Carlos Cabeza
Member
TBO,
SSSQQQUUUUIIIISSSSHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SSSQQQUUUUIIIISSSSHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Law To Close DUI Loophole
- Thread starter answerguy
- Start date
- Status
dustind
Member
How is it apples to oranges? You could be forced to agree when you get a drivers license you wave any right to privacy, sort of like at airports. It is voluntary after all. 
Since when did anyone say anyone had a right to drive drunk? That is like saying if you are against random house searches (or any other rights) you support thieves.
Anyone want me to join in on the photoshop fun?
Since when did anyone say anyone had a right to drive drunk? That is like saying if you are against random house searches (or any other rights) you support thieves.
Anyone want me to join in on the photoshop fun?
sctman800
Member
I could always be wrong, but I feel 99% sure that in illinois you do not have to take a FST, refusal does not penalize you. That is other than possibly pi$$ing off the cop. However, you must take the breathalizer or urine (booze or drug) test. Refusal gets you an automatic suspension. The suspension is yours to keep no matter if you are found guilty of DUI or not, it is just an added present. That is part of the licence is a privelage deal and not an admission of guilt. Jim.
12-34hom
Member
If you don't drink and drive - where's the problem?
I reserve the right not to be killed or maimed by a impaired driver.
Whatever controlled substance your operating a motor vehicle on; your endangering your own life and others you meet.
Maybe some of those here who defend this type of behavior, should have to meet those families who have a member killed or injured by a impaired driver.
I have personal knowledge on both sides of this issue, as a Peace officer dealing with impaired drivers & as a family member who had to watch the terrible suffering of my sister who had to deal with her only son, permanently maimed - both physically & mentally - by his own hand.
So very sad.
12-34hom.
I reserve the right not to be killed or maimed by a impaired driver.
Whatever controlled substance your operating a motor vehicle on; your endangering your own life and others you meet.
Maybe some of those here who defend this type of behavior, should have to meet those families who have a member killed or injured by a impaired driver.
I have personal knowledge on both sides of this issue, as a Peace officer dealing with impaired drivers & as a family member who had to watch the terrible suffering of my sister who had to deal with her only son, permanently maimed - both physically & mentally - by his own hand.
So very sad.
12-34hom.
sctman800,
You are 100% correct. You don't have to take the FST in Illinois, it's not part of the implied consent statute. The officer must have probable cause to stop you. This is usually a traffic violation of some sort. I see very few motorists pulled over on a complaint. Usually the person calling in about the erratic driver is asked to sign a complaint. If they won't the call is put out make your own case. The officer then has to develop his own probable cause. If the suspect driver is driving ok, it isn't pulled over. If the driver commits a violation and is pulled over, that still isn't probable cause to ask him/her to exit the vehicle and perform field sobriety tests. Here we need other indicators to take the investigation forward, slurred speech, smell of alcohol etc. I'm not aware of any case where a driver refused the FST. Never seen it happen myself or heard of it happening. If the officer suspected the driver was DUI he could make the arrest, note the refusal, and see what the states attorney would do with the case. In car video might be enough evidence to convict the driver without FST or breathalyser. Refusal might not be enough to avoid a DUI conviction. In car video systems are getting to where even the smallest police departments can afford them. I don't see that this is a loophole that needs closing and apparently the legislature doesn't either. This law has never passed. In fact I dont even think it's been introduced in a couple years. The article is from January of 2000.
Jeff
You are 100% correct. You don't have to take the FST in Illinois, it's not part of the implied consent statute. The officer must have probable cause to stop you. This is usually a traffic violation of some sort. I see very few motorists pulled over on a complaint. Usually the person calling in about the erratic driver is asked to sign a complaint. If they won't the call is put out make your own case. The officer then has to develop his own probable cause. If the suspect driver is driving ok, it isn't pulled over. If the driver commits a violation and is pulled over, that still isn't probable cause to ask him/her to exit the vehicle and perform field sobriety tests. Here we need other indicators to take the investigation forward, slurred speech, smell of alcohol etc. I'm not aware of any case where a driver refused the FST. Never seen it happen myself or heard of it happening. If the officer suspected the driver was DUI he could make the arrest, note the refusal, and see what the states attorney would do with the case. In car video might be enough evidence to convict the driver without FST or breathalyser. Refusal might not be enough to avoid a DUI conviction. In car video systems are getting to where even the smallest police departments can afford them. I don't see that this is a loophole that needs closing and apparently the legislature doesn't either. This law has never passed. In fact I dont even think it's been introduced in a couple years. The article is from January of 2000.
Jeff
carpettbaggerr
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,676
Does that mean you're a lawyer, El Tejon?
Damn, and here I was starting to like you. TheeBadOne
Member
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
He's not just a lawyer, he's a GOVERNMENT lawyer. Git a rope. . . . .
This is almost entirely unrelated, but you know what makes my blood boil? There's a smarmy DUI lawyer in Springfield who runs radio commercials where a DJ softly croons in loving tones that he knows you didn't mean to do what you did, and you regret it more than anything, but it's in the past now and you can't "punish yourself." You've got to "deal with it." You deal with it by hiring the smarmy DUI lawyer to get you off, even though you apparently admit that you did in fact drive drunk.
There's another bill proposed right now, by the way, that would make it illegal in Illinois for a person whose license has been suspended for DUI to purchase a car (or for anyone to sell to him.) To that end, it would require car dealerships to conduct background checks to find out whether the purchaser has a suspended license. Actually, when I saw the title, I assumed this thread was about that law.
This is almost entirely unrelated, but you know what makes my blood boil? There's a smarmy DUI lawyer in Springfield who runs radio commercials where a DJ softly croons in loving tones that he knows you didn't mean to do what you did, and you regret it more than anything, but it's in the past now and you can't "punish yourself." You've got to "deal with it." You deal with it by hiring the smarmy DUI lawyer to get you off, even though you apparently admit that you did in fact drive drunk.
There's another bill proposed right now, by the way, that would make it illegal in Illinois for a person whose license has been suspended for DUI to purchase a car (or for anyone to sell to him.) To that end, it would require car dealerships to conduct background checks to find out whether the purchaser has a suspended license. Actually, when I saw the title, I assumed this thread was about that law.
dustind
Member
That is the worst logic ever. If you have nothing to hide why do you need the 4th or 5th amendment? To answer your question. When some low life pulls me over for a reason like my car being too low (its over eight inches off the ground and completely stock) just because I am driving at night with no other cars on the road. Then shines his flash light in my face, asks me for my papers, and lets me go fifteen minutes later it becomes a problem. Same situation but window tint happened to my brother (note his windows are factory legal tint, the officer did not mention it other than for the reason he stopped my brother). I have been pulled over on my motorcycle for literally no reason. Actually I pulled into a residential street and pulled over when I saw the cop turn around and come after me. Luckily for both of us I had a visible vehicle code violation, not that he could have seen it from his angle in the dark. He asked me to fix it and for my papers. He was so polite that I was not mad, but he still should not have pulled me over. If it was not for the code violation I may have gotten a bogus speeding ticket or something. Don't even get me started on Minnesota police and their illegal speed traps (no lights on) and the constant driving through red lights. I would much rather take my chances with the drunks than the police. I still think drunk driving should be illegal, but these bogus stops have to stop. I do not mean to offend all of the good cops out their, but even though it may not seem like a big deal things like this really anger a lot of people.
Don't tell me that urban legend is getting passed around again....
Jeff
TheeBadOne
Member
Jeff, passing Urban Legends around again and again is what the Internet is all about.
El Tejon
Member
carpet, yeah, sorry, but was a LEO, now just a serf.
Don, you're right. That kind of solicitation doesn't do tilecrawlers any good.
Don, you're right. That kind of solicitation doesn't do tilecrawlers any good.
lapidator
Member
Ah... ok.
So there might be a right to have counsel present when the officers are questioning you. Interesting.
Thanks.
Lapidator
12-34hom
Member
Drunk drivers.
Dustind; Could you please post a link showing where in MN vehicle code it's a crime to drive on a roadway at night with no other cars present?
Yes we all know police have got nothing better to do than stop people for doing nothing, then articulating that before a court and judge as to why you were stopped in the first place.
Don't ya just hate that when it happens..
Now there's an intelligent statement.
Its been awhile since I've heard that one.
Let me guess here, your not a big fan of the police or is it just authority in general you don't like? Do cops make illegal stops - yes they do. But if your getting pulled over on a consistent basis, maybe it's your driving skills, or some-other behavior that got the attention of police.
But that's just a wild guess on my part..
12-34hom.
Dustind; Could you please post a link showing where in MN vehicle code it's a crime to drive on a roadway at night with no other cars present?
Yes we all know police have got nothing better to do than stop people for doing nothing, then articulating that before a court and judge as to why you were stopped in the first place.
Don't ya just hate that when it happens..
Now there's an intelligent statement.
Its been awhile since I've heard that one.
Let me guess here, your not a big fan of the police or is it just authority in general you don't like? Do cops make illegal stops - yes they do. But if your getting pulled over on a consistent basis, maybe it's your driving skills, or some-other behavior that got the attention of police.
But that's just a wild guess on my part..
12-34hom.
Speed traps with no light on...
Hey! As long as we're passing that one around lets remind all of our drunks that if you slip a penny under your tongue yiu'll beat the breath test every time! Or, if the taste throws you off in your stupor, try spraying a botte of breath freshener into your mouth at once! Yea, that's the ticket...
Hey! As long as we're passing that one around lets remind all of our drunks that if you slip a penny under your tongue yiu'll beat the breath test every time! Or, if the taste throws you off in your stupor, try spraying a botte of breath freshener into your mouth at once! Yea, that's the ticket...
El Tejon
Member
Erik, the penny trick is still somewhat popular around here with certain segments of the population. It is based upon the old methodolgy, the balloon drunkmometer (yes, it was invented in Indiana [of course]) test in that the copper (Cu, not a LEO) mingles with the compounds in the balloon and gives an invalid result.
I only told that this method is still used in rural Mexico. However, taking the alleged offender out of town, taking his zapatos, and making his walk back is popular "testing" method as well. Or, to improve his balance the alleged offender's wallet is lightened by the alleged policia.
I only told that this method is still used in rural Mexico. However, taking the alleged offender out of town, taking his zapatos, and making his walk back is popular "testing" method as well. Or, to improve his balance the alleged offender's wallet is lightened by the alleged policia.
Gus Dddysgrl
Member
THAT'S RETARDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't drink. Well I don't get drunk. I've had a drink with dinner, but still I wouldn't drive. How come they are saving the rights of the people who are harming other people? What happened to the rights of the victim? Come on people get your heads out of your butts!!!!!!!
Oh and about the breathanalyzer. Doesn't the little picture on your liscense disappear if you breath on it and have alcohol on your breath? I thought that was why they put it on there. That is at least in PA now.
Oh and about the breathanalyzer. Doesn't the little picture on your liscense disappear if you breath on it and have alcohol on your breath? I thought that was why they put it on there. That is at least in PA now.
El Tejon
Member
Gus, don't know who you wear by "they are saving"?
We save the rights of those accused of hurting others because we wish to defend the Constitutional due process from the government so that we all remain safe. Some of us do it everyday.
We save the rights of those accused of hurting others because we wish to defend the Constitutional due process from the government so that we all remain safe. Some of us do it everyday.
Gus Dddysgrl
Member
I meant there are people who are doing harm to innocent victims and they are getting their butts saved by stupid laws. When the true victim is hurt and ends up not being able to get compensation because someone thinks the "predator" (the one doing the hurting) is the victim. I didn't mean that peoples rights aren't protected, but I'm saying sometimes the wrong person is defended and named the victim.
El Tejon
Member
Gus, you mean like in self-defense cases!
dustind
Member
Sorry for my earlier reply, I swear I heard about that law being passed after someone hit a police officer conducting a speed trap. Maybe it was a different state, I see a lot of police with parking lights on except when they are hiding on the side or center of the road. I checked MN law 169.48 and you guys are right. My bad, I was wrong. Still the speed traps on some roads are not funny with 8 cars lined up.
12-34hom: I was driving in the right lane, the cop was driving in his right lane going the opposite direction in the early morning hours on a four lane road with a grass divider. He said my license plate was angled wrong and hard to see despite never being behind me. He seemed surprised to see my face after I took my helmet off. (maybe he felt bad for me) He only mentioned the plate once and then asked for my info. I did wave to him like I do to a lot of people when I am on my bike, maybe that was it? Maybe he thought I was someone else or something, no hard feelings from that stop either way. I only get mad when I am stopped for no reason and talked down to.
I have no problem with authority. I think the best people we have in America are the ones who give up their lives to a low paying job so they can protect us from the scum of the Earth when they could have a higher paying cushier job. But hearing things like "do you know why I pulled you over? *shines his light in my face* Because your car is too low" rubs me the wrong way. I know 95+% of you guys are good cops. My "low life" comment was not directed at anyone here, I should have been more specific. I have had many good encounters for various motor and non motor related reasons, but the bad ones really stick.
As for why I have been stopped more than my "fair share." I used to work 3rd shift, and my sleep schedule was screwed up, so I did a lot of night driving. Both from point A to B, just for fun, and because there is not much else to do when your friends are asleep at 4AM.
Sorry for the tone of my earlier post, anything to do with traffic stops raises my blood pressure a bit.
Back on topic: Lock up drunk drivers, but do not pull people over without good cause. Anyone who harms someone while drunk off their butt should be under the same penalty as you would normally get for reclessly hurting others, plus full compensation to the victim.
12-34hom: I was driving in the right lane, the cop was driving in his right lane going the opposite direction in the early morning hours on a four lane road with a grass divider. He said my license plate was angled wrong and hard to see despite never being behind me. He seemed surprised to see my face after I took my helmet off. (maybe he felt bad for me
) He only mentioned the plate once and then asked for my info. I did wave to him like I do to a lot of people when I am on my bike, maybe that was it? Maybe he thought I was someone else or something, no hard feelings from that stop either way. I only get mad when I am stopped for no reason and talked down to. I have no problem with authority. I think the best people we have in America are the ones who give up their lives to a low paying job so they can protect us from the scum of the Earth when they could have a higher paying cushier job. But hearing things like "do you know why I pulled you over? *shines his light in my face* Because your car is too low" rubs me the wrong way. I know 95+% of you guys are good cops. My "low life" comment was not directed at anyone here, I should have been more specific. I have had many good encounters for various motor and non motor related reasons, but the bad ones really stick.
As for why I have been stopped more than my "fair share." I used to work 3rd shift, and my sleep schedule was screwed up, so I did a lot of night driving. Both from point A to B, just for fun, and because there is not much else to do when your friends are asleep at 4AM.
Sorry for the tone of my earlier post, anything to do with traffic stops raises my blood pressure a bit.
Back on topic: Lock up drunk drivers, but do not pull people over without good cause. Anyone who harms someone while drunk off their butt should be under the same penalty as you would normally get for reclessly hurting others, plus full compensation to the victim.
12-34hom
Member
Dustind, thanks for the reply & heads up.
Be careful riding that motorcycle.
12-34hom
Be careful riding that motorcycle.
12-34hom
sm
member
Where I have a problem with all these "laws" are the good folks get hit and the BGs skate. Like the way gun control gives the BGs an edge.
Yes I have seen the results of Drunk Driving, be it MVA or gunshots in the OR. I have seen the victim on the street. I don't have a problem if one chooses to drink responsibly.
In the hosptial were I worked here is good example. Random drug testing is the norm, includes alcohol.
So one of the on call folks gets called in ( heart team). She was out to eat -eating Mexican food, onions and the like...snagged the Listerine mouthwash,and some admin nurse type sends her downstairs for a breath test right that minute. Patient is on the table and for 20 min she is taking a test because of Mouthwash.
Now what if en route with flashers on [protocol] some LEO pulled her over and instead of taking test at hosptial, she ends up in the pokey. This girl doesn't drink, at all.
Hey I've been called in at 3am, hit the flashers and hauling butt, I had a bottle of Scope., and used it. I haven't had a drink since '84. Granted a lot of folks are coming in at 3am that have had too much...There are a bunch of folks that are honest and sober with a legitimate reason to be out as well.
The human element of case by case determination is being replaced by equipment.
Yes I have seen the results of Drunk Driving, be it MVA or gunshots in the OR. I have seen the victim on the street. I don't have a problem if one chooses to drink responsibly.
In the hosptial were I worked here is good example. Random drug testing is the norm, includes alcohol.
So one of the on call folks gets called in ( heart team). She was out to eat -eating Mexican food, onions and the like...snagged the Listerine mouthwash,and some admin nurse type sends her downstairs for a breath test right that minute. Patient is on the table and for 20 min she is taking a test because of Mouthwash.
Now what if en route with flashers on [protocol] some LEO pulled her over and instead of taking test at hosptial, she ends up in the pokey. This girl doesn't drink, at all.
Hey I've been called in at 3am, hit the flashers and hauling butt, I had a bottle of Scope., and used it. I haven't had a drink since '84. Granted a lot of folks are coming in at 3am that have had too much...There are a bunch of folks that are honest and sober with a legitimate reason to be out as well.
The human element of case by case determination is being replaced by equipment.
TheeBadOne
Member
Doesn't happen that way.
1) Standardized Field Sobriety tests- this is what they are for. They'd show no impairment.
2) Mouth Alcohol dissipates rather quickly. If you blow right after you rinse, yes you get a high reading. Rinse, walk to your car, drive a bit, get pulled over, converse with Officer, do field tests, (lets just say you now get hauled in for breath test). MOUTH ALCOHOL has dissipated. At best, mouth alcohol is completely gone within 20 minutes. It of course drops off much quicker, but there is not even .0001 left after 20 minutes.
3) If you are inoccent you can ask for an additional test, a blood test. (this is after you have completed the test required by the LEO).
The "Human Element" is still the primary tool in DUI enforcement, not a "machine".
All the best
TBO
Last edited:
El Tejon
Member
sm, SOP for the guiltometer is to have the testee wait 20 minutes with nothing to eat, drink or smoke. As TBO sez, this is to allow the mouth alcohol to dissipate.
At a LE seminar, I once did a shot of Jack Daniels and took the "highly accurate" BACDatamaster guiltometer without waiting at all. It registered a .56. GIGO, like anything else.
Besides, BIG difference between minty freshness and beer breath. Why do you think the coppers always stick their nose in the car at night?
TBO, "impalement"?!?! I think you need an EMT for impalement?
At a LE seminar, I once did a shot of Jack Daniels and took the "highly accurate" BACDatamaster guiltometer without waiting at all. It registered a .56.
GIGO, like anything else. Besides, BIG difference between minty freshness and beer breath. Why do you think the coppers always stick their nose in the car at night?
TBO, "impalement"?!?! I think you need an EMT for impalement?
- Status