Drunk Driving Laws...

[Tgace]

That would require mandated sentences (which can be double edged). That newspaper article I mentioned hammered some local judges for dismissals on repeat DWI offenders, low conviction rates, etc....the differences between the judges in my town (strict) and some of our neighbors are like night and day.

 

[Tgace]

The roadside alco-sensor is used, but I don't think it can be used as evidence. From my understanding, it is just use to justify probable cause to take someone to the HQ to blow in the Datamaster. The BAC that gets submitted as evidence is from the Datamaster in all the cases I have seen (and I have seen quite a few since the new law changed).

Thats where I see a problem...on a DWI here, Im not going to tow a persons car, put them in my car and take them to the station unless they are under arrest. So you blow a .08 on the alcosensor but pass the field tests, if the reading cant be used as evidence, what then is the justification for detaining/arresting you for the trip to HQ?

Am I under arrest officer??

No Im just taking you to HQ for a breath test.

No Thank You.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Dont think for a minute that I dont think DWI laws arent heavily influenced by politics..politicians want to be seen "doing" something about DWI, MADD/SADD pressure etc...local paper publishes judges conviction rates on DWI's here almost every year....but alcohol impaired driving is still a large problem, what will it take??

You would think that if polititions really wanted to do something they would vote to vastly improve public transportation. However, that would make too much sense.
Sean

 

[Ceicei]

You would think that if polititions really wanted to do something they would vote to vastly improve public transportation. However, that would make too much sense.
Sean

Nah, the driving addicts wouldn't go with riding buses/trains only to specific places and trying to coordinate their activities around a bus/train schedule...not to mention some walking involved.... How hard can it be?

- Ceicei (occasional bus rider)

 

[CanuckMA]

Thats where I see a problem...on a DWI here, Im not going to tow a persons car, put them in my car and take them to the station unless they are under arrest. So you blow a .08 on the alcosensor but pass the field tests, if the reading cant be used as evidence, what then is the justification for detaining/arresting you for the trip to HQ?

Am I under arrest officer??

No Im just taking you to HQ for a breath test.

No Thank You.

Actually, in Ontario, you can be arrested for refusing a roadside breathalyzer test.

 

[loki09789]

My concern is the view that laws about DWI/DUI laws are demonizing alcohol use. I disagree. I think it is demonising irresponsibility. I don't know the background/reasoning behind the shift from .10 to .08 - whether it is because there is a statistical rise in DUI's/DWI's and the deterrance effect of enforcement is loosing its impact or whether it is entirely motivated by political agenda's. Either way, driving is not a right afforded its citizens, it is a priviledge. The stress is on responsibility, therefore the testing and licensing process, and I don't think the expectation of demonstrative responsibility by not driving under the influence is an infringement on any rights.

But, since the law is generally set up so that if you are found impaired and unfit to drive (field sobriety and such) as well as BAC testing then it is holding those who drive while drinking responsible.

The reduced BAC legislation gives LEO more wiggle room when the most accurate test of blood draw happens so far after the actual probable cause that initiated the stop. In some cases, the BAC is higher because of timing, but sometimes it is lower because of timing. Either way, alcohol tolerance/BAC and body wieght or gender are not the only variables to consider.... Food, fatigue, mental state, stress and other variables are just as significant to alcohol tolerance/impairment as the rest. Regardless of the variables it is not a good practice, it is irresponsible and it is a willing practice of endangering yourself, passengers and everyone else around you.

There was a thread in Gen MA forum about drinking and training and the general concensus was that it wasn't a good thing to do at all. I would say that this is true of driving as well.

I just keep hearing "Do not drive or operate heavy machinery" running through my head

 

[Touch Of Death]

Nah, the driving addicts wouldn't go with riding buses/trains only to specific places and trying to coordinate their activities around a bus/train schedule...not to mention some walking involved.... How hard can it be?

- Ceicei (occasional bus rider)

Thats just it, if we had an actual alternative we could take away a lot more liscences without hurting families and making situations worse. Even a free shuttle for bars a 2 am would be a step in the right direction. I thought I had it bad living in Spokane until I lived in Allen town PA for a few months. Their Bus system will drive you to drink.
Sean

 

[Cruentus]

Thats where I see a problem...on a DWI here, Im not going to tow a persons car, put them in my car and take them to the station unless they are under arrest. So you blow a .08 on the alcosensor but pass the field tests, if the reading cant be used as evidence, what then is the justification for detaining/arresting you for the trip to HQ?

Am I under arrest officer??

No Im just taking you to HQ for a breath test.

No Thank You.

I could see how that would be a problem.

 

[Cruentus]

Thats just it, if we had an actual alternative we could take away a lot more liscences without hurting families and making situations worse. Even a free shuttle for bars a 2 am would be a step in the right direction. I thought I had it bad living in Spokane until I lived in Allen town PA for a few months. Their Bus system will drive you to drink.
Sean

I think you make a very good point, Sean. My state is so dependent on people owning their own vehicles that you'll wait a half-hour for a cab even in the city (Detroit). Outside the city, your waiting longer. Plus it costs you an arm and a leg.

You could walk home by the time the cab gets there, and it would cost you less.

 

[Cruentus]

"Driving is a priviliage, not a right?"

I believe that this is a manufactured idea that people adhere too because we are told by the powers that be through PR that this is not only true, but good.

I believe that this is true because we come closer and closer to a police state (by 'police state' I mean total control over the rights of the individual through force), it seems, every day. But that DOES NOT mean that it is good.

I believe that it is a violation of our American right to own and use property if driving is NOT a right.

An Analogy: I have the right to own and use my camera-cell phone until my cell phone use turns into an infringement on other peoples rights (like if I were to use it to take video of people punching in their ATM pin for the purpose of identity theft, for example). Then and ONLY THEN does my right turn into a "privilage" that can be taken away.

Owning and driving my own vehicle should be a RIGHT, in my opinion, until I do something with that right that infringes on others rights.

The more we allow our rights to be comprimised, the closer we come to a police state. Soon, all your "rights" will be "priviliages," if we aren't careful.

PAUL

 

[theletch1]

If you think .08 is too strict get a commercial drivers license and deal with .04. Doesn't matter whether I'm in the truck or in my own car it's still .04 percent. That's one dose of cough syrup.

 

[CanuckMA]

"Driving is a priviliage, not a right?"

I believe that this is a manufactured idea that people adhere too because we are told by the powers that be through PR that this is not only true, but good.

I believe that this is true because we come closer and closer to a police state (by 'police state' I mean total control over the rights of the individual through force), it seems, every day. But that DOES NOT mean that it is good.

I believe that it is a violation of our American right to own and use property if driving is NOT a right.

An Analogy: I have the right to own and use my camera-cell phone until my cell phone use turns into an infringement on other peoples rights (like if I were to use it to take video of people punching in their ATM pin for the purpose of identity theft, for example). Then and ONLY THEN does my right turn into a "privilage" that can be taken away.

Owning and driving my own vehicle should be a RIGHT, in my opinion, until I do something with that right that infringes on others rights.

The more we allow our rights to be comprimised, the closer we come to a police state. Soon, all your "rights" will be "priviliages," if we aren't careful.

PAUL

So you are in favor of the State supplying everybody with cars and cell phone?

Because that's where you're going with making owing a vehicule a right. A right is something that is required for living. Affordable and available healthcare is a right.

 

[Cruentus]

So you are in favor of the State supplying everybody with cars and cell phone?

Because that's where you're going with making owing a vehicule a right. A right is something that is required for living. Affordable and available healthcare is a right.

No....the right to own and use property is a right. If I buy a car, it is my property. I have the right to own and USE that property (that is, drive), just as long as it doesn't infringe on others rights.

 

[loki09789]

This idea that "I can use my private property how ever I damn well see fit" is similiar to the logic of using the 1st Amendment right to justify your 'right' to spew racist comments, defame characters, spout white supremicy rhetoric....
I am not saying that this is what is happening here, but I am saying that this simplistic view of rights/priviledges ignores the responsibily issue of each citizen to each other to 'do unto others.' There is another thread about a woman abusing the court system to try and sue Coors for the death of her son because he drank and drove into a tree. It is already generally viewed, based on the posts, as ridiculous, but how much more ridiculous would it be if he had survived the crash with injuries and had hit a person instead of a tree and she was trying to sue Coors?

Rights and Priviledges do not excuse stupidity and poor judgement.

 

[loki09789]

No....the right to own and use property is a right. If I buy a car, it is my property. I have the right to own and USE that property (that is, drive), just as long as it doesn't infringe on others rights.

I would think vehicular manslaughter, potential or realized, if allowed by the gov. would be negligence on their part in protecting the citizens safety.

 

[Tgace]

Actually, in Ontario, you can be arrested for refusing a roadside breathalyzer test.

Here you can get a ticket for it...and if convicted of it loose your license.

 

[Tgace]

Right Vs. Privilege

http://firms.findlaw.com


Most people seem to understand that driving is not a "right" but a "privilege" granted and regulated by the State. What is not quite so well understood is that, once the license is issued, the citizen enjoys a constitutionally protected property right in that license that restrains the State’s ability to take it back.[31] This is but an application of the general proposition that the constitution limits the individual state’s authority to stop an "entitlement," regardless of whether the "entitlement" is designated as a "right" or a "privilege." [32]

Due Process:
The rationale for recognizing a property interest in a driver’s license is based on Fourteenth Amendment Due Process protection.[33] This liberty interest is further rooted in the practical reality that once a license is issued, driving quite likely becomes essential to that individual’s pursuit of a livelihood.[34] It seems well settled as appropriate Due Process that the states must afford the licensed driver reasonable notice prior to the revocation.[35] Further, the state must give the licensed driver an opportunity for a meaningful hearing on the issue.[36] Many families find themselves in crisis situations involving older loved ones exhibiting deteriorating driving ability. In these situations, the courts has recognized that fact by allowing for immediate revocation of driving privileges in crisis situations as long as a post-revocation hearing is immediately scheduled.[37] At this time, no case has come before the Supreme Court to definitively mark a constitutional distinction between the state’s power to revoke driver’s licenses and the state’s authority to reject an older driver’s application for license renewal.[38]





31] Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), Sniadich v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337 (1969). See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. § 1. "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . ." Id.

32] Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539 (1971), citing Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963). In Bell, the Court considered Georgia's Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, which provided that the vehicle registration and driver's license of an uninsured motorist involved in an accident shall be suspended unless he posted security in an amount sufficient to cover damages claimed by agg§rieved parties in the accident report. The Court held that since "fault" was an essential element of the decision to suspend the license, the state must provide a pre-suspension forum for determining whether there is a reasonable possibility of a judgment being rendered against him as a result of the accident. Id. at 542.

 

[loki09789]

So, basically, if you pass your driver's exam and are granted a license, the consitution keeps the state from taking it back without due process (I would imagine that probable cause all the way to sentencing is involved in this) based on state procedural practices. I notice that this example doesn't mention property law in terms of vehicular ownership.

So, based on this, if you are guilty of impairment/DWI and charged, they can take away/suspend the "property" of your license but not the ownership of the car. That makes sense because you can they are separate proprietary items.

 

[Tgace]

Yes..the "state" can also impound (not confiscate) a vehicle for a set period if it is involved in a crime (drug laws permit forfiture but thats different altogether), but it must eventually be returned unless due process deems otherwise.

(Paul M:I sent you an e-mail...check it when you get a chance and sent it back to me.)

 

[Cruentus]

Nice, informative post, Tom.

I understood that part of it, although I probably didn't explain it well.

When people blanketly say or believe, "driving is a privilege not a right," they are negating the fact that once your license is issued, driving indeed becomes a "right" until your "right" infringes on the rights of others through the breaking of the laws, in which case your "right" can be taken through "due process." Yes, the initial granting of a license is "privilage" because the state has to "Grant" it to you, but once granted, it becomes a right. That was how I understood it.

Here in lies my problem with the issue at hand. Once granted, I have the right to drive my vehicle until I infringe on other peoples rights and safety (by breaking the law), which must be determined by due process. So, what is happening is that stricter laws are passed on certian behaviors that may be "frowned upon" to restrict my rights. I feel I should have the right to drive 2 miles from the local bar to my home at 0.08, far below a limit that would make me impaired, yet the law right now disagrees with me.

I am against the more and more laws that are passed every year that are designed to restrict the rights that we should have. When will it end? Sooner or later, if restrictions continue, we won't have any rights at all.

Rights and Priviledges do not excuse stupidity and poor judgement.

I agree with you there, brutha. If someone is driving in a manner that endangers others, then they should get penalized for it.

The problem I am having is that people are often penalized for things that I don't feel endanger other motorists. I think the majority of the public can drive at 0.08 without endangering other motorists, and the research supports this fact. So what gives?

What gives is that our civil liberities and rights are further restricted each year for political reasons, and if we don't discontinue this trend, then we will find ourselves in a position where we have no rights at all.