10

DUI in your own driveway?

Posted by johnpe1 9 years ago to Government
75 comments | Share | Flag

the appeals court got this one right, don't you think? -- j
.

All Comments

  • Posted by MinorLiberator 8 years, 7 months ago
    I concur with the court. I know of many cases where the police take liberties with their in DUI cases.

    The worst I've heard of is a friend who went to the mall with his wife. He had "too many" at lunch and gave the keys to his wife. He returned to the car while she did more shopping. A local cop spotted him, determined he was over the limit, and charged him with "intent to drive intoxicated". His wife returned with the keys, sober, and explained she was going to drive, but he was still taken in, booked and convicted.

    It's possible he had an attitude with the cop, but that's not a crime either.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I meant a thread and discussion all its own -- it's a
    stranglehold which we have on travel with all of
    these licenses! -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    he was asking you to follow the logic of your last
    sentence and avoid voting for people who lead to
    more serfdom. . like the Ds and Rs. . he's for Gary
    Johnson regardless. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    She must also condemn having screaming babies in the car, drinking soda poo forms finales while driving, and driving while tired. All of those things COULD RESULT in an accident. In fact driving at all could possibly result in injury, so an argument could be made to forbid driving at all
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    "I think the origin of the DUI laws was religious."
    It still has a religious feel to it. If you say we go overboard demonizing this one risky behavior, some people react like it's blasphemy. I knew someone who was convicted of driving slightly over the BAC limit. She was so hard on herself. I said it's certainly not a good thing to do, but I think we go overboard condeming it. She started telling me I was insensitive to the lives put at risk, she was so thankful she got caught, and she condemned any drunk driving apologists. Okay. I kind of got the feeling she wanted to impute other misanthropic feelings on this one issue, in an original sin way.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The lack of due process is indeed a problem. But the law as it stands does not demand anyone comply with so-called field sobriety tests, and I will always refuse to do them. They're bogus and can only harm your case. The "implied consent law" covers only chemical tests.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The Constitution does not confer moral rightness on (nor a duty on anybody to obey) all legislation that complies with it. It is a set of limits that government officials are sworn to obey, but everyone also has the intrinsic duty to respect the natural rights of everyone else. Those must come first.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Here's another. Traffic stop. You the police officer have no probable cause to search the entire vehicle. Glove box is out of reach, Nothing in view but you have a 'feeling.'

    Driver is offered a a blood alcohol test the smell of alcohol is evident which means an alcoholic type beverage as alcohol has no smell.

    While that is in progress the vehicle is impounded and moved to a secure location. Now it is the responsibility of the police department along with all contents a video is made of the now open glove box and the trunk. Also any car rental style scratches or dents. a paint flake comes loose. Sent to the lab for matchup on anything pending. That's fishing. but in the trunk a box of various pharmaceuticals and powders is plainly seen along with a shot gun and two pistols. These taken into custody and fingerprinted with serial numbers run. and so on. Driver brought back from the hospital and the BAT. Zero but the small tallied with an open bottle that had spilled. It is finger printed. Normal arrest procedures follow including the all important Miranda Escobedo warnings.

    On the other hand nothing is found and a warning issued concerning the open and now empty bottle ....

    Just a rough idea but the key is gain legal access to the vehicle and the key to that is impound or removed for safety of the vehicle on behalf of the owner. Probable Cause is or is not established.

    In road side stops consistency is required. One does not stop one car but a series of cars. Easy enough. A bend in the road with an increase in speed limit will always find Fifty percent setting off the speed gun.

    They are all checked to the same extent. Reason. Around the next bend is a school area and it's time for departure to home - for the students. Traffic has been getting complaints from worried parents.

    The new system skips all that and goes for 'mere suspicion' without anything else. required.

    Some of the ways to legally press the limits without violating civil rights.versus the new Obama Cause lack of requirement for any reason whatsoever with no civil rights needed after the arrest.

    85 Senators voted for Obama Lite Rites or is it Last Rights with no limits on who, when, where, why, how or What's Up? So did a majority of Representatives.

    Reason....They wanted to get home early? They didn't read the entire bill? It's in the omnibus funding bill that took headlines crowing about the government not being shut down. No and it never was and never will be. But your civil rights were shot to shit.

    Still going to vote for them again?

    Do they use that. Maybe yes maybe no but it's now legal to arrest on 'suspicion of terrorism or support of terrorism. What defines terrorism? Mere suspicion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Funny, jdg... but that's one of the same argument that I and many other Law Anti-HB2 in NC make!
    ... the "just might happen" rationale in the absence of actual historical events in a quantity that indicates real risk to anyone!

    Ah, but that's a whole 'nother discussion... :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    There are none so blind as those who willfully refuse to see intentionally or otherwise.

    Following the wisdom of AR I know walk away from another lost cause
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Gee I guess I am just not smat enough to understand your point here....the post had no discussion about the party of the judges involved.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Donald-Brian-Lehoux 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    It is all in the definition of the words. Drive= bus DRIVER, taxi DRIVER, truck DRIVER, cattle DRIVE= commercial/business. The government CAN regulate business but NOT freedom. No one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. Liberty is defined as freedom of movement. Pursuit of happiness. This is all based on personal responsibility and accountability as long as you do no harm to others you are free to do as you wish. Victimless crimes are called barratry. We are AMERICANS we ARE free. FREEDOM!!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    None of the electable candidates are great. Some better than others. And then there's the congress that approves the taking of our rights.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Is he saying you don't need a driver's license to drive a car for personal use? If that's true, I've never heard of someone arguing it.

    Oddly, a bicycle has the rights and responsibilities of a car on the road, but does not require a license.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    To me the spirit of it is people's home is their space and gov't should err on the side of leaving people alone on their property.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo