these laws are just feel good laws that do nothing.
If we were really serious about drunk driving, we would lower the BAC to .025 and first offense is 1 year in jail. Refusal to blow is 1 year in jail, and you could still get convicted of DWI so that is 2 years in jail. No need to force anybody to do anything. Your choice to blow or not to blow.
But we are not serious about drunk driving so we pass these feel good laws which will only affect about 5 people a year.
Now let me guzzle my beer here and drive home, because driving home with the beer open is illegal but guzzling it before I drive is OK. Well at least it will make texting while I drive easier if I do not have juggle a beer bottle along with my iPhone. So maybe the open container law does make sense!
John_Wayne777
07-30-09, 16:42
Let's just ban drunk driving! I know... we tried. Just like the drug war. Now the stupid cell phone is the menace to traffic safety.
Society is just becoming more and more irresponsible. All we can do is influence our children or whoever is closest to us. The rest? Well, thats where all the new laws come in. What other choice is there?
:( dog
Therein lies the real problem in our society.
Folks, we have a lot of stupid people in our society. Their stupidity often ends up hurting other people. We The People then demand that somebody should "Do Something!!" about the problem.
This usually involves passage of new laws with the aim of preventing stupid behavior...which don't work. Then we have to pass laws on top of laws to try and make them work.
The cycle is repeated when people find novel forms of stupidity...like texting while driving...or walking. At the local university a girl was struck by a bus last semester because she was texting and did not look before stepping into the street.
I kid you not. She's legally an adult and college educated...and yet was unable to stop texting long enough to make sure she wasn't walking in front of a bus when stepping into traffic.
Now the university is considering putting up more "Watch for dumbasses trying to cross the street!" signs and perhaps implementing new policies as a means of "Do Something!!!"
As long as our society is packed to the brim with idiots, I don't see much room for improvement on the horizon.
Alskapopo:
While I don't know Texas law, there is a presumption that there ISN'T implied consent in this case. If there was, why would the legislature need to change the law in this direction? They don't. Implied consent already exists. What this law does is changes from "refusal allowed, guilt presumed" to "refusal not allowed." Which is no longer the idea that you lose the bargain by having a license. It's the idea that you have absolutely no say. That is legally different than implied consent.
Currently you can refuse. You are then via the implied consent application, guilty of DUI.
Under the new law, you effectively can't refuse.
Well...I dunno about you, but that ain't exactly pro-freedom, or very Republican. The state will take away any choice from the individual. Lovely.
What do you do with idiots like this? Should we make another law? What if he'd had a couple of beers, would that change the outcome? Granted it would allow for more charges to be brought so that more revenue could be collected but the damage is the same. And yes, drinking & driving is stupid! So is texting & cell phones for that matter...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,535640,00.html?test=latestnews
LOCKPORT, N.Y. — Police said a Buffalo-area tow truck driver was texting on one cell phone while talking on another when he slammed into a car and crashed into a swimming pool.
Niagara County sheriff's deputies said 25-year-old Nicholas Sparks of Burt admitted he was texting and talking when his flatbed truck hit the car Wednesday morning in Lockport.
The truck then crashed through a fence and sideswiped a house before rolling front-end first into an in-ground pool.
The 68-year-old woman driving the car suffered head injuries and was in good condition. Her 8-year-old niece suffered minor injuries.
Sparks was charged with reckless driving, talking on a cell phone and following too closely. It couldn't be determined Thursday morning if he has a lawyer.
Show me the contract.
It's generally on your license.
I'll preface everything else I'll put here with the fact that I think drinking & driving is not only extremely dangerous but also pretty damn dumb. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of people have done it once if not several times in their life times.
.08 is a number. You can be arrested and found guilty of driving under the influence with a BAL of under .08. I had a guy ALL over the road, shit faced puking stumbling etc. ended up having a BAL of .06. He was convicted. If you are .15 and never give me a driving pattern, I will never know and therefor never pull you over. We pull over because the driving pattern is dangerous. Until we get up to the vehicle we have no idea it's alcohol related. It could be related to any number of the things you already mentioned. I've pulled over my fair share of diabetics. We were able to get them the help they needed immediately instead of them hurting themselves or others. No citations no "talking" too. Just help.
So, have a good deal of people driven with a BAL over .08, I'd say that's plausible. The definition of legally drunk and actually being drunk is not perfect. I certainly hope no one here knowingly impaired (notice I didn't say legally impaired) has driven.
That being said, .08 is the law. So, if you were to be pulled over for a tag light and the officer were to ascertain that you have been drinking and you fail field sobriety (or refuse in my state), you could go to jail for DUI. We don't do breath tests on the side of the road. We do field sobriety. If you fail that (or refuse), you are taken to the CJ and placed on an observation period prior to the breath test.
Unless the person has injured another person or damaged someone's property than DUI is no different than using a cell phone, applying make-up, reading a newspaper, eating a Big Mac, reaching for something you dropped, etc. and they should all be treated the same. The whole point is that the person driving is impaired by either their actions or current state of mind and not focusing on their driving. There are many factors that cause a person to drive poorly. You may have sore muscles after a weight-lifting session and have slow reactions. You could be sleepy. You could be in a bad mood, or angry after a fight with your spouse. Should the government be allowed to administer anger tests, tiredness tests, or soreness tests?
Valid points made. Perhaps enhanced penalties for vehicle wrecks that can be proven to be related to negligence? However, how would you feel if we added cell phones etc. to the driving offense list allowing people to be pulled over and/or cited/arrested for it? The liberty/freedom argument is 2 fold. The argument that "I should be free to text/talk/drink etc if I haven't bothered anyone" is faced with the fact that those around you have the right to their safety. If those actions we have mentioned here have been shown, through accurate statistics, to be a significant increase in danger to those around, what are we to do? I'm all about the "everyone dies, get over it" line and I think we are far to nambie pambie to begin with but I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water here.
I'll admit it's a solution for smarter people than me to figure out but I'm not blind to the controversy created. Remember, officer discretion still exists in stops leading to DUI investigations. The officer that pulled over for the tag light that found the subject to have been drinking is free to tell the person to catch a cab.
Personally, I'm not going to let a guy who is all over the road go home simply because he hasn't killed someone yet. Can't swallow that one.
Let’s look at a classic example of how to draft a law that will convince men to drive drunk. In fact, this is one of the best possible ways to make sure that there are more drunk drivers on the road than there otherwise would be. The general objective in this case is to make sure that all men who are thinking about sleeping off their intoxication in their vehicles choose to drive home instead. In order to achieve this result, all you have to do is draft and enact laws that punish sleeping in one’s car while intoxicated in exactly the same way that you punish drunk drivers. What you will have achieved by enacting such a law is to have increased the costs associated with choosing not to drive while intoxicated, while having simultaneously decreased the relative costs associated with driving drunk. When faced with the choice of sleeping in a truck cab versus his own bed a man is likely to opt for the latter choice and drive home, when the costs associated with either option are the same. After all, why not choose to drive home and sleep in your own bed, when you could get a DUI anyway just by sleeping in your car? If you are looking for laws to enact that will convince men to drive drunk, this should be one of the first options you consider.
What you are talking about is active physical control and I agree, it's scope does more damage than good. I've never understood when counterparts would arrest the guy for snoring in his car in a parking lot simply because he was drunk. That issue needs to be addressed and it can be through case law.
The active physical control component DOES work when we are dealing with a vehicle wreck. The guy slides over the passenger seat before we get there and claims he wasn't behind the wheel etc. etc.
If .10 does not deter people from drinking & driving neither will .08 as the limit. What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.
People will argue the track record and history alcohol + driving has. We have extremely limited data comparing cell phones as they've only been around for the past decade or so. Therefor, the general consensus is, "it isn't perfect but studies show you are "X" % more likely to be involved in a car accident if you have been drinking, therefor, let's do our best to keep these people off the road. Because someone has made it 10 miles doesn't mean they'll make it the next 10. Just presenting the argument.
Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.
That's not entirely true. Governments pave your roads. Should they not understand the probabilities of surface induced vehicle crashes before choosing a surface? Traffic light patterns involve probabilities. Everything is a math problem, it's something we can't get away from.
Also, taking this towards another lane, what are we to do if we see someone lurking outside a business? Wait til he shatters the window and steals or hurts someone? The loitering and prowling statute is a probability law. I think many people are happy with it's track record.
A sizeable number of people leaving a bar or a restaurant would probably qualify as DUI. But there is no way for the police to know unless they are tipped off by a swerving car or reckless driving in general. But the question becomes: why not ticket the swerving or recklessness and leave the alcohol out of it?
Well, that's what we pull over for. If it's determined you were doing those things because you just suck at driving than we would ticket for it. *officer discretion of course.
If we discerned that you were doing those things because of the alcohol in your system, through field sobriety test etc. than you would be charged with that. The current SOP for DUI right now is an arrest. It's not currently a notice to appear and cab ride or a citation and a cab ride.
Bank robbers may tend to wear masks, but the crime they commit has nothing to do with the mask. In the same way, drunk drivers cause accidents but so do sober drivers, and many drunk drivers cause no accidents at all. The law should focus on violations of person and property, not scientific oddities like blood content.
I don't believe it's an oddity. I believe it's pretty sound science. Could be wrong, I'll admit I'm not up on it as much as some people but, I'm not a traffic unit.
I say again, I do not advocate drinking & driving, don't do it! But let's also open up some intelligent debate about it and not just the wringing of hands.
Uh huh.... Typical Irishman. :p
Great responses ZDL, I always enjoy conversing, debating, blah blah blah... Gotta run now and get to a BBQ :D I'll think of some witty banter for later ;)
ThirdWatcher
07-30-09, 20:03
How about an example of police running into a girl and then pinning a DUI on her to cover their asses??? Video in report. http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Cops-Set-Up-Woman-After-Crash.html
and your point would be...?:confused:
and your point would be...?:confused:
Did you read the article? Did you watch the video and listen to the audio?
ThirdWatcher
07-31-09, 00:20
Prosecute them like any other criminals... I just don't understand the relevance to this discussion about an attempt to make the highways in Texas safer.
Alaskapopo
07-31-09, 01:09
Most of these laws are just feel good laws that do nothing.
If we were really serious about drunk driving, we would lower the BAC to .025 and first offense is 1 year in jail. Refusal to blow is 1 year in jail, and you could still get convicted of DWI so that is 2 years in jail. No need to force anybody to do anything. Your choice to blow or not to blow.
But we are not serious about drunk driving so we pass these feel good laws which will only affect about 5 people a year.
Now let me guzzle my beer here and drive home, because driving home with the beer open is illegal but guzzling it before I drive is OK. Well at least it will make texting while I drive easier if I do not have juggle a beer bottle along with my iPhone. So maybe the open container law does make sense!
Actually DUI laws have made a difference. 15 years ago a person died every 15 minutes from a drunk driving related accident now today its every 30 minutes. That is a 50% reduction due to stiffer penalties and greater DUI enforcement. Most of which we owe to MADD.
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-31-09, 01:17
Alskapopo:
While I don't know Texas law, there is a presumption that there ISN'T implied consent in this case. If there was, why would the legislature need to change the law in this direction? They don't. Implied consent already exists. What this law does is changes from "refusal allowed, guilt presumed" to "refusal not allowed." Which is no longer the idea that you lose the bargain by having a license. It's the idea that you have absolutely no say. That is legally different than implied consent.
Currently you can refuse. You are then via the implied consent application, guilty of DUI.
Under the new law, you effectively can't refuse.
Well...I dunno about you, but that ain't exactly pro-freedom, or very Republican. The state will take away any choice from the individual. Lovely.
Republican or Democrate has nothing to do with this debate. I am an indepentant. But back on topic. I don't know the details of Texas law but it sounds like they are enacting something like what we already have in Alaska. You have to take a Breath test in Alaska no choice if you refuse you get an additional charge of Refusal to take a Breath Test added to your charges along with the DUI and its the same level of charge. Now in a DUI where someone is killed or seriously injured we can take blood with out consent or a warrant. Blood draws have always been considered more invasive by the court for obvious reasons and hence why they level of crime must be hire before they are required vs the breath test which is far less invasive. I am all for freedom but your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. People are not free to drink and drive. It kills people. Its not like eating a big mac and driving it is far more serious.
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-31-09, 01:20
How about an example of police running into a girl and then pinning a DUI on her to cover their asses??? Video in report. http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Cops-Set-Up-Woman-After-Crash.html
Yep there are bad cops out there. What is your point. It has nothing to do with this topic.
Pat
ThirdWatcher
07-31-09, 01:38
Republican or Democrat has nothing to do with this debate.
+1
In the past 30 years (that I have served) we have had R's & D's in the Whitehouse and I have seen very little difference in the traffic safety plan from one administration to the next. Both parties seem to be in agreement that violent death on our nation's highways is unacceptable.
Actually DUI laws have made a difference. 15 years ago a person died every 15 minutes from a drunk driving related accident now today its every 30 minutes. That is a 50% reduction due to stiffer penalties and greater DUI enforcement. Most of which we owe to MADD.
Pat
The death numbers have been cut in half over 25 years. That is generally true. If that is the only metric you look at, you can blindly claim success.
Reality is most of the reduction in deaths is not laws or enforcement, but safer cars, air bags, AirEvac of victms, better trauma care, etc., which has saved thousands of lives they might not have 25 years ago.
The drunk driving problem is still as bad as a ever. MADD is part of ther problem, as they focus on do-good legislation and not get-tough legislation.
Alaskapopo
07-31-09, 14:07
The death numbers have been cut in half over 25 years. That is generally true. If that is the only metric you look at, you can blindly claim success.
Reality is most of the reduction in deaths is not laws or enforcement, but safer cars, air bags, AirEvac of victms, better trauma care, etc., which has saved thousands of lives they might not have 25 years ago.
The drunk driving problem is still as bad as a ever. MADD is part of ther problem, as they focus on do-good legislation and not get-tough legislation.
Madd is not part of the problem they have been a driving force behind the solution. Yes advances in technology have helped but the majority of it is due to stepped up enforcement. In the old days 25 years ago DUI was considered very minor. People were often driven home or given a ticket like George Bush Jr. Its not like that today.
Pat
Madd is not part of the problem they have been a driving force behind the solution. Yes advances in technology have helped but the majority of it is due to stepped up enforcement. In the old days 25 years ago DUI was considered very minor. People were often driven home or given a ticket like George Bush Jr. Its not like that today.
Pat
Source?
Yep there are bad cops out there. What is your point. It has nothing to do with this topic.
Pat
My point wasn't that there are bad cops, I understand police are people too, but in the line of duty they should be held to a higher moral position. Police, like everyone else, do stupid shit all the time. Unfortunately for them there are cameras & audio with them the vast majority of the time at work and they have embarassing moments that are well publicized.
My point was that through no fault of the woman's, as she wasn't being pulled over for swerving, etc, she was issued 4 charges of DUI due to someone else's incompetence which had nothing to do with her. An officer wrecks into her and they feel justified trying to cover one guy's ass by charging her with something that apparently had no bearing on the accident, to the best of my knowledge.
I do not know all the facts about the story and I wasn't there but the whole thing sounds like BS to me. If she were driving erratically or being pulled over for something safety related I feel that they would've been much more justified in charging her with DUI.
Discussion over on my end as I know we'll never see eye to eye on this subject. I'm sure you've NEVER driven after having a few beers, after working a double and being exhausted and numerous other unsafe driving practices.
Alaskapopo
07-31-09, 14:55
Source?
What you did not know George Bush Jr. had a DUI?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html
Pat
Alaskapopo
07-31-09, 14:59
Discussion over on my end as I know we'll never see eye to eye on this subject. I'm sure you've NEVER driven after having a few beers, after working a double and being exhausted and numerous other unsafe driving practices.
No I have not. I don't drink. I don't find it necessary to have a chemical in my system to have a good time.
Pat
What you did not know George Bush Jr. had a DUI?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html
Pat
yeah..... that's really what you thought I wanted a source for, huh? :rolleyes:
Madd is not part of the problem they have been a driving force behind the solution. Yes advances in technology have helped but the majority of it is due to stepped up enforcement.
Alaskapopo
07-31-09, 15:08
yeah..... that's really what you thought I wanted a source for, huh? :rolleyes:
Well I don't know the limits of your knowledge. Based on previous posts you made I felt its entirely possible you did not know GW had a dui. As for quoting a source for MADD being part of the solution the numbers speak for themselves. A 50% reduction in DUI fatalities is self explanatory. I should not have to break that one down for you. The comment saying MADD is part of the problem is the most un educated remark I have seen in quite a while. If you feel that stepped up enforcement is not the reason then you post your source.
Pat
Well I don't know the limits of your knowledge. Based on previous posts you made I felt its entirely possible you did not know GW had a dui. As for quoting a source for MADD being part of the solution the numbers speak for themselves. A 50% reduction in DUI fatalities is self explanatory. I should not have to break that one down for you. The comment saying MADD is part of the problem is the most un educated remark I have seen in quite a while. If you feel that stepped up enforcement is not the reason then you post your source.
Pat
Awesome. :rolleyes:
I ask for a source and you stomp your feet, insult me, regurgitate what you've already said and make a "you post your source proving me wrong" kindergarten argument. Who could have seen that one coming? :rolleyes:
It works like this: You made the claim MADD is responsible for a 50% reduction in DUI statistics, you post the evidence. 2 steps. Earth shattering concept, I know.
There isn't a point in your continued posting in this thread if you can satisfy that.
In 25 years A LOT has happened. You first attributed the reduction in fatality rates solely to MADD over the course of that time. You have since, when faced with science and fact, backed off and now claim the majority of the reductions are due to MADD. Throwing us the company line doesn't fly.
1. Which is it?
2. Can you prove it?
3. Is this an opinion?
Alaskapopo
07-31-09, 16:02
Awesome. :rolleyes:
I ask for a source and you stomp your feet, insult me, regurgitate what you've already said and make a "you post your source proving me wrong" kindergarten argument. Who could have seen that one coming? :rolleyes:
It works like this: You made the claim MADD is responsible for a 50% reduction in DUI statistics, you post the evidence. 2 steps. Earth shattering concept, I know.
There isn't a point in your continued posting in this thread if you can satisfy that.
In 25 years A LOT has happened. You first attributed the reduction in fatality rates solely to MADD over the course of that time. You have since, when faced with science and fact, backed off and now claim the majority of the reductions are due to MADD. Throwing us the company line doesn't fly.
1. Which is it?
2. Can you prove it?
3. Is this an opinion?
I never said the rates are soley due to MADD. I did say medical technology and safety equipment has had a role as well but not as big as MADD's. Prove me wrong. You know the kindergarten arguments very well as you are generally the one using them. What is your problem with MADD anyway. Are you saying they are not responsible for reducing drunk driving deaths at all?
Pat
I never said the rates are soley due to MADD. I did say medical technology and safety equipment has had a role as well but not as big as MADD's. Prove me wrong. You know the kindergarten arguments very well as you are generally the one using them. What is your problem with MADD anyway. Are you saying they are not responsible for reducing drunk driving deaths at all?
Pat
:rolleyes: Typical liberal, pro obama, dishonorable LEO, hippie response. :rolleyes: Can't back up their statements, make outrageous counter claims, back peddle, tail between legs, blame others, insulting, defensive, argumentative, lying, chest thumping, arrogant, ignorant, and loud about it all. Par for the course.
I'm finished with you. Congratulations on yet again setting another thread towards lock because you joined in. And the trend continues.
Alaskapopo
07-31-09, 16:19
:rolleyes: Typical liberal, pro obama, dishonorable LEO, hippie response. :rolleyes: Can't back up their statements, make outrageous counter claims, back peddle, tail between legs, blame others, insulting, defensive, argumentative, lying, chest thumping, arrogant, ignorant, and loud about it all. Par for the course.
I'm finished with you. Congratulations on yet again setting another thread towards lock because you joined in. And the trend continues.
Typical redneck, right wing, tin foil hat wearing raciest response of using name calling to try to bolster a weak argument. See I can throw insults out there as well as you can. This is the kindergarten stuff that you always resort to. Grow up and discuss the topic at hand like an adult. If you stop resorting to insults I will act in kind. Also you never answered my question. Are you saying that MADD has had no positive influence at all on reducing the DUI death rate in this country? Yes or no.
pat
How about an example of police running into a girl and then pinning a DUI on her to cover their asses??? Video in report. http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Cops-Set-Up-Woman-After-Crash.html
Absolutely disgraceful. A simple traffic crash that would've gotten a letter in a file, or a day off, now is a career ender. Potentially, a conviction for purjury.
The death numbers have been cut in half over 25 years. That is generally true. If that is the only metric you look at, you can blindly claim success. Reality is most of the reduction in deaths is not laws or enforcement, but safer cars, air bags, AirEvac of victms, better trauma care, etc., which has saved thousands of lives they might not have 25 years ago.
True statement.
This is much the same argument as the one used by Dave Grossman. Homicides are down, and aggravated assaults are up, because of the same advancements in technology, patient care, etc.
The drunk driving problem is still as bad as a ever. MADD is part of ther problem, as they focus on do-good legislation and not get-tough legislation.
Actually, MADD has not only pushed feel-good legislation, but useful stuff as well. Sorry, don't have a cite for you, but you should give them a little bit more credit.
Further, there's enough law on the books for stiff penalties. Attornies don't ask for it, judges don't sentence it, and taxpayers don't pay for it. There's enough blame to go around. :D
Discussion over on my end as I know we'll never see eye to eye on this subject.
This thread is taking an ugly turn and drifting from the original post. Let's get it back to center. A deep breath for all, perhaps.
I'm sure you've NEVER driven after having a few beers, after working a double and being exhausted and numerous other unsafe driving practices.
I don't think there's anyone that can honestly say never.
I never said the rates are soley due to MADD. I did say medical technology and safety equipment has had a role as well but not as big as MADD's. Prove me wrong. You know the kindergarten arguments very well as you are generally the one using them. What is your problem with MADD anyway. Are you saying they are not responsible for reducing drunk driving deaths at all?
Pat
I work hard for MADD. I believe in MADD. I like MADD. I think you're stretching a bit though. Just as there's a lot of blame to go around, there's a lot of credit for success, too.
From informative to funny :D
Alaskapopo
07-31-09, 18:01
I work hard for MADD. I believe in MADD. I like MADD. I think you're stretching a bit though. Just as there's a lot of blame to go around, there's a lot of credit for success, too.
That may be the case. I don't believe there is a way to divy out the credit 100% accurately. But regardless it is safe to say MADD is not part of the problem and has been a huge part of the solution.
Pat
John_Wayne777
07-31-09, 19:29
Gentlemen:
Allow me to take the time to remind you of the rules on M4C
1) Derogatory Remarks – Please do not post any comments that are intentional personal attacks against other members. (Including, but not limited to, name calling, comments of a racial, religious or sexual nature.) Debate is welcome and encouraged. Personal attacks, and name calling, serve no purpose in the exchange and debate of good information. Please be respectful to your fellow shooting enthusiasts whether they are new shooters or seasoned veterans.
I've been a GD mod for about 10 minutes and I've already had to lock a number of threads. That's getting old.
If the discussion is getting to the point where you're starting to type out personal insults, just log off for a while. It's a heck of a lot better than ending up with threads that turn out like this one....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.