Our messed up legal system

[Harrison Bergeron]

Texas doesn't do checkpoints that often, but what thye DO do is "no refusal weekends" where they will have a judge on call to issue warrants for blood tests for anyone refusing a breath test.

[MechAg94]

I don't think I have ever heard of check points in Texas.  I don't know if there is a restriction on using them or we just don't do it.

There are a lot of lawyers down here that tell you not to do the breath test or submit to any other test at all.  Take the ride to jail and make them go through the motions to get your blood if they want it.  I guess it is much easier to plea the charge down if they don't have evidence.  I guess the LEO response is to have a judge on call to issue warrants over the phone. 

[HankB]

There are a lot of lawyers down here that tell you not to do the breath test or submit to any other test at all.  Take the ride to jail and make them go through the motions to get your blood if they want it.  I guess it is much easier to plea the charge down if they don't have evidence.  I guess the LEO response is to have a judge on call to issue warrants over the phone.  

No problem - yank the license automatically if he refuses a breathalyzer - implied consent and all that.

On the other hand, I would be disinclined to comply with a blood draw warrant that wasn't presented to me - not a copy of the warrant, but the actual, signed-by-a-judge warrant.

I guess that's one reason why LEOs have pepper spray, tazers, and billy clubs - "We've been told there's a warrant SOMEWHERE, and by golly you're going to comply with it whether we can show it to you or not! Spray! Zap! Biff! Bam! Pow! Yippee - we get to file more charges! Zap him again Barney!"  

(If I were a medic, I'd refuse to perform ANY invasive procedure - including a blood draw - on an unwilling, lucid adult; he might remember me and come after me later.)

[Firethorn]

I'd be a lot more sanguine about busting people for DUI if the standard was still a scientifically set one.  The reduction in driving ability at .08 vanishes into the noise of rest level, stress, other distractors, etc...

A legal .1 level is much less likely to be falsely diagnosed with a breathalyzer, avoid problems with people on chemo providing false positives*, etc...

*Read about a guy that, with a PROVEN 0.0 BAC, could blow a .08-.09 due to how his chemo and cancer interacted.  He STILL had a hard time avoiding conviction because the state kept insisting that 'We've DECLARED the breathalyzer perfect, blowing a BAC of .08 after driving a vehicle is what's illegal, not driving drunk!!!'

[taurusowner]

You're gonna have to be a little more specific when you say "breathalyzer" since that is actually a catch phrase with no bearing on the actual devices police use...

Are we talking about Preliminary Breath Tests on the side of the road? What model PBT is authorized in that state?  Did the subject have residual mouth alcohol contamination?  Was there a blood draw?  What was the last test and certification date on both the PBT and the Datamaster at the police station?

[Firethorn]

Are we talking about Preliminary Breath Tests on the side of the road? What model PBT is authorized in that state?  Did the subject have residual mouth alcohol contamination?  Was there a blood draw?  What was the last test and certification date on both the PBT and the Datamaster at the police station?

I don't remember which state it was in, but it was effectively a PBT as it was given roadside.  No blood was drawn, but I read that the guy had SERIOUS medical issues and drinking alcohol would probably kill him. 

The problem he was highlighting was that the state basically declared the PBT to NOT be 'preliminary' and to be sufficient proof of DUI despite any evidence to the contrary in special circumstances.

Kinda like how if your name is a vague match to what a woman gives as the probable father to her baby when she goes on welfare, they can send a first class letter to your last known address via credit report or something, giving you 30 days from the time the letter was mailed to prove that you're NOT the father before they start taking default judgement child support payments.

[MechAg94]

No problem - yank the license automatically if he refuses a breathalyzer - implied consent and all that.

The already do something like that, but I think it is a temporary suspension.  I don't like it myself since there is no due process, but the courts seem to be okay with it. 

On the other hand, I would be disinclined to comply with a blood draw warrant that wasn't presented to me - not a copy of the warrant, but the actual, signed-by-a-judge warrant.

I guess that's one reason why LEOs have pepper spray, tazers, and billy clubs - "We've been told there's a warrant SOMEWHERE, and by golly you're going to comply with it whether we can show it to you or not! Spray! Zap! Biff! Bam! Pow! Yippee - we get to file more charges! Zap him again Barney!"  

(If I were a medic, I'd refuse to perform ANY invasive procedure - including a blood draw - on an unwilling, lucid adult; he might remember me and come after me later.)

Down here, you will also sometimes see the officer taking the blood sample on the side of the road.  I assume someone came up with some sort of qualification training.  Again, I don't like the idea, but the courts seem to be okay with it.

These are some of the issues I don't like about DUI law and precedent.  They get so zealous about going after DUI offenders that they keep changing to law to the point that anything goes.  IMO, it reflects the drug war stuff only this has a more likely chance of affecting normal law abiding citizens. 

[taurusowner]

I don't remember which state it was in, but it was effectively a PBT as it was given roadside.  No blood was drawn, but I read that the guy had SERIOUS medical issues and drinking alcohol would probably kill him.

The problem he was highlighting was that the state basically declared the PBT to NOT be 'preliminary' and to be sufficient proof of DUI despite any evidence to the contrary in special circumstances.

Kinda like how if your name is a vague match to what a woman gives as the probable father to her baby when she goes on welfare, they can send a first class letter to your last known address via credir report or something, giving you 30 days from the time the letter was mailed to prove that you're NOT the father before they start taking default judgement child support payments.

You're right.  Both of those situations are serious lapses in the law and IMO are unconstitutional and should be treated as such.

[MechAg94]

You're right.  Both of those situations are serious lapses in the law and IMO are unconstitutional and should be treated as such.

Sort of like the guy getting a DUI for sitting in his front seat parked and sleeping.  No driving whatsoever.  Something about the intent to drive. 

[Firethorn]

Sort of like the guy getting a DUI for sitting in his front seat parked and sleeping.  No driving whatsoever.  Something about the intent to drive. 

They've busted people sleeping in the back seat even, as long as they have the keys it's considered a DUI.

[roo_ster]

They've busted people sleeping in the back seat even, as long as they have the keys it's considered a DUI.

In that case, it makes sense to drive home snookered, as you will have less time exposure.  We must be cognizant of the incentives we create when legislating & enforcing the law.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

nope  you just need to take the keys and hide em away from the car

[roo_ster]

nope  you just need to take the keys and hide em away from the car

Heh.  See, that's what I missed, not having mis-spent my youth as flagrantly as others. 

[Firethorn]

In that case, it makes sense to drive home snookered, as you will have less time exposure.  We must be cognizant of the incentives we create when legislating & enforcing the law.

This is the way I look at it.  The law was originally intended to allow prosecution of people who were just pulling into their driveway; or people getting ready to drive.  Asleep in the vehicle shouldn't count.

Because the alternative is indeed drunks driving home because it's less of a risk than doing the right thing, and I think people shouldn't be punished for doing the right thing.

nope  you just need to take the keys and hide em away from the car

I've heard about putting them behind one of the wheels or in the trunk before.  Even heard of them sleeping in the trunk.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

they need to be away from the car.   outa your immediate control

[sanglant]

and if they are robed, etc. . the state should be liable. after all they forced them out of there lockable car.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

you can still be in your car  keys can't be

[MechAg94]

you can still be in your car  keys can't be

Where do you put them?  Do you bury them in the dirt somewhere? 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

hide em away from car  after looking to make sure the cops aren't already watching you

used to practice saying abc;s backwards

[MechAg94]

hide em away from car  after looking to make sure the cops aren't already watching you

used to practice saying abc;s backwards

I don't think I have ever been so drunk that I couldn't drive in a straight line.  (at least when my vehicle was anywhere nearby)  That said, falling asleep is probably a bigger issue for me.

I remember hearing stories of getting out of DUI's from some years before I was old enough to do it.  I think one of them, when the officer asked him to say the alphabet, he asked "Which One?".  He could say the greek alphabet better while drunk than the english.  I don't know how much of that goes on these days. 

IMO, It is just another example of laws/enforcement carried too far out of some crusade to stop something.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

on the flip side i was a black out drinker who appeared sober when in blackout   i thank god i lost my license at 22 and didn't get it back till i was 40  was better for everyone

[taurusowner]

The problem with trusting people to "know their limit" or some other form of relaxed OWI law is that alcohol, while it lowers your physical and mental abilities, it increases your confidence in them.  So not only are you becoming a more dangerous driver the more you drink, but your ability recognize that fact is being simultaneously decreased.  I look at phrases like "I don't think I've ever been so drunk that I couldn't drive in a straight line" and respond with "that you know of".  Because while you were drunk your understanding of what a straight line was decreased while your confidence that you could do was increased.  And even now, your memory of how you were when you were drunk could be suspect because alcohol damages memory too.  That's a deadly combination.  It's one thing to voluntarily lower your own hand-eye coordination, reaction time, depth and time perception, etc.  It's entirely something else to do it in a way that actually makes you think they're getting better.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

mark twain said "liquor increases the need decreases the ability"

[MechAg94]

I think a lot of that all depends on the drunk when it comes to attitude. 

I'm not really asking to stop enforcement, but I think the law should focus on people who are actually drunk, not people who cut themselves off at one or two, and to confine it to people who are actually driving versus just sitting in their car. 

[taurusowner]

I think a lot of that all depends on the drunk when it comes to attitude. 

I'm not really asking to stop enforcement, but I think the law should focus on people who are actually drunk, not people who cut themselves off at one or two, and to confine it to people who are actually driving versus just sitting in their car. 

So how do we determine who had one or two?  Ask them?