Otto would have his own vanities.
QuoteLawmaker wants 'DUI' license plates for repeat offenders
There are several tip-offs that a driver might be drunk: swerving, traveling the wrong way on a street, pulling out of a bar late at night.
And a Prince George's County lawmaker wants to add one more. He says the state should replace license plates of repeat drunken drivers with bright yellow tags that read "DUI."
"Displaying the special license plates will give people some understanding of who they are sharing the roadways with," Marvin E. Holmes Jr., a Democrat, said at a hearing on his bill Thursday.
The legislation would require the yellow plates for five years for anyone convicted of drunken driving three times. There are 2,029 drivers in the state who currently fit that description, he said.
Similar legislation has been introduced in the General Assembly twice before and failed -- but this year the measure has a new backer. Del. Herman L. Taylor Jr., a Montgomery County Democrat who pushed for drunken-driving plates in past years, was convicted a year ago of drunken driving. He is not a co-sponsor of Holmes' bill this year.
Other states have been adopting similar rules, said Joseph C. Green Jr., who called the idea "a growing trend" in his testimony on behalf of AAA Mid-Atlantic in support of the bill.
In Minnesota, "W" license plates -- perhaps for "watch out" -- are issued to people convicted of drunken driving, driving without insurance or a license, and failing to pay not paying a large number of parking tickets.
In those states and others with similar rules, drivers tend to give a wide berth to any vehicle bearing the plates. Holmes saw that firsthand on a recent trip to Ohio, when he was "amazed" by how much space other drivers on the highway gave one drunk-tagged vehicle.
Ohio judges have discretion to require the plates. Currently, 4,149 vehicles bear such plates, said Lindsey Bohrer, a spokeswoman for Ohio's Motor Vehicle Administration.
Lawmakers in Ohio also unsuccessfully pushed for pink license plates for child predators.
But there have been problems with drunken-driving tags. Legislation failed in Arkansas three years ago as lawmakers worried about the effect plates would have on innocent passengers in the vehicles. In Oregon, a rule requiring drunken drivers to have a stickers on their tags failed because drivers would peel them off, Holmes said.
Some members of the House panel expressed skepticism. Del. Michael D. Smigiel, a Southern Maryland Republican, compared the concept to a "scarlet letter" and worried that it would create a stigma for members of a households who share a vehicle with a convicted drunk driver.
"Why is somebody with three drunk driving convictions driving at all?" Smigiel asked.
Del. Tony McConkey, an Anne Arundel County Republican, wondered if the plates would have any real effect in preventing drunken driving and asked why the state shouldn't not just require an ignition interlock device that would test the driver's breath for alcohol.
Holmes responded: "This would be an additional tool in the toolbox."
I support this.
I honestly can not see how this helps.
And I have run more drunk driving trials than I can count. I have another one tomorrow.
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 12:14:14 AM
I honestly can not see how this helps.
And I have run more drunk driving trials than I can count. I have another one tomorrow.
What is your solution Mr. Law?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2010, 12:17:30 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 12:14:14 AM
I honestly can not see how this helps.
And I have run more drunk driving trials than I can count. I have another one tomorrow.
What is your solution Mr. Law?
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.
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 12:22:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 29, 2010, 12:17:30 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 12:14:14 AM
I honestly can not see how this helps.
And I have run more drunk driving trials than I can count. I have another one tomorrow.
What is your solution Mr. Law?
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.
How would that help?
Quote from: Jaron on January 29, 2010, 12:29:09 AM
How would that help?
It would help the police needlessly harass people, without any recourse.
I'm not comfortable with giving the state any authority to demand anything from the citizenry without any justifiable reason.
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 12:22:25 AM
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...
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 12:14:14 AM
I honestly can not see how this helps.
And I have run more drunk driving trials than I can count. I have another one tomorrow.
:huh:
Public shame is effective.
I'm surprised this hasn't caught on. I bet you could get a similar law passed in southern states advertising that you're a sex offender on your license plate.
Quote from: C.C.R. on January 29, 2010, 01:21:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 12:22:25 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 12:14:14 AM
I honestly can not see how this helps.
And I have run more drunk driving trials than I can count. I have another one tomorrow.
It's not about helping. It's about public shaming and feeling better than other people by humiliating them.
oh. Well in that case that's a marvelous idea.
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 12:22:25 AMWill 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.
Welcome to Europe. :P
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 01:35:01 AM
Due process comes in court. No need for it at roadside. :)
That's why you're the lawyer & I'm unemployed...
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 01:35:01 AM
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)...
Quote from: C.C.R. on January 29, 2010, 02:22:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 01:35:01 AM
Due process comes in court. No need for it at roadside. :)
That's why you're the lawyer & I'm unemployed...
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 01:35:01 AM
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'. :ultra:
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 01:35:01 AM
Due process comes in court. No need for it at roadside. :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffixwatts.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F06%2Frodney-king.jpg&hash=9987030a828aa4998e706a66899ca63f2247fecf)
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 01:35:01 AM
Quote from: C.C.R. on January 29, 2010, 01:21:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 12:22:25 AM
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
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 02:44:05 AM
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!
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 12:22:25 AM
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.
:huh:
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.
Quote"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.
Articles idea is wonderfull!
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 02:44:05 AM
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...
The problem is obviously Cops. American Cops.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 29, 2010, 09:45:24 AM
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...
;)
Drunk drivers should be shot on the spot. I'd take a pay cut to be the executioner.
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.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 29, 2010, 11:19:42 AM
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...
:D
Quote from: Barrister on January 29, 2010, 12:22:25 AM
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