Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: logic101.net
Unimpressed. It is a violation everywhere to fail to maintain reasonable control of an automobile. You don't have to test for Jack - just observe the obviously impaired drivers and cite them.

It is a better standard than measuring intoxicant levels, because it actually PROVES a danger. It is a reasonable expectation that the government prove a charge, no?

So, the cops can't just pull over your "stoners" for a dim tail light and then measure some arbitrary juice level & stick them for ten grand in penalties based on that. Cry me a river.

28 posted on 04/12/2014 5:04:05 PM PDT by Clinging Bitterly (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: Clinging Bitterly

You are right. What did they do before the breathalizers? They did roadside impairment tests. Walk the line. Touch your nose. Count. Say the ABC’s. Go back to that.


32 posted on 04/12/2014 6:27:28 PM PDT by Marie (When are they going to take back Obama's peace prize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: Clinging Bitterly

observe the obviously impaired drivers and cite them

That is a rather subjective standard and it gives law enforcement more discretion than I am comfortable with.

In fact I was pulled over once for a roadside sobriety test at a USAF gate. I didn’t do well (drunk buddy just woke me up from a sound sleep to help him find his van). The pocket breathalizer read 0.00. Under your standards I’d have been given a DUI for my buddy being passed out drunk!

Oddly though, that was the only time I ever went through that gate sober.


34 posted on 04/13/2014 8:59:09 AM PDT by logic101.net (How many more children must die on the altar of gun control?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson