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 ...
As I remember at one time in states it was .12. I thought that was a fair decision. Now I don't promote someone to get to that level. It is just that like in government if they can suck more control & money from you they will do it. That's my issue. Same for pharma. When people got their cholesterol levels down to what was recommended & they couldn't sell ant more products, they lowered it & they are still going further, which is totally unhealthy.
I contend that the Founding Fathers _would_ have enumerated a “right to vehicular travel” had they conceived of its necessity.
One FF notably lamented that the enumerated BoR would be construed as “if it’s not listed, it’s not a right” - this is exactly what he had in mind. The notion of regulating drivers with licensing and strict vehicle requirements simply didn’t occur to them in a mostly-unoccupied country featuring dirt roads (if any) and at best horse-drawn carriages. Had the notion occurred to them, it would have been just as revolting as licensing presses or firearms. _Of_course_ you have a right to travel, and distances being what they are you naturally have a right to a machine that facilitates that travel (liable for any harm done in the process).
Ergo I reject the notion that “driving is a privilege, not a right.” Absolutely it’s a right, no less than the 1st & 2nd Amendments. That it’s not enumerated doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
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.
The reason is that if they REALLY think you are drunk they can take you to the station and do a blood test. Breathalizer tests are well known to be less than accurate, and one reason I suspect that I heard around a decade ago that attorneys and elected officials normally will never subject themselves to such a test.
Blood tests tell the story. Breathalizer tests should not be admissible in a court of law and should be used for the sole purpose of determining whether they should bother with a blood test.
BTW, I say this as a non-drinking driver.
I also consider texting while driving to be more dangerous than driving “buzzed”. Much more.
>>Democrat “judges” looking out for their criminal pals again.
I’m more conservative than most on this forum and I fully agree with this decision.
Isn’t it if you refuse a breathalyze, your license is automatically suspended?
Breathalizers are not that accurate anyway. Blood tests are what tells your blood alcohol level.
DNA evidence is now not allowed?
0.08% is a dumb legal limit anyway.
Yup Bri’s claim was based on the wording
About 20 years ago when these standards were being set the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tested NASCAR drivers at various BAC levels in controlled driving tests. The results were that at .01 to .04 they actually drove better. It was at .07 that things went really went downhill. That created the push for the .08 level.
You haven’t looked at all the studies
the refusal is essentially an admission of guilt.
my co-worker has been arrested 3 times for OUI.
each time he has been sentences as a first offender.
The third time, all within a 15 year span, the court again gave him a 1st offender sentence, drunk school and 90 days suspended or whatever.
the DMV on the other hand said NO, THIRD offense and suspended his license for 8 years.
The DMV here in MA is above the law.
"Absolutely it’s a right, no less than the 1st & 2nd Amendments. That it’s not enumerated doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist."
Bad ruling. Do they even take probably cause into consideration?
Imagine a cop letting somebody drive away drunk and the suspect ends up killing somebody while driving.
If it’s about cops can’t physically force you to take a breathalyzer, Then i’m okay with it because many states have a refuse and you’re guilty. Confiscate their license right there/ Tow their car away to an impound lot and let them get a lawyer and go to trial.
The woman who founded MADD left before it even went down to 0.15.
She saw it as neoprohibition and that was not her goal.
People are impaired when at that level.
The reason is simple: The qualification for getting a license here is the ability to fog a mirror.
A coordination and reflex test is better. It’s not a “one size fits all” measurement that, truth be told, isn’t that accurate to begin with. Only a blood test gives one’s actual blood alcohol level.
If youre a professional sports player today, you have the option to take the test while kneeling.
Rimshot
You are out of your mind. I don’t ever want to be on the road when you are
A DUI by itself (I’m not talking about vehicular homicide, for example) is not a criminal offense in my state. I’ll bet it’s not a criminal offense in MOST states. There’s a legal distinction between a violation of a criminal statute and a violation of a motor vehicle code.
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.