The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - Robert's argued to hear lower court case

Police were notified by an anonymous tipster that Harris was driving intoxicated, but the arresting officer did not see Harris break any traffic laws.

Depends; was the arrest on hearsay, or because the officer, having a tip, investigated and discovered that the driver was drunk?

Police were notified by an anonymous tipster that Harris was driving intoxicated, but the arresting officer did not see Harris break any traffic laws.

Beryllin wrote:

Depends; was the arrest on hearsay, or because the officer, having a tip, investigated and discovered that the driver was drunk?

Quote:

Police were notified by an anonymous tipster that Harris was driving intoxicated, but the arresting officer did not see Harris break any traffic laws.

Right now, when you're arrested for DUI you have to incriminate yourself. They can't force you to take the road breathalyzer, but if you don't they will arrest you and then force you to either give blood to test or give a breath specimen at the station.

The latter is far worse because if the machine convicts you, there's no evidence that you can have tested yourself to challenge.

But the point is, you're forced to incriminate yourself.

The question is, how do you get around that and still prosecute DUI? If you wait for a court order to collect this evidence, the evidence is gone. And you can't convict people for something as serious as DUI is today on just the officer's testimony, that's just your word against his. There has to be additional evidence.

Haha, we are rough here, but we still like a good argument. It's amusing the number of Liberal boards Elm has been banned from for arguing. Echo Chambers are boring, Lively debate is so much better.

Post bail, or get someone to do it for you, and go to the hospital and get your own blood taken. Moreover, the machine does not convict you; it just tests BAC. Don't give me sob stories about how hard it is to post bail; 99% of the drunks I've seen arrested are out in less than 2 hours from the traffic stop. The government does not want to pay to keep them in jail.

As for concerns about the machine, there are strict standards for what constitutes a valid test, operators must be certified, and machines must be tested regularly (in ohio, every week) and the results turned in to the state to show the machine is accurate. No, tis is not formality; at one point a few years ago we tested for another department for several months because they were having a hard time getting theirs fixed and able to pass the test.

Given this, I'm wondering why anyone who knows they're guilty chooses to blow into the machine.

You're going to get your license suspended anyway, and I still think it's pretty unlikely they'll be able to convict you in court and give you jail time without any physical evidence. Even if they can, it's not like blowing is going to help your chances.

Don't want to get busted for DUI? Simple.

DON'T DRIVE DRUNK.

My level of sympathy decreases as BAC increases, but I could totally understand how someone could be on the road with a 0.08 and not realize it.

Xequecal wrote:

My level of sympathy decreases as BAC increases, but I could totally understand how someone could be on the road with a 0.08 and not realize it.

One drink and you don't get behind the wheel!! Simple as that!! I've lost a young cousin due to a drunk driver with multiple DUIs!! Almost lost her sister, her brother, her mother, and her aunt!! Just don't **** do it!!! If you do, I hope they throw the **** book at you!!! If they don't, watch your back, because I will be looking for you!!!

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:	Robert's argued to hear lower court case - got told no
Thank goodness. We can't have arrests be made on hearsay. http://news.aol.com/article/chief-justi ... on/728383#

Author:	Aegnor [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:36 pm ]
Post subject:
Was the arrest made on hearsay? How does hearsay even enter into it? I'm assuming that they found him drunk when they stopped him.

Author:	Corolinth [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:39 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Police were notified by an anonymous tipster that Harris was driving intoxicated, but the arresting officer did not see Harris break any traffic laws.

Author:	Beryllin [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Robert's argued to hear lower court case - got told no
Depends; was the arrest on hearsay, or because the officer, having a tip, investigated and discovered that the driver was drunk?

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:38 pm ]
Post subject:
Well they had RAS for a stop but it seems that the courts denied probable cause.

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

Robert's argued to hear lower court case - got told no https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=638	Page 1 of 4

Author:	Aegnor [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:47 am ]
Post subject:
They can't arrest someone on hearsay, but they certainly can investigate. Anyway, guess I need more info before I understand what is going on in this case.

Author:	Corolinth [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:39 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Robert's argued to hear lower court case - got told no
Beryllin wrote: Depends; was the arrest on hearsay, or because the officer, having a tip, investigated and discovered that the driver was drunk? Quote: Police were notified by an anonymous tipster that Harris was driving intoxicated, but the arresting officer did not see Harris break any traffic laws.

Author:	Micheal [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:11 am ]
Post subject:
We have signs all over California asking us to report drivers we believe are under the influence. I've done it a couple of times, but there is no feedback to see if you were right. It probably saves a lot of lives to have erratically operated vehicles stopped and the drivers checked. That being said it is ripe for abuse as well.

Author:	Beryllin [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:49 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Robert's argued to hear lower court case - got told no
Corolinth wrote: Beryllin wrote: Depends; was the arrest on hearsay, or because the officer, having a tip, investigated and discovered that the driver was drunk? Quote: Police were notified by an anonymous tipster that Harris was driving intoxicated, but the arresting officer did not see Harris break any traffic laws. Which means nothing: Citizen A: "I saw that man sneak out of my neighbor's window." Cop: "I didn't see him break any laws." How about this, instead, Corolinth: Citizen A: "I saw that man driving erratically, like maybe he had been drinking." Cop: "I didn't see him break any traffic laws, but I'll investigate by pulling him over and if he's sober, he can go on his way; if he seems impaired and then fails a sobriety test, I'll arrest him."

Author:	Xequecal [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Robert's argued to hear lower court case - got told no
As my first post since finding this board again, (I should have just tried to Google it earlier.) I think this thread raises a big question. What do you do when there's a crime that causes demonstrable harm, but can't be prosecuted effectively without violating the Constitution? DUI isn't clearly there but there are big questions. Right now, when you're arrested for DUI you have to incriminate yourself. They can't force you to take the road breathalyzer, but if you don't they will arrest you and then force you to either give blood to test or give a breath specimen at the station. The latter is far worse because if the machine convicts you, there's no evidence that you can have tested yourself to challenge. But the point is, you're forced to incriminate yourself. The question is, how do you get around that and still prosecute DUI? If you wait for a court order to collect this evidence, the evidence is gone. And you can't convict people for something as serious as DUI is today on just the officer's testimony, that's just your word against his. There has to be additional evidence.

Author:	Uncle Fester [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Robert's argued to hear lower court case - got told no
Welcome back X!

Author:	Xequecal [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Robert's argued to hear lower court case - got told no
Uncle Fester wrote: Welcome back X! It's nice to be back. I really mean that, after getting horribly flamed and witch-hunted off a liberal board for taking a position that's merely center-right, it's nice to be on one where you get treated with respect even if you disagree with the majority most of the time.

Author:	Uncle Fester [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:01 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Robert's argued to hear lower court case - got told no
Haha, we are rough here, but we still like a good argument. It's amusing the number of Liberal boards Elm has been banned from for arguing. Echo Chambers are boring, Lively debate is so much better.

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:51 pm ]
Post subject:
Hrm. I remember being banned from DU.

Author:	DFK! [ Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:14 am ]
Post subject:
Anecdotally, I've heard a defense attorney indicate that in Ohio, if pulled over and asked to submit to breathalyzer, you ALWAYS say no. Bail isn't hard, as DE said. Just get AAA.

Page 1 of 4	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Diamondeye [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Robert's argued to hear lower court case - got told no
Xequecal wrote: Right now, when you're arrested for DUI you have to incriminate yourself. They can't force you to take the road breathalyzer, but if you don't they will arrest you and then force you to either give blood to test or give a breath specimen at the station. No, they won't. They'll ask you to take one. If you don't, your license will be suspended but no one will force you to take a test. The threat of license suspension is not punative or coercive either; it's a part of what you agree to in order to have a license to drive on the public streets. Quote: The latter is far worse because if the machine convicts you, there's no evidence that you can have tested yourself to challenge. Post bail, or get someone to do it for you, and go to the hospital and get your own blood taken. Moreover, the machine does not convict you; it just tests BAC. Don't give me sob stories about how hard it is to post bail; 99% of the drunks I've seen arrested are out in less than 2 hours from the traffic stop. The government does not want to pay to keep them in jail. As for concerns about the machine, there are strict standards for what constitutes a valid test, operators must be certified, and machines must be tested regularly (in ohio, every week) and the results turned in to the state to show the machine is accurate. No, tis is not formality; at one point a few years ago we tested for another department for several months because they were having a hard time getting theirs fixed and able to pass the test. Quote: But the point is, you're forced to incriminate yourself. You're not. Quote: The question is, how do you get around that and still prosecute DUI? If you wait for a court order to collect this evidence, the evidence is gone. And you can't convict people for something as serious as DUI is today on just the officer's testimony, that's just your word against his. There has to be additional evidence. Even if you didn't have the BAC test at all you could convict people of DUI. That's just evidence. You can still bring in car video, photos, empty containers of alcohol, etc. and tesitmony of witnesses, including the arresting officer. In fact, in Ohio, OVI (the new name for DUI) is actually a separate charge from excess BAC (being over .08) although you cannot be convicted of more than one of those 2 charges for the same incident.

Author:	Xequecal [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Robert's argued to hear lower court case - got told no
Uncle Fester wrote: Haha, we are rough here, but we still like a good argument. It's amusing the number of Liberal boards Elm has been banned from for arguing. Echo Chambers are boring, Lively debate is so much better. I can quite literally say I have never been more offended by the sheer collective arrogance and hatred of a group of people than I was on that board. My arguments were not perfect, but I was totally not expecting the sheer wall of hatred and arrogance. There was a thread on how a rape victim who took AIDS medication for months as a precaution was refused health insurance, and how horrible this was. I pointed out that an insurance company would have to be quite insane to not deny coverage to a rape victim with antiretrovirals on their medical history. This made me an evil megacorporation apologist who hates rape victims. It rapidly went downhill from there, so bad I tried to resort to moral relativity to salvage my reputation. (This was a mistake.)

Author:	Xequecal [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Robert's argued to hear lower court case - got told no
Diamondeye wrote: Post bail, or get someone to do it for you, and go to the hospital and get your own blood taken. Moreover, the machine does not convict you; it just tests BAC. Don't give me sob stories about how hard it is to post bail; 99% of the drunks I've seen arrested are out in less than 2 hours from the traffic stop. The government does not want to pay to keep them in jail. As for concerns about the machine, there are strict standards for what constitutes a valid test, operators must be certified, and machines must be tested regularly (in ohio, every week) and the results turned in to the state to show the machine is accurate. No, tis is not formality; at one point a few years ago we tested for another department for several months because they were having a hard time getting theirs fixed and able to pass the test. Given this, I'm wondering why anyone who knows they're guilty chooses to blow into the machine. You're going to get your license suspended anyway, and I still think it's pretty unlikely they'll be able to convict you in court and give you jail time without any physical evidence. Even if they can, it's not like blowing is going to help your chances. EDIT: This is where I got the idea that DUI evidence collection skirts the Constitution. I know it's not exactly an unbiased source, but what do you think of it?

Author:	Diamondeye [ Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:17 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Robert's argued to hear lower court case - got told no
Xequecal wrote: Given this, I'm wondering why anyone who knows they're guilty chooses to blow into the machine. Mainly because either A) they're drunk or B) think they aren't drunk. Quote: You're going to get your license suspended anyway, and I still think it's pretty unlikely they'll be able to convict you in court and give you jail time without any physical evidence. Even if they can, it's not like blowing is going to help your chances. Well, I hate to break it to you but it's pretty easy to convict someone without the breathalyzer, especially if you have video. It's usually not only damning but hilarious. Blowing will not help your chances, but you're pretty damn likely to get found guilty anyhow, and if you aren't, blowing probably would show you under the limit, not over. Then there's the fact that the DUI suspension is shorter than the refusal suspension,a nd you can get work priviledges for he DUI but not for a refusal. As for jail, that's unlikely on a first offense. It's basically mandatory to have at least a few days jail on later offenses but on a first offense they ususally let you go to a 3-day school at a hotel. As for not blowing.. I've heard lawyers say that, but I think it's best to refuse only if you're REALLY drunk or you have a lot of priors. Just my opinion. Above 0.17% the penalties increase, and of course when you start getting towards 5 or 6 offenses, there's possible felony charges. As for the blogger, he's a lawyer so I'm sure he knows but is glossing over the fact that by accepting a license (or by driving on the public streets if you lack a valid license in the first place) to drive you are agreeing to provide a breath/blood/urine sample if arrested for DUI. Remember that no one can force you to drive or accept a driver's license. You've already agreed to give up your 4th ammendment protection in that particular regard in exchange for the priviledge of using a vehicle on the taxpayer-funded public streets. The part about "you can't have a lawyer" is legitimate because of that. If you needed a lawyer to help you understand the ramifications of that, you should have obtained advice before getting the license.

Author:	Müs [ Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:34 pm ]
Post subject:
Don't want to get busted for DUI? Simple. DON'T DRIVE DRUNK.

Author:	Raltar [ Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:17 pm ]
Post subject:
I have zero sympathy for people that drive under the influence. Let them all rot in jail for the rest of their lives for all I care.

Author:	Xequecal [ Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Robert's argued to hear lower court case - got told no
My level of sympathy decreases as BAC increases, but I could totally understand how someone could be on the road with a 0.08 and not realize it.

Author:	Jasmy [ Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Müs wrote: Don't want to get busted for DUI? Simple. DON'T DRIVE DRUNK. This!!!

Author:	Jasmy [ Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:49 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Robert's argued to hear lower court case - got told no
Xequecal wrote: My level of sympathy decreases as BAC increases, but I could totally understand how someone could be on the road with a 0.08 and not realize it. One drink and you don't get behind the wheel!! Simple as that!! I've lost a young cousin due to a drunk driver with multiple DUIs!! Almost lost her sister, her brother, her mother, and her aunt!! Just don't ** do it!!! If you do, I hope they throw the ** book at you!!! If they don't, watch your back, because I will be looking for you!!!

Author:	Xequecal [ Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Robert's argued to hear lower court case - got told no
Jasmy wrote: Xequecal wrote: My level of sympathy decreases as BAC increases, but I could totally understand how someone could be on the road with a 0.08 and not realize it. One drink and you don't get behind the wheel!! Simple as that!! I've lost a young cousin due to a drunk driver with multiple DUIs!! Almost lost her sister, her brother, her mother, and her aunt!! Just don't ** do it!!! If you do, I hope they throw the ** book at you!!! If they don't, watch your back, because I will be looking for you!!! I sympathize, but a 0.08 is low enough that for some metabolisms you could still be at 0.08 even after a full night's sleep and driving to work in the morning.