Tag and track those drunks

[C.C.R.]

Due process comes in court.  No need for it at roadside.   

That's why you're the lawyer & I'm unemployed...

This is not actually that big an inconvenience.  Depending on how far away the Intoxilyzer (or whatever local police use) is, it could take 30 minutes.  It is fast and accurate.

I have zero issues with the police measuring blood alcohol on the scene.  What I didn't agree with in your statement was "I'd like to see the police have the right to demand anyone found operating a motor vehicle to give a full breath sample for analysis, no questions asked, no "probable cause" or "reasonable and probable grounds" needed."  I need you to clarify if you meant

A)  The police can pull people over without PC to administer tests at will, or

B)  Once the police have pulled somebody over for ANY valid reason they can then proceed to test the driver without further specific PC to suspect drunk driving

I read your post as being "A" & felt outrage against proposing to allow police to discriminately pull over whomever they please with no valid reason whatsoever.  IMO there's an awful lot of potential abuse going on with that route.

If you really meant "B," though, then I tentatively agree with you (although I think that you expressed yourself poorly if that is what you meant)...

[Barrister]

Due process comes in court.  No need for it at roadside.   

That's why you're the lawyer & I'm unemployed...

This is not actually that big an inconvenience.  Depending on how far away the Intoxilyzer (or whatever local police use) is, it could take 30 minutes.  It is fast and accurate.

I have zero issues with the police measuring blood alcohol on the scene.  What I didn't agree with in your statement was "I'd like to see the police have the right to demand anyone found operating a motor vehicle to give a full breath sample for analysis, no questions asked, no "probable cause" or "reasonable and probable grounds" needed."  I need you to clarify if you meant

A)  The police can pull people over without PC to administer tests at will, or

B)  Once the police have pulled somebody over for ANY valid reason they can then proceed to test the driver without further specific PC to suspect drunk driving

I read your post as being "A" & felt outrage against proposing to allow police to discriminately pull over whomever they please with no valid reason whatsoever.  IMO there's an awful lot of potential abuse going on with that route.

If you really meant "B," though, then I tentatively agree with you (although I think that you expressed yourself poorly if that is what you meant)...

Oh no, I meant A.

Because as soon as you start introducing 'probable cause' you give some smarmy defense lawyer an excuse to fight the charge.  And succeed.

The thing you're forgetting it that no cop wants to pull someone over for shits and giggles.  In particular if they only get to demand a breath sample (not search the vehicle).  There's no incentive to pull people over frivolously (which by the way they have the right to do in this country - it's only the breath demand they need R&P grounds for).

But really - this is all just a hidden rant at a local judge who throws out perfectly valid impaired charges (complete with valid readings showing the driver was truly impaired) saying 'well, although the officer thought the driver was drunk, in hindsight I think he was wrong and shouldn't have even stopped the driver, so I'll throw out the entire charge'.

[Tonitrus]

Due process comes in court.  No need for it at roadside.   

[Valdemar]

Will depend on your local jurisdiction of course, but I'd like to see the police have the right to demand anyone found operating a motor vehicle to give a full breath sample for analysis, no questions asked, no "probable cause" or "reasonable and probable grounds" needed.

Wow.  I mean, wow.

I would almost literally support crucifying multiple drunk driving offenders, but I'd at least want them to have the benefit of Due Process first...

Due process comes in court.  No need for it at roadside.   

This is not actually that big an inconvenience.  Depending on how far away the Intoxilyzer (or whatever local police use) is, it could take 30 minutes.  It is fast and accurate.

Here cops can pull you over and do a on the spot breath analyzer test. If it goes above a certain level they arrest you and send you to the emergency room for a blood test to get specifics. if it is below that level but above legal levels they fine you and lock down your car. You can ofc protest either in court or accept the fine.

V

[Fate]

There's no incentive to pull people over frivolously (which by the way they have the right to do in this country - it's only the breath demand they need R&P grounds for).

Are you really that naive? As it is counties use speed traps to make money. Removing a probable cause requirement to pull someone over and perform a breathalyzer? Hey guys, I think we found a solution to our local budget crisis!

[DisturbedPervert]

Will depend on your local jurisdiction of course, but I'd like to see the police have the right to demand anyone found operating a motor vehicle to give a full breath sample for analysis, no questions asked, no "probable cause" or "reasonable and probable grounds" needed.

They could be under the influence of drugs that won't show up in a breath analysis.  Better give the police the right to on demand urine testing as well.

[Iormlund]

"Why is somebody with three drunk driving convictions driving at all?" Smigiel asked.

This.

Step 1: Strip drunkards of their license. And their cars.
Step 2: Make driving without license an offense punished with at least 5 years in jail.

[Grey Fox]

Articles idea is wonderfull!

[C.C.R.]

Oh no, I meant A.

Because as soon as you start introducing 'probable cause' you give some smarmy defense lawyer an excuse to fight the charge.  And succeed.

The thing you're forgetting it that no cop wants to pull someone over for shits and giggles.  In particular if they only get to demand a breath sample (not search the vehicle).  There's no incentive to pull people over frivolously (which by the way they have the right to do in this country - it's only the breath demand they need R&P grounds for).

Ahh, I was not aware that PC was not required to pull somebody over in Canada (except in the case of impaired driving).  In your case that sounds like a stupid exception & I agree with you.  On this side of the border PC is required to pull somebody over (except in non-discriminatory methods like roadblocks where EVERYBODY is pulled over & hassled equally, which I personally support).  There's just too much history in this country of keeping down darkies, krauts, micks, wops, kikes, polacks, chinks, spics & other assorted individuals for no legitimate reason.  Plus, here in Central Bumblefuckia a lot of cops just sincerely don't have anything better to do.  Fuck, I used to get sick of just getting followed home by a different cop every night for a week every time I switched to 2nd shift, just because I happened to be out at night.  "Oh, gee he's out driving at midnight -- he must be drunk!"  They would then follow me, run my plates & see that I haven't had a ticket since 1994 & then establish that I am driving exactly at the speed limit (because, like, I would set my cruise control at 45mph just so I wouldn't get hassled).

Seriously.  Every night for a week.  I can see once or twice, but under your proposal I'm getting pulled over five nights in a row by five different cops & having my time wasted after hard days at the factory, simply for the crime of not having enough senority to stay permanently on 1st shift.

Or something.  Totally anecdotal & irrelevant to everybody but me, but I threw it out there to contest the notion that "no cop wants to pull someone over for shits and giggles."  Cops routinely do it where I live right now, and I doubt they're the only ones...

[Grey Fox]

The problem is obviously Cops. American Cops.

[C.C.R.]

The problem is obviously Cops. American Cops.

I think that the problem just lies with Americans in general, but I am not prepared or even interested in arguing the point at this time...

[Ed Anger]

Drunk drivers should be shot on the spot. I'd take a pay cut to be the executioner.

[Tonitrus]

The silly thing is the expectation that a person will make a sensible decision(not to drive while intoxicated), after they have gotten shit-faced on a substance that adversely interferes with one's ability to makes sensible decisions. 

Better to bring back Prohibition and execute bootleggers along with the drunk drivers.

[C.C.R.]

The silly thing is the expectation that a person will make a sensible decision(not to drive while intoxicated), after they have gotten shit-faced on a substance that adversely interferes with one's ability to makes sensible decisions.

I think that the expectation is for people to make the sensible decision to not put themselves into that situation in the first place...

[Bluebook]

Will depend on your local jurisdiction of course, but I'd like to see the police have the right to demand anyone found operating a motor vehicle to give a full breath sample for analysis, no questions asked, no "probable cause" or "reasonable and probable grounds" needed.

That is the law over here. Amazingly enough, our cops seem to be able to handle that responsibility too, so the fears of police-state or police-budget meltdown displayed by some in this thread seems very exaggerated