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 ...
I work in a field where traffic safety is critical to my work — and I agree with you 100%. If someone ruins my day by running a red light and crashing into me, I don’t care if they’re drunk, sleeping, or just plain retarded. They should all be treated the same under the law.
They could charge tolls. Toll booths every 20 feet. That would be awesome.
http://www.11alive.com/news/investigations/the-drug-whisperer/437061710
Gwinnett County will do one better than Cobb County
A Drug Whisperer & DUI Whisper
:(
LOL!!!!!
Only if they’re voluntary. Otherwise they’re violating my “right to travel.” :-)
That seems more fair than taking your license if you refuse a breathalizer. Refusing a blood test is a different animal, though. I do believe you should be charged with a crime before they can do it, though. I’m not saying that’s the law, but only that IMO it should be.
That would mean not driving for a few hours after eating a single maraschino cherry.
Well, remember this: We can always fly, avoiding all the issues of roads, outright.
When cars are self-driving, the revenue loss will make it so they outlaw drunk-riding.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: yes, but only as a matter of categorizing harms, and facilitating safe behavior.
Motor vehicle codes should be a matter of categorized harms, which can include “reckless endangerment” (actions likely to cause harm, punishable even if they haven’t).
Insofar as some rules may be a practical necessity, I may grudgingly concede a few regulations...
I’d have to contemplate general “rules of the road” (stay right, stop at stop signs, etc) which should be applied solely to facilitate order (so people don’t have to wrestle with minutiae constantly).
Driver training should be considered a standard part of education. No licensing needed. (So should basic gun safety & use. So should using a press etc.)
Vehicle registration should be nothing more than applying a license plate for identification, as many are indistinguishable and offenders can otherwise so easily vanish.
Safety regulations may have a place - though more as a matter of rating safety than requiring it. (A society that tolerates motorcycles obviously doesn’t really care that much about safety.) I’m all for government providing standards just so everyone objectively knows what others are talking about, and for certifying those who rate compliance with those standards.
Basically: if you put a vehicle on the road, and can drive without harmful incident, go ahead.
“A DUI by itself (I’m not talking about vehicular homicide, for example) is not a criminal offense in my state.”
A first-time DUI is a misdemeanor criminal offense in Georgia, where this case was adjudicated.
You have signed on to the establishment. They always start, sounding reasonable. But after a little while, you end up with fascism and oppression.
NIP IT IN THE BUD.
Refuse ANY rules related to driving!
I'm assuming it depends on the laws of each state. I live in NY State, and according to an online source, the prosecutor can use your refusal as evidence. If you refuse, your license is suspended for one year. Other rules apply for additional refusals.
“Who is supposed to build the roads?”
Private entities. Financial incentive is enough to sort out payments.
I _might_ be swayed to making roads a gov’t responsibility, since culture so absolutely depends on them.
Anecdote:
Every night I go for a walk in a suburban subdivision. Of late I’ve been puzzling over why the local gov’t is tasked with owning & maintaining these roads, cul-de-sacs in particular, when practically the only cars on them belong solely to those living on adjacent lots. Main roads, yeah, maybe those should be “public” - but 200 yards of asphalt existing solely for the benefit of a dozen people should be their problem, not “ours”. I’m increasingly of the opinion the locals should buy the roads outright (seeing as we’re under an HOA anyway), put up a gate, and only allow access to residents & guests.
Seems to be a pretty simple resolution to this idiotic ruling. As a condition of getting a drivers license, individuals consent to a breath-alayser test if ever stopped under suspicion of drunk driving.
Is there anything that would preclude a state from doing exactly that? Probably not.
That’s why I said “contemplate”. I’m sure there’s a way we can achieve equivalent results without gov’t dominance, I just haven’t worked it out yet.
I’d be all for straight-up anarchy on the asphalt, until I recall videos of drivers in India.
If a DUI is a criminal offense in Georgia, then anyone who was convicted on the basis of a sobriety test conducted without a warrant should have their convictions overturned.
The key is having courts recognize a “right to drive” which cannot be infringed when no harm, nor threat of harm, comes of exercising it. To wit: mere driving should not be punishable for lack of license, registration, insurance, vehicle safety certification, seat belts, crumple zones, turn signals, etc.
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.