fagettaboutit said:
You're joking, right? LMAO!
Have you ever studied the US Consitution?
Yes, and, yes - the states CAN pass laws that do not violate the Constitutions. Are you saying they can? Neat! Someone should tell the states.
Oh, wait ... that's right ... you're probably contending that DUI laws violate the US Constitution in some way even though the courts haven't quite seen it that way. Silly courts.
How does that fit in with Sobriety check points - how can you just stop a car with out probable cause?
Apparently because the courts have said we can. If you want to read the legal arguments, Google them.
Nevada, Louisiana, New Jersey and Hawaii will not allow for a jury in DUI cases.
Interesting. And where have those appeals gone? I'm sure someone figured out that they could appeal that on Constitutional grounds. Obviously the courts found that there was some justification for the no jury rule. Not being aware of these laws I couldn't begin to comment on them.
Carl, you are a True Beliver. You need the governement to define what is truth for you. Dangerous driver....get the government involved.
Nope. But as a cop, I need a law to take action. There are many things I would do if I were king of the world, but since I'm not, I can only follow the laws as they are articulated in CA statutes. So they need to define them first.
...You have the right to speak to an attorney....but we must first get a sample that you'll never be able to challenge court.
Evidence is not subject to Miranda. Your breath or blood is not an incriminating statement.
Can you name the states that allow someone arrested for DUI to speak with an attorney before giving a sample?
Nope. If I had to guess, I'd say none.
Can you name the states that allow a person to speak with an attorney before providing evidence in a case against them?
Statements? All of them. Evidence that is metabolizing with each passing minute? Probably none of them. Though I have heard officers in some states - like Georgia - write that they cannot compel a chemical test. How widespread that is, I don't know. In CA we CAN compel a chemical test in cases of drug and/or alcohol influence.
You won't blow, the courts will assume you're guilty because you didn't want to cooperate.
Well, the DMV might. Different states view the refusal in different ways as far as evidence of knowledge of guilt in court.
Now, what's that you said Carl about not being able to easily prove someone is impaired without proof??
Yep. Driving with a cell phone in your ear doesn't prove impairment.
Can you tell me any part of these three US Consitutions that you would be willing to make other offenders of unsafe and illegal driving privy of?
What? I don't understand what you're asking. And I really don't care.
You're a True Beliver, Carl. Bless your heart.
The only belief I hold true and without question is the divinity of Christ and his sacrifice for my sins. Everything else is subject to question.
And in this matter, I have seen and read nothing to make me think that going lighter on DUI all because other offenses that MIGHT be of a similar risk for sporadic moments are not treated the same way. Don't like the law - change it. But don't hold your breath that ANY legislator is going to propose lighter penalties on DUI.
- Carl
