- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Supreme Court hears oral arguments over warrantless breathalyzers
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:02 am to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:02 am to NYNolaguy1
Search incident to arrest is already an exception to the warrant requirement.
1
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:02 am to shawnlsu
All that's gonna happen when a person is brought to a police station to do a breathalyzer, a warrant wil already by sent through smart phones and already signed.
This won't eliminate anything
This won't eliminate anything
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:02 am to shawnlsu
quote:
That will be the resolution. A judge will have to sit at the checkpoint and issue warrants. I am fine with that as long as they are following the 4th. But really, how many 70 year old, drunk off their collective arse, judges are going to be willing to sit in a checkpoint trailer all night signing warrants.
They do this already. Google "no refusal DWI". But they don't need to, it can be done electronically now.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:12 am to NYNolaguy1
My understanding is this will not change anything in most states, only the 14 states that have sentences for refusing. In Georgia, you can refuse breathalyzer and blood test, however, they will still take your license, because you agree to those when you get your drivers license. This will just prevent them from jailing you for actually refusing, not for suspicion of drunk driving.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:17 am to NYNolaguy1
Great post, glad this is happening.
Drunk driving is bad and horrible things do happen as a result of it, but the states aren't concerned or being motivated by public safety in their pursuit of dwi's, it's all a money grab.
Drunk driving is bad and horrible things do happen as a result of it, but the states aren't concerned or being motivated by public safety in their pursuit of dwi's, it's all a money grab.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:19 am to IT_Dawg
quote:
In Georgia, you can refuse breathalyzer and blood test, however, they will still take your license, because you agree to those when you get your drivers license. This will just prevent them from jailing you for actually refusing, not for suspicion of drunk driving.
I'm more ok with that approach, only because there's no jailtime for telling the LEO to pound sand when asking for "consent".
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:28 am to NYNolaguy1
"No rights of the citizen should impede the police from doing their jobs"
-Thomas Jefferson
-Thomas Jefferson
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:28 am to LucasP
That's my favorite blog post of his.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:32 am to LucasP
quote:
"No rights of the citizen should impede the police from doing their jobs" -Thomas Jefferson
Wow, hopefully you don't really believe this
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:33 am to elprez00
quote:
But don't kid yourself by thinking that DWI laws are about anything other than revenue collection for the court system.
I don't know about this, but MIP citations are a huge racket which basically criminalizes anybody under 21 holding a red Solo cup.
This post was edited on 4/21/16 at 8:59 am
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:35 am to LucasP
quote:
I touch other dicks more than I touch my own.
Damn LucasP.
Quotations are a real bitch.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:37 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Negative. A lot of places have near instant warrants that can be issued within 15 minutes.
This will be the practical workaround. Judges assigned specifically for short-notice situations like this electronically approving warrants. I'd be interested in how the whole case goes If a cop thinks you're too impaired to drive he can legally detain you regardless. I guess the rub is whether or not you end up charged with a crime. It's my understanding that you at the very least can be charged with DUI with or without any kind of physical test. It's a matter of what the cop can bring to bear in court, and obviously blood/breath tests are pretty damned good evidence.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:39 am to elprez00
Perhaps not where you live, but try living in Houston which has the highest fatality rate in the country due to drunk drivers then perhaps you might change your tune. Especially when some a-hole side-swipes your mom into a telephone pole.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:43 am to idlewatcher
quote:
Especially when some a-hole side-swipes your mom into a telephone pole.
Very sorry that this happened to you or to your mom, but sorry I don't think I should have to give up my rights and/or freedoms because of it.
FWIW all this shite goes away when driverless cars are implemented nationwide. Can't happen soon enough if you ask me.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:45 am to idlewatcher
quote:
Perhaps not where you live, but try living in Houston which has the highest fatality rate in the country due to drunk drivers then perhaps you might change your tune. Especially when some a-hole side-swipes your mom into a telephone pole.
The flip side to that is like here in New York where people have gotten their cars seized pretrial for DWI only to be vindicated in criminal court at trial. You can guess as to whether they got their cars back.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:50 am to DaTroof
I'm sorry you feel inconvenienced, but I would rather you wait in a line for 3 min while the police search (albeit in a way our forefathers would disapprove of) for drunk drivers than have one innocent person killed by a drunk driver.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:52 am to Displaced
quote:
I'm sorry you feel inconvenienced, but I would rather you wait in a line for 3 min while the police search (albeit in a way our forefathers would disapprove of) for drunk drivers than have one innocent person killed by a drunk driver.
I don't give a frick what you would rather and neither does the supreme court
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:54 am to Displaced
quote:
drunk drivers than have one innocent person killed by a drunk driver.
IIRC there's been a bunch of studies showing checkpoints being ineffective at preventing drunk driving deaths.
It's a revenue machine, not a life saving one- everyone gets a cut- the LEO get their DWI arrests, the DA's get their convictions, the defense attorney's get their cases and billable hours. Everyone wins except the taxpayers.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:55 am to Upperdecker
quote:
This could be huge. Add a half hour - 2 hours for police to obtain a warrant and most people that would have been barely over the limit will be under it, but the seriously drunk people will still be drunk and get their punishment
In some places they'll have a judge on-hand at the check-point site to sign warrants as they need them.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:57 am to Upperdecker
quote:
Add a half hour - 2 hours for police to obtain a warrant and most people that would have been barely over the limit will be under it, but the seriously drunk people will still be drunk and get their punishment
Some states have already thought of that and have a judge on call to issue warrants over the phone.
I'm sure that will be challenged soon, especially if the judges just issue the warrants without any real questions.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News