Drunk driver for Ron Paul

[Smallpotatoes]

I didn't know that driving with a .30 blood alcohol content was protected by the Constitution.

 

[HejiraHenry]

Wait until Child Predator for Ron Paul weighs in.

 

[britwrit]

Even a drunk schmuck can occasionally stumble towards a cogent argument. Why should he forced to be "a witness against himself" by taking a test he knows which he'll fail?

(Not to say he isn't a poster child for police brutality, or that a reasonable person can't think otherwise.)

 

[The Big Ragu]

Even a drunk schmuck can occasionally stumble towards a cogent argument. Why should he forced to be "a witness against himself" by taking a test he knows which he'll fail?

(Not to say he isn't a poster child for police brutality, or that a reasonable person can't think otherwise.)

I don't know how those laws work and don't care enough to try to figure it out. But I assume if you refuse to blow, they can then prosecute with an assumption of guilt because you wouldn't take the test.

Something came to mind, though, and that is your Miranda rights. If you don't want to blow--and you aren't so obliterated drunk that you can't think--could you ask if you are under arrest? They'd have to say yes in order to keep you from getting back in the car and driving away. They can't hold you unless they arrest you.

Once you are under arrest, you have the right to an attorney before answering any questions. So when he asks you if you are willing to submit to a breathalizer test, what if you say something like, "You just arrested me. I know I have the right to speak to an attorney before answering any questions. I'd like to invoke my right to an attorney before answering that question."

What if you then claimed that you weren't refusing to blow, you were invoking your right to an attorney before answering his question, because he had just arrested you?

I am sure that isn't Kosher somehow, but it kind of should be.

Yeah, my mind really works that way. No, I have never gotten behind the wheel of a car with alcohol in me.

 

[Azrael]

I assume that in many/most states the driver explicitly signs away the right to refuse a breathalyzer as a condition of getting the license and operating the vehicle.

 

[Stitch]

You also don't have to be under arrest to be detained.

 

[deskslave]

Even a drunk schmuck can occasionally stumble towards a cogent argument. Why should he forced to be "a witness against himself" by taking a test he knows which he'll fail?

(Not to say he isn't a poster child for police brutality, or that a reasonable person can't think otherwise.)

I don't know how those laws work and don't care enough to try to figure it out. But I assume if you refuse to blow, they can then prosecute with an assumption of guilt because you wouldn't take the test.

Something came to mind, though, and that is your Miranda rights. If you don't want to blow--and you aren't so obliterated drunk that you can't think--could you ask if you are under arrest? They'd have to say yes in order to keep you from getting back in the car and driving away. They can't hold you unless they arrest you.

Once you are under arrest, you have the right to an attorney before answering any questions. So when he asks you if you are willing to submit to a breathalizer test, what if you say something like, "You just arrested me. I know I have the right to speak to an attorney before answering any questions. I'd like to invoke my right to an attorney before answering that question."

What if you then claimed that you weren't refusing to blow, you were invoking your right to an attorney before answering his question, because he had just arrested you?

I am sure that isn't Kosher somehow, but it kind of should be.

Yeah, my mind really works that way. No, I have never gotten behind the wheel of a car with alcohol in me.

I believe there are specific provisions that prevent requesting a lawyer before a breath test. And yes, implied consent says that anytime you get into a car, you agree to a breath test if an officer requests one. You can still refuse, but the punishment just so happens to be the same as if you blew over the limit.

 

[The Big Ragu]

I hadn't thought of any of that. Thanks. It makes sense if driving is a privilege and not a right.

 

[User 4332]

Even a drunk schmuck can occasionally stumble towards a cogent argument. Why should he forced to be "a witness against himself" by taking a test he knows which he'll fail?

(Not to say he isn't a poster child for police brutality, or that a reasonable person can't think otherwise.)

When you apply for a drivers license you sign an agreement acknowledging you consent to blood alcohol testing if an officer has probable cause to believe you are driving while impaired. The concept is called "implied consent." The rules are slightly different in every state, but in most you can refuse field sobriety tests, but must submit to chemical analysis at the police station or that refusal to submit to chemical analysis can be considered an admission.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Poor Andy Bernard.

 

[User 4332]

I believe there are specific provisions that prevent requesting a lawyer before a breath test. And yes, implied consent says that anytime you get into a car, you agree to a breath test if an officer requests one. You can still refuse, but the punishment just so happens to be the same as if you blew over the limit.

That's not quite right. An officer can't just go around demanding breath tests from everyone he stops. He has to form reasonable suspicion of drunk driving before he can investigate further by asking for the breath test.