Breathalyzer is called into question

[Obliviax]

I've seen my share of people accused by police that have an agenda. The biggest problem is that it most often happens to people of color or white people that have tattoos (or whatever). In many cases, they don't have the money for an attorney so they get one appointed who simply wants them to plead guilty to get their small stipend and move to the next case. My wife has a case she's worked on for a year. They charged the person with three felonies. After a year, she plead no contest to a misdemeanor. She is now suing for wrongful arrest. The police records on the criminal trial are strikingly different than for the civil trial. The police clearly doctored the records.

As it turns out, police are allowed to go into their personal records and pull out anything they want after two years. So a bad cop can simply doctor his/her records. This is part of the police union contract. But it really hurts people trying to weed out bad cops. Of course, there are great cops that work in a very difficult environment. The system to ID good and bad cops must be preserved.

 

[LionDeNittany]

I've always heard this is the best approach if you're ever asked to take one. Here in Austin we have what they call "no refusal" weekends, which started on big drinking holidays but now is basically every weekend. You still have the right to refuse, but if you do on a no refusal weekend the police have a judge on standby to issue immediate warrants, which allows them to take your blood without your consent. They then do so and are able to collect evidence before the alcohol has had time to leave your system. It was quite controversial when it was first rolled out but now it's been in place so long it hasn't really been a topic of discussion recently.

Someone would probably die if there was an attempt to take my blood without my consent. That person most likely is me, but it would not happen.

The police would look quite stupid afterwards when my BAC was well below the do not drive level.

LdN

 

[PSUSignore]

Someone would probably die if there was an attempt to take my blood without my consent. That person most likely is me, but it would not happen.

The police would look quite stupid afterwards when my BAC was well below the do not drive level.

LdN

Well the way they run the program here, they'd have legal protection for doing so in the form of an executed warrant. I imagine they strap people down to ensure a safe blood draw anyway because some of these people are likely so drunk they would actively resist, so I don't know what recourse you'd have. So you're probably correct in assuming that additional resistance would not turn out well for the driver. I haven't heard any stories of injuries or additional resisting arrest charges since this program launched a few years ago though.

 

[nits74]

Someone would probably die if there was an attempt to take my blood without my consent. That person most likely is me, but it would not happen.

The police would look quite stupid afterwards when my BAC was well below the do not drive level.

LdN

I'm surprised that is even constitutional. And to my knowledge, unless it has changed, Texas is one of those states where checkpoints are not considered to be legal. Go figure.

 

[LionDeNittany]

Well the way they run the program here, they'd have legal protection for doing so in the form of an executed warrant. I imagine they strap people down to ensure a safe blood draw anyway because some of these people are likely so drunk they would actively resist, so I don't know what recourse you'd have. So you're probably correct in assuming that additional resistance would not turn out well for the driver. I haven't heard any stories of injuries or additional resisting arrest charges since this program launched a few years ago though.

Yeah I mean I don't doubt that's the law. I'm just saying it would get ugly. If I was drunk, well probably easier.

 

[AWS1022]

Well, I said noting either way about speeding, did I? But let's pretend that I did. My rebuttal would then be:

Are you saying that somebody who is paying attention to their driving but going 10 miles over the limit is somehow as dangerous as somebody who isn't actually driving their car? I see no logic in that at all. Do I speed? Yes, but not excessively. I also have over a million accident free miles in all types of vehicles and a half million on motorcycles. My vehicles are maintained, with good tires, brakes, rubber and fully functioning suspensions. And I pay attention- constantly. If you want to make the case than that is somehow unsafe- especially compared to some idiot driving while texting/ eating, or drinking- feel free to flail away

Just because someone has a beer doesn’t mean they’re not paying attention. And even if you’re paying attention, speed hurts your reaction time so it’s not much different than not paying attention. The only case I’m making is to jail people for having more than a .000 BAC is ridiculous. How is speeding and not having an accident any different from having a beer and not having an accident?

 

[Nitt1300]

hle

Just because someone has a beer doesn’t mean they’re not paying attention. And even if you’re paying attention, speed hurts your reaction time so it’s not much different than not paying attention. The only case I’m making is to jail people for having more than a .000 BAC is ridiculous. How is speeding and not having an accident any different from having a beer and not having an accident?

because even one beer has an effect on your level of alertness

 

[AWS1022]

hle

because even one beer has an effect on your level of alertness

And speeding has an effect on your reaction time. And a lot of things have an effect on your alertness (being tired, loud music, bright sunlight, driving too many hours) so I guess we make all that illegal.

 

[lionroar88]

Pretty dumb post. Should they arrest people who text and drive? How about eat and drive? And of course we need to jail anyone who speeds since speed is the number one cause of accidents.

yes, and yes
and no, it isn't-distracted driving is

Actually driving under the speed limit causes more accidents than anything else. Problem is, driving under the speed limit is not against the law.

 

[AWS1022]

Actually driving under the speed limit causes more accidents than anything else. Problem is, driving under the speed limit is not against the law.

Driving over the speed limit or too fast for conditions is the number one cause of accidents. So speed is the number one cause not driving too slow.

 

[Delco Lion]

I dont drink and drive and have never been in a check point or pulled over. Just and FYI, in PA you are not required to do a field sobriety test. You can politely decline. You then have the choice of going to the police station and taking the breathalyzer test. or refusing and face the potential of losing your lic for one year.

 

[lionroar88]

Driving over the speed limit or too fast for conditions is the number one cause of accidents. So speed is the number one cause not driving too slow.

They don't track accidents caused by people driving under the speed limit because that is not against the law. I've spoken to a number of insurance carriers as well a LEO and you are incorrect. Speeding increases the fatality rate in accidents, but driving under the speed limit CAUSES more.

 

[AWS1022]

They don't track accidents caused by people driving under the speed limit because that is not against the law. I've spoken to a number of insurance carriers as well a LEO and you are incorrect. Speeding increases the fatality rate in accidents, but driving under the speed limit CAUSES more.

I’ve worked in the insurance industry for 30 years...I’m not sure where the carriers you’re talking to got their numbers, but they don’t match with the rest of the industry.

 

[Nitt1300]

And speeding has an effect on your reaction time. And a lot of things have an effect on your alertness (being tired, loud music, bright sunlight, driving too many hours) so I guess we make all that illegal.

put your phone down and drive the damn car