Law To Close DUI Loophole

[answerguy]

http://www.citynews.org/archive/01-00/01-00.html

Springfield, Illinois, January 29, 2000 (CN)--A proposed law would close a loophole in the state's DUI laws by forcing drivers to submit to field sobriety tests. This will be the fourth year that representative Tom Dart has tried to pass the legislation. According to Dart, "You can purchase a device that hangs from your visor. So, when a police officer comes to the window, you push the button on the device and it says...'officer, I respectfully refuse to cooperate in a field test. If you wish to place me under arrest you can do so.'...So, not only are they not required to take a sobriety test, the officer can't even testify that they were slurring their words!"


Illinois may not be the place to be if you're a gunowner, but you still have some rights if you drink and drive.

 

[Steve in PA]

And what does the driver do if he doesn't have his drivers license on him and the LEO asks for his name, etc?? What does the driver do if the LEO asks him/her if anyone can come pick his sorry butt up from the hospital/DUI center???

 

[TheeBadOne]

Support the RTDD (Right To Drive Drunk)

 

[WonderNine]

I never met a "loophole" I didn't like.

 

[El Tejon]

Governments will always choose violence over nonviolence.

 

[sm]

I think they need to test it on the politicians first, you know, set a good example and all.

Send this device to Mass, I have a certain Senator in mind. I dunno, just thinking, if a certain "group" that keeps pushing anti gun legislation were not able to be present for "work"...well...I'm trying..., work with me here. people

 

[lapidator]

but you still have some rights if you drink and drive

Yeah, the right not to be compelled to give evidence against yourself.

Ohh... that pesky 5th Amendment. :banghead:

(The over-or-under on which response TheeBadOne will post fake pictures of DUI fatalities is 12.)

Lapidator

 

[El Tejon]

lap, FSTs are observations, not statements, and thus are outside the 5th Amendment's protections.

I believe the plan is if you don't take them, they'll suspend your license like they do if you refuse to blow in the guiltometer. Which would be tricky for my state since the LEO needs pc to ask that someone do the guiltometer but the FSTs are defined as investigatory and no need for p.c.???

So, in Illinois does the copper need pc to request the FSTs? Hmmm.

 

[buzz_knox]

lap, FSTs are observations, not statements, and thus are outside the 5th Amendment's protections.

Bingo. People have this fascinating habit of using part of the Constitution without understanding what it means. Funny how that is, isn't it? Sort of like forgetting that when people voluntarily obtain their drivers license, they are agreeing to abide by certain rules and regulations.

 

[El Tejon]

buzz, there you go again with all your legal mumbo-jumbo about "understanding" and "rules and regulations."

You're ruining a perfectly good rant. Hurruph!

BTW, I tried a militia boy once who refused to get a license. His defense was that his understanding of the Northwest Ordinance gave him "free passage upon the land" and thus did not have to have plates or a license.

I told the jury that he should "get a horse" and he would be fine. They fined him $1,500.

 

[XLMiguel]

More and more states are going to "implied consent", that is, among the conditions associated with the state issuing you a DL, is that you agree to submit to a breath/blood test if requested to do so - by accepting the DL, you consent to being tested, should the 'need' arise. Refusing the test is considered an admission of guilt and will result in your arrest on the spot.

On one hand, it's hard to defend DUI, but IMO, 'implied consent' is pretty onerous and ripe for abuse.

 

[buzz_knox]

I know, I know. Bad buzz. But hey, isn't that what this is all about? A bad buzz?

 

[buzz_knox]

Refusing the test is considered an admission of guilt and will result in your arrest on the spot.

Is refusal really considered an admission of guilt, or just a violation of the rules concerning acceptance of a license? I believe that in TN, if you refuse, you lose your license but I'm not sure refusal of a test can be used as an actual admission of guilt in court.

 

[El Tejon]

Mike, how is "implied consent" ripe for abuse, anymore than any other criminal statute?

"Admission of guilt"??? Mmmm, don't know about every state, I guess it depends. May be considered evidence of intoxication (check your local court of appeals). I know a lot of coppers tell people if you don't take the guiltometer, I'll arrest you (they would arrest them anywho, but they are smart coppers and know the more evidence the better).

Do not all states have a procedure for review of the alleged refusal, whether there was pc to offer or whether there was a actual refusal (or your client speaks Czech and did not know what they heck was going on)? I've been to just a few of those myself.

 

[lapidator]

Gee... i guess i really blew that one huh?



hmmm... Can anyone explain why its not a crime in-and-of-itself to refuse to blow a Breathalyzer or perform the road-side acrobatics for an officer of the law? Why are you not charged with failure to obey commands of an LEO?

Lapidator

 

[El Tejon]

lap, it depends.

Depends on what those "commands" are, e.g. "pull over" if one does not, could be resisting law enforcement. Depends on state law.

Used to be an offense here not to take guiltometer. Unaware if any state has not criminalize the refusal to perform the field conviction tests.

If it is not an offense it is because the state legislature do not make it so as I am unaware of any common law crime states.

 

[lapidator]

Used to be an offense here not to take guiltometer.

What changed?

Lap

 

[El Tejon]

General Assembly changed the statute and added administrative sanctions (one year license suspension) to guiltometer refusal. IIRC, IPAC and courts were concerned that 6th Amendment challenge was coming on it.

 

[tyme]

So, would it be okay to require DNA samples, iris scans, and implanted rfid tags for anyone wishing to drive?

This is ridiculous. Drunk driving is bad, but so is driving while on a cell phone. I think I've seen two people obviously drunk -- weaving between lanes or some other unreasonable driving characteristic -- since I started driving. I've seen many more who I suspect weren't drunk. Most were old ladies, HS teenagers in too much of a rush to pay attention to lane markers, or soccermoms in SUVs talking to who could be a member of their social circle on a cellphone.

 

[El Tejon]

tyme, constitutionally? Yes.

Politically? Not yet, Kaleeforneeah, including some East Coast states? Maybe.

 

[lapidator]

IIRC, IPAC and courts were concerned that 6th Amendment challenge was coming on it.

6th Amendment?

Why? Because the defense doesn't have the opportunity to have their own guiltometer (breathalyzer) test administered -- and thus does not have equal access to witnesses? Doesn't make sense.

Lap

 

[seeker_two]

More and more states are going to "implied consent", that is, among the conditions associated with the state issuing you a DL, is that you agree to submit to a breath/blood test if requested to do so - by accepting the DL, you consent to being tested, should the 'need' arise. Refusing the test is considered an admission of guilt and will result in your arrest on the spot.

How long until "implied consent" is applied to searches of your car, DNA samples, and other violations of our rights?

 

[El Tejon]

lap, look at the end of the 6th, ". . . and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Concern over right to counsel triggered at guiltometer testing.

seeker, your concerns already exist.

 

[TheeBadOne]

How long until "implied consent" is applied to searches of your car, DNA samples, and other violations of our rights?

How long until apples are compared to oranges?...........Oh wait, that's already happened.

 

[TheeBadOne]

for lap