re: Supreme Court hears oral arguments over warrantless breathalyzers

quote:

---

If only there wasn't that pesky fourth amendment, I bet we could make this a real efficient process

---

C'mon. If you want a driver's license, you should have to voluntarily hand over Potential evidence to the state to be used against you. I like this idea.

I'll take it a step further--there is a great need to suppress violent crime and drug trafficking in certain areas. The DMV should make
It a requirement that you authorize a stop and search of your vehicle if you're driving in certain areas after dark.

quote:

---

Even if the driver declines FST, they still usually put in there they noticed horizontal nystagmus of the eyes.

---

What i think people aren't realizing is that you can refuse a breathalyzer and FST and still be arrested (and subsequently reported in The Advocate )

These charges are much easier to get out of because there is no evidence other than the officer's testimony.

quote:

---

It a requirement that you authorize a stop and search of your vehicle if you're driving in certain areas after dark.

---

What could go wrong?

quote:

---

In the East Texas town of Tenaha, the district attorney oversaw aparticularly Dickensian operation: Local cops would stop out-of-town drivers on the flimsiest of pretexts to look for cash, DVD players, cell phones, anything of value. The DA would threaten drivers with criminal charges, even promising to have state authorities remove kids from parents unless they waived rights to the property.

A class-action lawsuit uncovered that the proceeds from this highway robbery—an estimated $3 million between 2006 and 2008—were paying for popcorn machines, donations to a local Baptist church and bonuses for law enforcement key to the operation. Meanwhile, the DA was handing out light sentences to those caught with drugs, or laundered money, in exchange for seizing their assets.

---

Now just imagine if they had statutory access to every vehicle on the road. It would be payday, everyday.

By the way, this still happens everyday to people across the US- legally.

quote:

---

But don't kid yourself by thinking that DWI laws are about anything other than revenue collection for the court system.

---

What about the safety of other people using roadways? I would imagine that is the first priority, just the same as speed limits, dividing lines and traffic signs.

quote:

---

What about the safety of other people using roadways? I would imagine that is the first priority, just the same as speed limits, dividing lines and traffic signs.

---

If safety were truly first, you would think that LEO would be pushing driverless cars. Instead they will probably fight it, as they have the most to lose in terms of the ability to seize their budgets on the roads, and from lack of arrests and ticket revenue. Without that LEO loses a lot of their use and value to their municipality.

quote:

---

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.

---

yea but if that same guy blew in a breathalyzer, the reading would come out much higher than .066...

unless he rinsed his mouth out with water before driving

people dont realize how much alcohol just stays in your mouth after you drink and how much that can affect the breathalyzer

quote:

---

However, just b/c the test can be administered, should not, IMO, force a driver to comply by threat of criminal penalty. I believe this is a 5th amendment self-incrimination issue.

---

Unfortunately that battle was lost 5-4 in Schmerber.

quote:

---

I agree that these laws should be struck down but not in this case...the defendants were indeed drunk. This case was brought to the Supreme court by the wrong defendants and althought its great they will probably rule in favor of the defendants and the constitutional protections...the defendants in this case dont deserve that judgement.

---

Totally disagree. This case was brought because the officers didn't get a warrant. Granted their legislature told them they didn't need one- so put the blame on them for getting lobbied by prohibitionist MADD's. If they had gotten a warrant they'd be behind bars.

quote:

---

If the officers on scene made a determination that the defendants were indeed drunk and the test proved it how can they claim 'illegal search and seizure' after the fact

---

Yes but there are limits to the search incident to arrest. If you are arrested in your vehicle for possession of a controlled substance, that doesn't automatically give them the authority to search your home, even if you're parked in front of it.

Likewise, being arrested in your home doesn't automatically give the cops authority to search your vehicle. They will have an easy time getting a warrant to do so, but it isn't automatic.

Also, any search involving someone's body is generally held to a different standard (by this I mean blood draws, breathalyzer, cavity searches, etc). If you're pulled over for "swerving" and have red eyes, the officer might arrest you, but that might not be enough to compel a breathalyzer or even cause to get a warrant.

Now, if you plow into three cars, reek of booze, can't stand up or talk correctly, the officer will arrest you and will likely have enough to get away with compelling a breathalyzer or getting a warrant for a blood draw. It's not necessarily a black and white issue.

quote:

---

Unfortunately that battle was lost 5-4 in Schmerber.

---

5-4 is pretty shaky ground. Douglas and Black were right, as usual.

Looks like McNeely (2013) may have modified it.