Posted on 10/18/2017 9:20:53 AM PDT by JP1201
In a new ruling, the Supreme Court of Georgia clarified the rights drivers suspected of DUI have when it comes to interaction with law enforcement officers and the implied consent law.
The court made it clear that the state's constitution does not give law enforcement officers the ability to compel drivers suspected of driving under the influence to take a breath test by blowing into a breathalyzer.
It brings to question whether or not a defendant's refusal of a breath test can be submitted as evidence in their trial. As it stands, prosecutors can submit a defendants' refusal of the test. This new ruling changes that.
In a summary of the ruling, the high court wrote "the state constitution’s protection against compelled self-incrimination applies not only to testimony but also to acts that generate incriminating evidence."
In a unanimous decision, the court overturned previous decisions which held that drivers do not have rights under the constitution to refuse a breath test requested by law enforcement officers.
(Excerpt) Read more at 13wmaz.com ...
The courts will still be able to suspend or revoke driver's licenses.
The cops will just have to do a little better job of gathering evidence to get a conviction.
Did you read the article where the judge rejected his claim and upheld husband conviction?
I’d rather have a breathalyzer. I don’t think I could pass any other kind... stand on one foot and touch the back of your head while singing the Star Spangled Banner, or whatever... I don’t drink but I’ve always wondered if I could pass any kind of test that required coordination. I’d probably be in the slammer.
In Canada DUI or refusal to submit to a breathalyzer are criminal offences and attract the same penalties. You can’t force someone to blow but the refusal is essentially an admission of guilt.
It’s heading down to 0.05% and then 0.03%. CDC is already pushing for it.
And in Sweden it is 0.01%.
Confiscatory fines at their finest.
Here in MA the DMV says the cops can’t, the judges can’t but WE can...
In Florida it is if you also refuse a blood test....................
Correct. It should be .05%.
I was under the impression that Constitutional protections didn’t apply in these cases because a DUI offense is a motor vehicle violation, not a crime.
For something that’s not a crime a lot of people spend a lot of time in jail for it.
Could not compulsory consent to a breath test be made a condition of obtaining a driving privilege?
With a lengthy revocation of such privilege upon refusal?
This isn’t Canada, and the standards considered criminal now are absurd.
I don’t even drink but I did years ago and I know mockworthy stupidity when it is stomping on my foot.
That's the proper remedy. Driving is a privilege. But self-incrimination is part of the Bill of Rights. It will be interesting when OBD III is implemented in our vehicles which will provide Law Enforcement with direct access to your vehicle's operating parameters, including it's speed, in real time. So will cops monitoring your vehicle's speed by tapping into it's computer be an act of self-incrimination? If you think Big Brother is here now, you ain't seen anything yet.
I thought this was already the State law?
A driver can refuse the test, but your license would be automatically suspended for 1 year.
No, they are not.
Ayn Rand created a saying, and you seem to have an emotional investment in implementing it.
A good number doesn’t automatically, you can still be convicted.
A bad number carries its own punishments.
DUI, Homicide by vehicle, feticide by vehicle and reckless driving are all crimes by individual statutes and not moving violations.
In Virginia .15 is a mandatory one-year in jail.
Bottom line is this. If you are going to drink, then do not drive.
Get a driver... There are lots of options.
Democrat “judges” looking out for their criminal pals again. These same ***holes want gun control “for the children” so they can be killed by drunk drivers. Hypocrite scum.
>>I was under the impression that Constitutional protections didn’t apply in these cases because a DUI offense is a motor vehicle violation, not a crime.
How in the world could you ever come up with that?
DUI IS a crime. Motor vehicle violations are almost always a crime as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.