Are DUI charges etc ethical and Constitutional ?

You can skip the details and explanations etc by answering the sentence in blue. However if your reply is detailed please read at least the last two paragraphs (in black) ~
You can skip the details and explanations etc by answering the sentence in blue. However if your reply is detailed please read at least the last two paragraphs (in black) ~

Are DUI charges etc ethical and Constitutional ?

I do not drink or drug recreationally by that I don’t get off work and pick up a six pack of Dos Equis (beer) and roll a joint of bud up, then stop by my fav club before going home, yeah, that (above) was a typical week day. The weekend was worse, or better depending on your current lifestyle, in other words I would get hammered most weekends. After I received my clergy title and of course after I was saved I gave up things that tended to harm the temple (body).

Is it ethical and constitutional for an officer to ask someone to submit to a drug/alcohol test then if refused convict them under the implied consent law which convicts the person charged automatically and carries the same penalty as the DUI ?

These days I drink socially, a couple of drinks at most, and the other stuff… let’s just say that TNskiff which is the cool Tennessee name for homegrown bud days is less harmful than any drug or tobacco in my opinion. In addition some religions use it for sacrament, not only bud but also strong hallucinogenics such as mushrooms to get closer to God. Anyway the topic is not getting high, the question is since I received one DUI about 11 years ago is this;

How can someone that is under the influence of alcohol or drugs give consent to allow a test for intoxication? The judgment center, ie the decision making part of the brain is the FIRST process that one loses when drinking alcohol. So again how can anyone make a judgment whether or not to take a test? It seems like that would be entrapment, or self incrimination etc. If not law it seems like it should be violation of our constitutional rights. Yes I am aware if informed consent law, which is just as un constitutional and a violation. Lastly a disclaimer; I am in no way saying that DUI should not be punished or stopped. I have crap load of plates pins and other hardware in both legs femur tib and fib, a non repairable scar on my face as well as damaged spleen, thanks for a DUI driver clipping me head on while I was riding my Harley, he had no insurance or Driving License due to 11(!) many DUI’s.

Still I am more curious than anything as to why the informed consent etc is still legal. My GF is in law school studying to be an Constitutional attorney, and she disagrees with me saying the informed consent law gives the state a right to demand a test, of course if you refuse to take the test, you get the same penalty that DUI entails. That is fairly BS in my opinion.

reva

 

Does the officer ask/request or direct?

If it is a request and the person declines then it's a bit rude. If it's a direction based on probable cause and the person declines then it can be an offence.

 

In most places, you are consenting to be tested for drugs the moment you start driving on a public road. If you're American, it most likely says this at the bottom of your driver's license.

"Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law."

It's so familiar that I don't even have to get my license out to know it word for word. Everyone understands that DUI ain't cool, and why the driver can't refuse a sobriety test, and therefore, no one complains about this. If gaining consent for these sobriety tests were really a serious technical problem, we would simply move up the time at which you make this agreement so that it was the same time you bought/leased/rented the car to make sure you were sober at the time.

The required legalese would simply be moved from your license to your title/lease/rental agreement.

Most people agree that that is nitpicking, though.

 

Actually, I was just thinking about it some more, and I realized that there's no problem here at all:

You are sober when you go and get your driver's license, and it is at that time that you consent to any future sobriety tests.

 

In this state (TN) the officer usually asks, rather than orders the suspect if he will take a blood or alcohol test. If the suspect refuses he is automatically charged with implied consent. Implied consent is a law that says you are automatically guilty of implied consent which carries exactly the same penalties as DUI, and the judge usually makes the punishment much more severe than a regular DUI. Usually in a DUI case the convicted routinely get the bare minimum penalty. You bring up an interesting point. However, doesn’t probable cause only allow the officer certain liberties such as being able to legally pull you over? Not taking a test might be enough circumstantial evidence to convict one though. I haven’t thought about it that way. Still the implied consent law seems unethical and unconstitutional, because it in effect takes away your right not to incriminate oneself. Your tact would be a good thing to use in a jury trial if you were the prosecuting DA.

reva

 

Yes, it is ethical and meets Constitutional evidenciary standards. Implied consent means exactly that. When a person accepted their driver's license they consented to a chemical test if there was probable cause to arrest them for OMVWI. That doesn't mean that they are automatically convicted of an offense. They have the right to a test refusal hearing and to a trial on the underlying OMVWI charge.

 

In this state (TN) the officer usually asks, rather than orders the suspect if he will take a blood or alcohol test. If the suspect refuses he is automatically charged with implied consent. Implied consent is a law that says you are automatically guilty of implied consent which carries exactly the same penalties as DUI, and the judge usually makes the punishment much more severe than a regular DUI. Usually in a DUI case the convicted routinely get the bare minimum penalty. You bring up an interesting point. However, doesn’t probable cause only allow the officer certain liberties such as being able to legally pull you over? Not taking a test might be enough circumstantial evidence to convict one though. I haven’t thought about it that way. Still the implied consent law seems unethical and unconstitutional, because it in effect takes away your right not to incriminate oneself. Your tact would be a good thing to use in a jury trial if you were the prosecuting DA.

reva

 

There isn't much that isn't Constitutional, given the right mix of statist on the SCOTUS. As for ethical, I'd say no, not if you hold to natural rights ethics for government/human interaction.

Some people will claim that you contract to this when you get a driver's license to get on a public road. Contracts don't give either party the rightful authority to violate the natural rights of another. To give an example, I cannot enforce a contract with you that gives me the right to strip search you every time you enter my property. I can demand that submit to a strip search, but you can refuse and simply leave the property and I have no right to kidnap you and put you in a cage for refusing my demand. Similarly, there is no rightful authority for the state to do the same. Unalienable means that something cannot be aliened, or contracted away. If rights are unalienable, the only recourse for the state is to demand that you leave the road. It should be the same for any form of dangerous driving. It may even be appropriate to demand that a fine be paid before re-entering the road and treating re-entry as trespassing. However, that is now how it is handled. A DUI is practically a felony, even if the driver does not present any danger to anyone.

I'd also ask if implied consent means that someone who doesn't have a license can then avoid being arrested for not allowing the test, but I doubt that the police and DA would treat them any differently.

While my injuries are not as severe, I have a number of broken teeth (now replaced with bridges and crowns), as well as a big scar under my chin and some lifelong neck issues becuase a woman cut me off on my motorcycle. She was pregnant, tired, and irritable and didn't bother to pay attention to the fact that the light was not green for her. I took out her car door with my head.

The question is, why should she be treated any differently than a driver who had been drinking? The effect was the same, she was a danger to other drivers. Is it the alcohol that makes a driver more sinful in the danger he or she presents?

 

If you smell like booze and you do something goofy while driving, you need to be removed from the road. We do not have time to play games with drunks and idiots when we are trying to go about our business. You are required to prove that you are not too stupid to drive in order to get a license and will be arrested if you try to drive without presenting such proof. Why is it different to require that you present proof that you are not too drunk to drive after a cop sees you pulling some boneheaded (*)(*)(*)(*)?

 

Drunk driving is an intentional act of disregard for the lives andproperty of others and is singled out as a particularly heinous act because it kills so many people. It is also one that the drunk driver is likely to repeat if not forced into rehab. If you have a license, you are contractually obligated to demonstrate that you are fit to drive or you pay a penalty. Nothing intrusive about it. Getting drunk and getting on the road intrudes on everybody else's rights.

Right there is where you go off the rails. A drunk driver is ALWAYS a threat to others. If anything,we need more draconian laws against drunk driving, like impounding vehicles and selling them to finance the prison system and substance rehab.

If anything, one offense greatly aggravates the other. Haul the driver off to jail and give him two days after release to show that he had a license at the time or the car goes away, never to be seen again. Bet that would solve a few problems.

Pregnancy is not typicly an impediment to being able to drive. Drinking always is, so a drunk is wrong whether he injures anybody or not, thus any injury he causes is an aggravation to any already serious offense.

 

If an old man goes into the DMV and finds that his eyesight is failing and his mind isn't working so well, but gets a license anyway, doesn't that qualify as an intentional disregard for the lives and property of others? I'm not sure why the number of people killed makes a difference. 9 people died at a farmer's market and many more injured when an old man drove into it because he mistook his brake pedal for a gas pedal and then did not have the presence of mind to remove his foot from it. It just happened here a few weeks ago that an elderly woman drove her car into an ice cream store by thinking her gas pedal was the brake pedal.

Getting old and feeble and getting on the raod intrudes on everyone else's rights, by your logic. The same for being exhausted, from, say, being kept up all night by a newborn. http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-20/...privation-impairment-researchers?_s=PM:HEALTH If you are tired and get behind the wheel, why do you deserve to be treated better than a drunk?

Oh? Prove it.

I see. So someone who drinks and drives is not only sinful, but also an addict who needs the state to tell them to stop, even if it's a .08 BAC.

Being impaired by exhaustion, distractions, etc. are an impediment to driving. Being impeded in your skill to drive isn't a crime; harming other people is a crime. If impediment is a crime, then it should always be treated as a crime whether it's because of alcohol. sleep deprivation, old age, or some other issue and all of those who drive dangerously should be treated the same as those who drink and then drive. Even those who are genetically bad at driving should be denied a license and punish like a DUI if they are caught behind a wheel, no?

Alcohol may always lead to some impairment, but you can't prove that, say, a good driver with .08% BAC is worse than a bad driver who hasn't been drinking at all.

 

No, of course not. People never know that they are losing their ability to drive due to age until something happens to point it oput. I was singled out the last time I went to renew my license because I walk with a cane. I passed the test. The geezer or granny who is failing both physically and mentally might not, and they would probably be surprised to realize just how badly they were doing. This is not wanton indeifference to life. It is just one of the unpredictable outcomes of getting old.

Like I say, you don't always know when yopu are becoming incapacitated. In the case of the sleep-deprived person, he is just meeting expectations that society imposes on him. He is supposed to be able to run on that little sleep if called to do so.

Nobody wants you to be on the same road if you have voluntarily done something that you know can impair you. There is no equivalencey.

Maybe addicted. Maybe evil or stupid. The determination should be made before the idiot ever drives again.

Cow cookies. You have no right to risk other people's lives if you have any reason to beelieve that you might be impaired.

You have to be one dumb SOB not to be at all concerned that you might be impaired after drinking.

No. Being to tired to make good decisions is not usually the result of a conscious choice to do something that you have every reason to believe will incapacitate you. An inherently bad driver should, of course, be denied a liscense, but only punished if they continue to drive without it.

This is whjy I advocate siezing the vehicles driven by drunks or unlicensed drivers.

Doesn't really matter. Willfully driving when you should have grounds to suspect that you might be impaired is actually proof that you are not a gooddriver.

 

I do not think drinking always leads to a crime, but usually if one is pulled over they broken some law already

 

Never know? They get more tickets, they are told by family members that they are dangerous. Losing a DL is losing independence. It's not easy for most seniors.

Anyway, why is that a defense? A person who is drinking may not even feel drunk, yet not get through the BAC.

Ah, so something about the act of drinking alcohol equates to "wanton indifference" to life. Aside from finding it hard to believe that people who drink care nothing for the lives of others, I have to ask, why is indifference to life a crime?

Again, what difference does it make? The exhaustion creates an impediment, and he is a danger to others on or near the road, or to himself. . Just because he has to meet the "expectations of society" or whatever, that means he gets a free pass to endanger the lives of others? A family member of mine fell asleep at the wheel once, hit a guardrail and another car. No injuries. He lost is license for 6 months. Had he been pulled over before hitting anything, would you agree or disagree that he deserved to be treated like a drunk driver?

If the answer is that he gets a free pass, then I can only conclude that your problem is not with the danger presented to other's lives by drunk drivers, but by the drinking itself. Everyone else gets a free pass.

Ok. So it's not the alcohol, you claim, but the nature of creating a voluntary impediment and then driving. So, if someone knows that they are a danger on the road and still gets behind the wheel, then you would treat them like drunk drivers? I find it interesting that a drunk, who is being blamed for having impaired judgment, is supposed to exercise better judgment than anyone else, and is held far more accountable for that failure in judgment.

You mean, by alcohol. If society expects you to get very little sleep, then it's ok to drive while impaired by exhaustion. At least, it's only a minor infraction. Not something idiotic (or sinful, perhaps) like drinking.

Well, drinking does impair one's judgment. That's why they are told they can't drive. So your claim is that they should exercise good judgment because their judgment is bad. Rather illogical, I think.

Lucky for some, there will be self driving vehicles soon.

What do you define as a good driver, then? I define a good driver as one who has the skills necessary to follow the traffic rules as well as avoid accidents and harming other people. I know people who can drive better after drinking than most people can stone cold sober. It depends on skill, experience, and how much one has had to drink. Zero tolerance is for those who engage in zero thinking.

 

Part of the reason that DUI is punished while tired drivers get a pass is because it is exponentially harder -impossible, even - to prove fatigue or irritability. With alcohol, you blow into a tube, or they take some blood, and they get a quantitative result showing exactly how much alcohol was in your system. There is no comparable test for tiredness or aggression, and therefore the court fights to prove the condition would be interminable and ultimately inconclusive.

With every law and enforcement paradigm, there is a tradeoff: Strict laws and enforcement will capture more criminals, but also more innocents as well. And a more lenient approach will make sure there are fewer false convictions - at the expense of letting more wrongdoers go free. And any law in force is an attempt to strike a balance between these two extremes. Therefore, where wrongdoing is relatively clear-cut (as is the case with driving and BAC) you have more strict laws, while a totally ambiguous offense (such as being tired - a totally subjective determination) will have more lenient laws.

This is not done because of ambivalence towards other dangers on the road besides alcohol, but because the practical consequences of allowing citizens to be arrested simply because a cop thought they were "tired" are too great.

 

What's your point?

If you can't limit yourself you should not drink anywhere other than where you plan to spend the night, or call a cab.

When you get a license, you agree not to endanger others through avoidable behavior. You have no right to endanger others. That means that it is a crime.

He had no reason to expect to fall asleep. A drinker has reason to expect that he might become incapacitated. Thus, his incapacitation is voluntary and avoidable, thus should be subject to serious consequences. The second time it happens, slam the dirt bag until he can prove he is clean and sober for the long haul.

If you know you are impaired, yes, there needs to be a stiffer penalty than if you find out as you slam into something. But there is no reason to expect that you would not learn from it. There is reason to expect that the first time a drunk driver gets pulled over he has not driven drunk before or will continue to do so.

Total delusional crap. It just looks that way to them, at least until they screw up big time. Maybe it looks that way to those who observe them because they are hammered themselves.

The last guy who told me that took out my mailbox a couple months ago.

 

When I was in the Marines, they told us specifically not to take the Field Sobriety Test since it is designed for people to fail... and it is...

 

Good point raised by Rev. It is a cat and mouse game of stealing from society to pay for law enforcement versus the penalties associated with drinking and driving and actual risks. I have adopted a zero-tolerance policy (i.e. I do not drive even after 1 beer), however, I have seen many "drunks" drive better than several best attempt sobers on the road. That being said, one dead person is too many when it is completely avoidable by simply not driving under the influence. Thus, it is hard to debate the liberal propaganda engine in this case.

 

What?? I wasn't aware that liberals as a whole had taken a position on DUI, much less a controversial one.

Please tell he how they are destroying the country this time, I'd love to help you stop them.

 

Well, my assumed take is that liberals aren't complete thieves and have the public interest at stake (I know, a stretch). If that is incorrect, please state your position. That being said, even a thief should take the position of safety even though the profits aren't deserved.

 

The OP has the facts wrong.

Refusal to consent is not a crime and it does not carry the same penalties as a dui. It's an administrative sanction done by the DMV. In most states, you lose your license for six months as a result of refusing to consent to a breath test.

 

Thanks to your and all the other replies to this thread. I have learned a lot which is one thing I love about these forums! Ok, First sorry for any replies if any that I missed, I haven’t had as much time to post as proficiently as I used to. Secondly, I am not defending DUI offenders etc. I will have pain in my legs for a lifetime due to an unlicensed, uninsured, DUI guy causing me to run off the road on my HD, yes it was ME ha ha, no I was drinking maybe legally DUI, but the guy nearly head on hit me and I lost control of the bike. Caught later by the Cops he blew a .41 that’s highly hammered.

So…on to the ethical thing; I get your point. For now lets put the legal/constitutional issue on the 'back burner' for a moment? How is it ethical to ask someone to take a test or refuse the test when they may be intoxicated, judgment being among the first mental processes to be effected*? If this is already been answered please direct me to the reply if the page or post number is known.

footnote; * ... www.duifoundation.org/drunkdriving/impairment/operating/ - Cached
Judgment. The mental faculties are the first to be affected by drinking. ... When a
driver is drunk, it takes longer for his or her brain to process all of the data being ...


reva

 

Before I stopped doing stupid sh*t and was born again party was my middle name. I received many DUI's getting most reduced to far lesser violations. Anyway Vegas July 8, 2000 er July 9 2am I was charged with DUI. Long story short. Vegas has harsh DUI laws. My attorney advised me in their state Implied consent violation carried the same penalties as DUI. So I paid the guy and got the normal jail time and fine. BTW, I am from TN, as you said at least in my home state and most others IC is not the same as DUI and is a civil thing, I have worked or went to school in a lot of states and made it my business to know the DUI and other laws. Anyway, Its been over 12 years since I had to hand a lawyer thousands of dollars to defend me so I will only rebut by saying that in one state the IC laws do carry the same penalties as DUI. However my lawyer just might have been BS’ing me for more money. I did find one website that agrees with my semi-geezer memory ;

Excerpt ; blood alcohol or higher and there are other evidence of drunk driving, you will probably be charged with both offenses. Furthermore, you can be convicted of both offenses, but you can only be punished for one as anyway, your DUI attorney will tell you that the penalties are anyway identical.

http://goodmanlawgroup.com/las-vegas-dui-laws-why-is-it-harsher/

reva

 

In TN the cop only has to prove intent to drive DUI. Now this again is on what a lawyer told me (in a club where we were having a few~ lol) so its 2nd hand info. Say if two guys are drinking at a bar and the drunk citizen told the other guy (a undercover cop aka snitch) he was driving home after he finished his drink the citizen could be charged and convicted for DUI. Also if you pulled over and jumped into the back seat, forgetting to take the keys out, again you could be charged for DUI (intent ; leaving keys in).

reva

 

Your lawyer and the article you quoted are not referring to implied consent. They are referring to the two different types of dui charges. One relies solely on your BAC, and one relies on your behavior, I.e. performance on the field sobriety tests and actions the officer observed prior to pulling you over.

Let me repeat: Refusing to give a breath test DOES NOT carry the same penalty as dui.