The DUI exception to the constitution

[Miss Mia]

naaman fletcher  (66 posts) Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Wed Dec-31-08 04:55 PM
Original message
The DUI exception to the constitution
   
I hope to convince you in the next hour, some of you, that the greatest single threat to our freedoms, the freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights, is not from Iraq or Iran. I don’t think it’s from North Korea. I don’t think it’s from the extremists of the Muslim world. The threat, as it has always been throughout history, is internal: It is from within. But I do not think it is from the American Communist party or extremists on the right. I hope to convince a few of you that the greatest single threat to our freedoms today comes from a group consisting largely of American housewives. They call themselves the Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD.

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09/the-dui-exception-to-...

Basically the OP goes on to assert that driving is a right and not a privilege. 

[miskie]

[thundley4]

There is no law preventing the DUmmie from getting drunk and driving on his own property.  Driving is a privilege when you want to use the roads created and maintained for public use.

[LC EFA]

There is no law preventing the DUmmie from getting drunk and driving on his own property.  Driving is a privilege when you want to use the roads created and maintained for public use.

The law of expected outcomes prevents most people from driving drunk-on their own property, but that is a law that can't be enforced by man.

[Zeus]

There is no law preventing the DUmmie from getting drunk and driving on his own property.  Driving is a privilege when you want to use the roads created and maintained for public use.

Did you read the Article or just giving the PC response ? I thought the author did a good job of breaking down the argument of the associated problems with the tests from a legal standpoint and a scientific one. Keep in mind if courts can make "DUI exceptions" it isn't going to be long until other "exceptions" are created. Also the laws are written so Driving basically has nothing to do with it anymore" so your argument is not only silly but moot.

I am not defending/advocating DUI I just think a politically correct approach to laws are a very dangerous road to travel.

[thundley4]

The law of expected outcomes prevents most people from driving drunk-on their own property, but that is a law that can't be enforced by man.

However, that law can and is enforced by Darwin.

[thundley4]

Did you read the Article or just giving the PC response ? I thought the author did a good job of breaking down the argument of the associated problems with the tests from a legal standpoint and a scientific one. Keep in mind if courts can make "DUI exceptions" it isn't going to be long until other "exceptions" are created. Also the laws are written so Driving basically has nothing to do with it anymore" so your argument is not only silly but moot.

I am not defending/advocating DUI I just think a politically correct approach to laws are a very dangerous road to travel.

That was a long read, and the author does have some valid points, quite a few actually.  I still can not understand how DUI checkpoints ever made it past the USSC.   Another thing that tends to get overlooked when when MADD and other advocates overlook when pushing for stricter laws, is the fact that most people who have been involved in a deadly crash while DUI, were usually driving with a history of speeding, and or reckless driving.  That is more a contributing factor than the alcohol in many cases
I personally think the field sobriety test is a more effective way of telling how drunk a person is than the breathilizer test.

[Zeus]

That was a long read, and the author does have some valid points, quite a few actually.  I still can not understand how DUI checkpoints ever made it past the USSC.   Another thing that tends to get overlooked when when MADD and other advocates overlook when pushing for stricter laws, is the fact that most people who have been involved in a deadly crash while DUI, were usually driving with a history of speeding, and or reckless driving.  That is more a contributing factor than the alcohol in many cases
I personally think the field sobriety test is a more effective way of telling how drunk a person is than the breathilizer test.

Little bit of Irony about MADD. One of the founders of some local chapter was busted for DUI a few yrs back for the 2nd time.

[Miss Mia]

That was a long read, and the author does have some valid points, quite a few actually.  I still can not understand how DUI checkpoints ever made it past the USSC.   Another thing that tends to get overlooked when when MADD and other advocates overlook when pushing for stricter laws, is the fact that most people who have been involved in a deadly crash while DUI, were usually driving with a history of speeding, and or reckless driving.  That is more a contributing factor than the alcohol in many cases
I personally think the field sobriety test is a more effective way of telling how drunk a person is than the breathilizer test.

I don't agree with DUI checkpoints, I think it's a waste of time and doesn't really curb drunk driving.  But just being pulled over and asked to undergo a field sobriety test or breathalyzer doesn't constitute a breech of the 4th amendment.  Also I don't think that having your driver's license suspended b/c you refuse to do a breathalyzer is unConstitutional.

[thundley4]

I don't agree with DUI checkpoints, I think it's a waste of time and doesn't really curb drunk driving.  But just being pulled over and asked to undergo a field sobriety test or breathalyzer doesn't constitute a breech of the 4th amendment.  Also I don't think that having your driver's license suspended b/c you refuse to do a breathalyzer is unConstitutional.

You could look at the field sobriety test done at a checkpoint as a form of self incrimination. The breathalyzer seems like an illegal search when done at a checkpoint, based on an assumption of guilt because they can smeel alcohol.  I don't know about other states, but Illinois has a 90 day summary suspension just for the DUI arrest. It happens even before the cases are brought to court.  That is in effect punishing a person without ever being convicted of any crime.

[Miss Mia]

You could look at the field sobriety test done at a checkpoint as a form of self incrimination. The breathalyzer seems like an illegal search when done at a checkpoint, based on an assumption of guilt because they can smeel alcohol.  I don't know about other states, but Illinois has a 90 day summary suspension just for the DUI arrest. It happens even before the cases are brought to court.  That is in effect punishing a person without ever being convicted of any crime.

I'm really not on the DUI laws and what all happens (I've never been in that situation nor has anyone close to me).  I think in Texas if you decline to do a field sobriety test, they do suspend automatically your license, which I have to say, now thinking about it is wrong if you haven't been convicted of anything.  But if you fail a breathalyzer/blood test I think it's fine.  Now, if you're pulled over and refuse the breathalyzer they have judges on stand-by to sign warrants for the police to draw blood. 

[thundley4]

I'm really not on the DUI laws and what all happens (I've never been in that situation nor has anyone close to me).  I think in Texas if you decline to do a field sobriety test, they do suspend automatically your license, which I have to say, now thinking about it is wrong if you haven't been convicted of anything.  But if you fail a breathalyzer/blood test I think it's fine.  Now, if you're pulled over and refuse the breathalyzer they have judges on stand-by to sign warrants for the police to draw blood. 

I know about our laws since a guy at work had gotten one and his wife had to bring him to work, and he constantly complained about MADD and the DUI laws.  He got the summary suspension but then his case was thrown out on a technicality of some sort.

[Miss Mia]

I know about our laws since a guy at work had gotten one and his wife had to bring him to work, and he constantly complained about MADD and the DUI laws.  He got the summary suspension but then his case was thrown out on a technicality of some sort.

I thought, but I could easily be wrong, that the temp suspension still allowed you to drive to work.  Was that true in his case?

[thundley4]

You can get a work permit, but it takes time and ofter the term of suspension can be up before all the paper work goes through.

[Miss Mia]

You can get a work permit, but it takes time and ofter the term of suspension can be up before all the paper work goes through.

Ahh, I see.  Thanks for the explanation. 

With that new knowledge, for myself, I have to say that the suspension before even a trial is wrong.  But I would think that if they wanted to add an breathalyzer to the ignition so that the person could still drive, just not drunk until trial that would be okay.  What do you think?

[thundley4]

Ahh, I see.  Thanks for the explanation. 

With that new knowledge, for myself, I have to say that the suspension before even a trial is wrong.  But I would think that if they wanted to add an breathalyzer to the ignition so that the person could still drive, just not drunk until trial that would be okay.  What do you think?

As of midnight, anyone convicted of DUI will have to have one of the interlock breathalizers installed on their car.

Users must pay for the fist-sized devices, which cost around $80 to install on dashboards and $80 a month to rent; there's also a $30 monthly state fee.

[Miss Mia]

As of midnight, anyone convicted of DUI will have to have one of the interlock breathalizers installed on their car.

Users must pay for the fist-sized devices, which cost around $80 to install on dashboards and $80 a month to rent; there's also a $30 monthly state fee.

But what about the people before their convicted?  Can they still get one of these and keep their license until they go to court? 

[Tantal]

You can get a work permit, but it takes time and ofter the term of suspension can be up before all the paper work goes through.

Actually, and this is speaking only for Texas, the license is confiscated on the spot for either refusal to provide a breath specimen or providing a breath specimen with a BAC of over .08. The license doesn't actually become "suspended" until 45 after days that. During that time the suspect's attorney can request an administrative License Revocation (ALR) hearing before a judge for the State Office of Administrative Hearings. If the suspension is upheld, there is still sufficient time for the attorney to procure for his client an Occupational License to allow him to travel to/from his/her place of employment.

In May of 2002 I had the wonderful privilege of arriving on-scene of a 6-vehicle wreck involving a drunk driving the wrong way on Airport Freeway. I began checking cars and had to get to the 4th before I found anyone alive.....and that lady was all kinds of screwed up (it took the FD over 20 minutes to cut her out). Then the suspect's vehicle, from which I was unable to get the driver out due to damage, went up like a Roman Candle due to ruptured fuel lines. At this point I look back and see the fire truck entering the freeway......about a mile away......having to drive 30 mph on the shoulder. So, I got to listen to this lady's screams as she burned to death.
Then, a year or two later, we got to work an accident in our city whereby an officer from a neighboring agency was run over by a drunk on a traffic stop and killed instantly. I got to accompany the suspect, who was out on bond from a DWI arrest from a few weeks prior, to the hospital. Fortunately, in fatality cases, Texas doesn't allow refusal to provide a blood specimen. Of course the suspect attempted to refuse, but that didn't go far. He had the option of having the nurse get it with a blood-draw kit, or me getting it with a nightstick and Dixie-cup....either way, we were getting it.

Constitutional issues aside, you'll have to pardon me for not having much sympathy for these clowns.

[thundley4]

But what about the people before their convicted?  Can they still get one of these and keep their license until they go to court? 

I didn't see anything about having one before a conviction. Chicago Tribune.

[Chris_]

You could look at the field sobriety test done at a checkpoint as a form of self incrimination. The breathalyzer seems like an illegal search when done at a checkpoint, based on an assumption of guilt because they can smeel alcohol.  I don't know about other states, but Illinois has a 90 day summary suspension just for the DUI arrest. It happens even before the cases are brought to court.  That is in effect punishing a person without ever being convicted of any crime.

Two words: Implied Consent.  If you don't want to allow checkpoints and the like, don't drive.

[thundley4]

Two words: Implied Consent.  If you don't want to allow checkpoints and the like, don't drive.

The other option is to avoid drinking and driving. Then again, most of the checkpoints are set up to where they can't be avoided when you see them.  Here they set them up on the main highways through town,

[NHSparky]

Two words: Implied Consent.  If you don't want to allow checkpoints and the like, don't drive.

Bingo.  By you accepting a state-issued drivers license, you accept all the terms and conditions they require therein.

[formerlurker]

Actually, and this is speaking only for Texas, the license is confiscated on the spot for either refusal to provide a breath specimen or providing a breath specimen with a BAC of over .08. The license doesn't actually become "suspended" until 45 after days that. During that time the suspect's attorney can request an administrative License Revocation (ALR) hearing before a judge for the State Office of Administrative Hearings. If the suspension is upheld, there is still sufficient time for the attorney to procure for his client an Occupational License to allow him to travel to/from his/her place of employment.

In May of 2002 I had the wonderful privilege of arriving on-scene of a 6-vehicle wreck involving a drunk driving the wrong way on Airport Freeway. I began checking cars and had to get to the 4th before I found anyone alive.....and that lady was all kinds of screwed up (it took the FD over 20 minutes to cut her out). Then the suspect's vehicle, from which I was unable to get the driver out due to damage, went up like a Roman Candle due to ruptured fuel lines. At this point I look back and see the fire truck entering the freeway......about a mile away......having to drive 30 mph on the shoulder. So, I got to listen to this lady's screams as she burned to death.
Then, a year or two later, we got to work an accident in our city whereby an officer from a neighboring agency was run over by a drunk on a traffic stop and killed instantly. I got to accompany the suspect, who was out on bond from a DWI arrest from a few weeks prior, to the hospital. Fortunately, in fatality cases, Texas doesn't allow refusal to provide a blood specimen. Of course the suspect attempted to refuse, but that didn't go far. He had the option of having the nurse get it with a blood-draw kit, or me getting it with a nightstick and Dixie-cup....either way, we were getting it.

Constitutional issues aside, you'll have to pardon me for not having much sympathy for these clowns.

I agree.   I was a casualty adjuster for a large auto insurance carrier.   The lives forever destroyed by drunks on the road haunt you forever. 

My favorite of course is the moron parents who booze it up at parties/cookouts/weddings with their kids in tow, then drive home.   Parents always seem to live in those accidents.   Bastards. 

[formerlurker]

That was a long read, and the author does have some valid points, quite a few actually.  I still can not understand how DUI checkpoints ever made it past the USSC.   Another thing that tends to get overlooked when when MADD and other advocates overlook when pushing for stricter laws, is the fact that most people who have been involved in a deadly crash while DUI, were usually driving with a history of speeding, and or reckless driving.  That is more a contributing factor than the alcohol in many cases
I personally think the field sobriety test is a more effective way of telling how drunk a person is than the breathilizer test.

DUIs with accidents that came across my desk involve soccer moms, dads having a few pops after work, fill-in-the-blank idiots leaving sporting events, weddings, parties, bars, blah blah blah.   

Professional drunks know how to avoid checkpoints.   

[formerlurker]

Basically the OP goes on to assert that driving is a right and not a privilege. 

That is it in a nutshell.   

The author does have the right to not drive however, especially if he drank a few glasses of merlot at his friend's house and think that doesn't compromise his ability to drive.

It was only two glasses of wine..... dude, I am an e-x-c-e-l-l-e-n-t driver......