- 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 9:49 am to therick711
Posted on 4/21/16 at 9:49 am to therick711
quote:
Can the government claim implied consent in the driving context to criminalize a failure to take a test that could incriminate someone.
This case is about the "physicality" of warrantless body searches, by either breath or inserting a needle.
The loss of license has already been decided a couple or three decades ago. The Supremes ruled back then, refusal to cooperate with a checkpoint, or any stop, CAN result in loss of privilege as driving is not a right.
Arrest for refusal is yet a 3rd issue. Again under the US Constitution arrests are regulated. Freedom from unwarranted arrest is a basic freedom included. Of course there are exigencies and stuff. "Stuff" being the issue with refusal to give up a right to be free from search and from self-incrimination. The arrest issue goes beyond DUI/DWI though.
0
Posted on 4/21/16 at 9:50 am to DaTroof
quote:
FWIW all this shite goes away when driverless cars are implemented nationwide. Can't happen soon enough if you ask me.
Don't get your hopes up. There will still be manually-driven vehicles on the road for the rest of both of our lifetimes.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 9:52 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
NYNolaguy1
quote:
No one should be held criminally liable for asserting their rights.
I agree. I could foresee the FedGov pressuring automakers to install breathalyzer interlock devices on automobiles as standard equipment from the manufacturer to get around this, coupled with extremely harsh punishments in exchange for DUI/DWI arrests and convictions.
No more expunged off your record, file under Article 894 type stuff.
It's an interesting case for sure...
Posted on 4/21/16 at 9:54 am to NYNolaguy1
Isn't that also the right against self incrimination?
Either way, cops are gonna get what they want like they always do, they'll just dedicate a magistrate solely for signing off on warrants 24/7.
Cops win again. There's no beating their rules in their cities. And these cops and judges are all ultimately following what MADD wants (even though a few of their higher ranking members have DWIs) because they get more laws and no old women riding their cases. More laws = more money
Either way, cops are gonna get what they want like they always do, they'll just dedicate a magistrate solely for signing off on warrants 24/7.
Cops win again. There's no beating their rules in their cities. And these cops and judges are all ultimately following what MADD wants (even though a few of their higher ranking members have DWIs) because they get more laws and no old women riding their cases. More laws = more money
This post was edited on 4/21/16 at 9:59 am
Posted on 4/21/16 at 9:57 am to GFunk
quote:
I could foresee the FedGov pressuring automakers to install breathalyzer interlock devices on automobiles as standard equipment from the manufacturer to get around this, coupled with extremely harsh punishments in exchange for DUI/DWI arrests and convictions.
I would put that right in with our govt mandating backdoor devices to keep your smartphone "secure" and to keep you "safe". Hell they could even install retina scanners to verify who is driving and flag the police when a person leaves a restaurant after having a glass of wine. You know, to keep our roads safe.
This post was edited on 4/21/16 at 9:59 am
Posted on 4/21/16 at 10:10 am to GFunk
quote:
I could foresee the FedGov pressuring automakers to install breathalyzer interlock devices on automobiles as standard equipment from the manufacturer to get around this
I don't think this would happen because it really isn't feasible, but if it was implemented, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I'm sure people will bitch and moan about giving up your freedoms yada yada yada, but a device that is designed to prohibit me from driving drunk is no different than taking a driving test to get your license or any other certification tests that are required to perform an activity, at least from a logic standpoint. If you're impaired then you can't drive - seems reasonable enough to me.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 10:12 am to Sidicous
quote:
Signing your license IS signing the contract with the state.
What are the terms of the contract? Where on the license does it say this is a contract?
No where on my license does it make any mention of any kind of terms or contract other than federal regulations.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 10:12 am to Hammertime
quote:
Isn't that also the right against self incrimination?
Doesn't apply to tests that were obtained through a warrant or consent. That right protects you against things that are testimonial in nature. See Schmerber.
This post was edited on 4/21/16 at 10:16 am
Posted on 4/21/16 at 10:12 am to elprez00
quote:
Cops are going to fight driverless cars tooth and nail because it will virtually end the shakedown that is the DWI industry.
It will be interesting to see what happens to police departments and DA's offices around the country with driverless cars in the coming decade or so. No DWI's, vast reduction in drug cases (most of these start as car stops), etc. Vast reduction in revenues. The only way to maintain the current empires...i mean staffing levels...will be to raise taxes significantly.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 10:13 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Lawyer Thomas McCarthy, representing North Dakota, tried to tell the justices that they would be putting the states "in a terrible bind" if search warrants were to become required for these tests.
So his excuse is:
"But Judge, it would make it much harder for us to convict these guys if we cant get this evidence"
such a bull shite argument
and this is coming from a prosecutor
Posted on 4/21/16 at 10:16 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Hell they could even install retina scanners to verify who is driving and flag the police when a person leaves a restaurant after having a glass of wine. You know, to keep our roads safe.
No need to use hyperbole about how many drinks it takes to be over the legal limit.
Here is a BAC estimator based on age, weight, sex, glasses of water, and drinking duration that is useful for getting a decent idea of your BAC. A 30 y/o male weighing 185 pounds can drink 4 glasses of wine over a 60 minute span with a glass of water included and still have a BAC of .066. A breathalyzer interlock device doesn't prevent you from a glass of wine or two and getting on the road.
This post was edited on 4/21/16 at 10:18 am
Posted on 4/21/16 at 10:22 am to slackster
quote:
A breathalyzer interlock device doesn't prevent you from a glass of wine or two and getting on the road.
Wrong. An interlock will not start the car with any booze in your system.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 10:25 am to Barf
quote:
Wrong. An interlock will not start the car with any booze in your system.
I should have been more clear - in the context of them being installed in every vehicle, I would assume they would be set at the BAC limits for that state.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 10:28 am to slackster
quote:
I should have been more clear - in the context of them being installed in every vehicle, I would assume they would be set at the BAC limits for that state.
That doesn't make sense because you can, and will, be charged with DUI even if you blow under the legal limit.
I am also unable to locate this contract you say we all signed when we got our drivers license.
This post was edited on 4/21/16 at 10:31 am
Posted on 4/21/16 at 10:33 am to NYNolaguy1
I'm with states on this one. Had one friend killed when he was hit head on by a carload of drunk teens. He was on the way home from picking up dinner - literally blocks from home. Left a wife and 3 kids. Likewise, a girl who is friends with my kids was hit head on. Permanent major brain damage and life in a wheelchair - barely able to speak after years of hard therapy.
I'll sacrifice plenty of my rights if he means getting drunk assholes off the roads.
I'll sacrifice plenty of my rights if he means getting drunk assholes off the roads.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 10:38 am to tgrgrd00
quote:
Oh no. It was very well positioned so there was no where to bail once you saw it. As a matter of fact they had a couple cruisers placed at the exit that went to the checkpoint to prevent anyone from turning around on the exit ramp. They were the first indication of the stop but you didn't know it.
Unconstitutional.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 10:38 am to 911Moto
quote:
I'll sacrifice plenty of my rights if he means getting drunk assholes off the roads.
If their method enforcement meant reduced drunks, sure.
What you really should be rooting for is driverless vehicles. It won't matter how many drinks they have had- of course it will to law enforcement for $$$ reasons, but in reality, if they aren't actively driving, does anyone notice?
It'll be interesting to see how LEO establish reasonable suspicion to pull someone over when the driver isn't driving. No weaving, no excessive speeding (or slowing)... On what grounds will they have to pull someone over, other than random (and possibly unconstitutional) searches?
Posted on 4/21/16 at 10:40 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
No one should be held criminally liable for asserting their rights.
read the article, agree with the Sotus probably ruling on this....but....
the three defendants were all drunk and reeked of booze, had wrecked their vehicles bringing law enforcement to the scene...at that point I do think they waive their rights to search and seizure protection.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 10:41 am to 911Moto
quote:
I'll sacrifice plenty of my rights if he means getting drunk assholes off the roads.
I'm sure you feel the same way about pedophiles, rapists, murderers, and drug dealers. We shouldn't have rights. They are too dangerous. The world is too scary.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 10:43 am to 911Moto
quote:
I'm with states on this one. Had one friend killed when he was hit head on by a carload of drunk teens. He was on the way home from picking up dinner - literally blocks from home. Left a wife and 3 kids. Likewise, a girl who is friends with my kids was hit head on. Permanent major brain damage and life in a wheelchair - barely able to speak after years of hard therapy.
I'll sacrifice plenty of my rights if he means getting drunk assholes off the roads.
Sorry, but that has nothing to do with me. I'm not interested in giving up anything.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News