The Glade 4.0

Thank goodness. We can't have arrests be made on hearsay.

http://news.aol.com/article/chief-justi ... on/728383#

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

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.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

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

Well they had RAS for a stop but it seems that the courts denied probable cause.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

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.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

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.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

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."

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.

Welcome back X!

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

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.

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.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Hrm. I remember being banned from DU.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

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.



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.



You're not.



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.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

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.)

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?

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.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Mainly because either A) they're drunk or B) think they aren't drunk.



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.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

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

DON'T DRIVE DRUNK.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

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.

_________________
Los Angeles Kings 2014 Stanley Cup Champions

"I love this **** team right here."
-Jonathan Quick

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.

This!!!

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"

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!!!

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"

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.