Posted on 08/12/2005 11:36:01 AM PDT by Rodney King
McLEAN -- A Fairfax County judge has ruled that key components of Virginia's drunken-driving laws are unconstitutional, citing an obscure, decades-old U.S. Supreme Court decision that could prompt similar challenges nationwide.
Virginia's law is unconstitutional because it presumes that an individual with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 or higher is intoxicated, denying a defendant's right to a presumption of innocence, Judge Ian O'Flaherty ruled in dismissing charges against at least two alleged drunken drivers last month.
As a district judge, O'Flaherty's rulings do not establish any formal precedent, but word of the constitutional argument is spreading quickly among the defense bar. Every state has similar presumptions about intoxication at a 0.08 blood-alcohol level, so defense lawyers across the nation are likely to make similar arguments....
(Excerpt) Read more at timesdispatch.com ...
The risk from cell phone use has been overstated.
Most cell phone accidents are nothing more than fender benders. People don't generally get into head on collisions or drive on the wrong side of the freeway because they are distracted by their cell phones.
A drunk, on the other hand, is the functional equivalent of a loose cannon.
Trajan88
If your teenage children were driving home from a football game on a saturday night, what would you consider the acceptable level of risk that you would be willing to subject your children to if you knew that one out of every 7 cars on the road that your child was sharing was being driven by someone who had been drinking that night?
And what would be the acceptable level of risk that you would be willing to grant to the driver of the car your children were riding in? .05? Would you let your chidren ride around in a car on a Saturday night after a football game if you knew that car was being piloted by someone with a blood alcohol level of .05?
Be honest.
One can get ridiculous. I suppose having all Mario Andrettis driving at 15 mph wouldn't suffice for some people.
Technically it's a "civil" offense, so it doesn't get the vigilance that a crime would.
Would you allow your teenagers to get in a car and drive around town if you knew the driver had a blood alcohol content of .05?
hmmmmmmmmm....profiling. Its not ok if you're one of those terrorists types, but OK if you were at Bennigan's....
Which carries the greater threat?
That is absolutely right. It's simple to spot a reckless driver--by *seeing* how he's *driving*. It shouldn't matter *why* he's driving recklessly; just get him off the road *regardless* of why. If you have to check somebody's breath or blood before you can determine if he's driving recklessly, then he ain't driving recklessly, period.
for later
No, they're not focusing on the carnage. If they were, they'd be throwing people in jail who are actually driving recklessly. Instead, they're just throwing people in jail based on what's in their blood *regardless* of whether they're driving recklessly or not.
Not necessarily. It is easy to spot an erratic driver. A reckless driver could be driving straight as an arrow until he suddenly and without warning runs into the back of a carload of small children.
Reckless refers to the attitude of the driver, and not the objective manner in which he is driving.
You are confusing the term "reckless" with "erratic." Big Difference. A person can be driving straight as an arrow and be driving reckelssly. A person can also be driving erratically and not necessarily be driving recklessly at all.
Reckless driving does not mean weaving in a lane. Reckless driving is defined as driving indifferently to or disregardful of the consequences.
If you pour 4 beers down your gullet and get behind the wheel, then no matter how carefully and straight you are driving, IMO you are driving recklessly.
What is "acting funny"? Speeding? Changing lanes without a signal? Fact is, cops pull people over all the time for all sorts of things, whether they're driving "erratically" or not. Thing is, a guy driving 30 miles over the speed limit, changing lanes without a signal, cutting off drivers and breaking suddenly for miles gets nothing but a ticket as long as he blows under the legal limit. But the guy going 10 miles over, driving otherwise normally, gets his ass hauled into jail simply because he blows a .08. *That* makes sense to you? Why isn't the other guy--the one who was actually driving erratically--going to jail? Because the law is assinine.
I wasn't confusing them; I was equating them. But you're right, erratic is a better word. Re-read my comments and substitute erratic for reckless.
Again you misunderstand the meaning of the term "recklessly". The fact of the matter is that it is what is in their blood that objectively determines whether or not they were driving "recklessly". IMO and in the opinion of those who passed these laws, anyone who has had 4 beers and then gets behind the wheel is driving reckelssly, even if they do not appear to be driving erratically.
When a drunk driver plows into a van full of children most of the time it is difficult to determine that they were driving erratically beforehand. However, a blood test revealing a .15 BAC is clear evidence that they were driving recklessly. IOW they were driving without any concern for the consequences of their actions.
Let me ask you. Would you allow your teenage children to go out for the evening if you knew the driver of the car they were going to be riding in had a blood alcohol content of .05?
Be honest.
The important thing is to get these drunks off the road, and the BAC test is a good objective determiner of how many drinks a driver had before he climbed behind the wheel. It is also a good objective determiner for whether or not the driver was merely driving erratically or whether he was driving recklessly.
You're wrong. A guy driving 30 miles an hour over the speed limit who is also cutting off drivers is going to spend the night in the drunk tank whether he blows a .07 or a .00. The police would ticket that guy for "reckless driving." His punishment is likely to be the same as the guy who blows a .08.
BTW if you knew everyone on the road had a .08 BAC, would you let your teenage children drive on the road with them?
MADD drivers are the worst drivers on the road.
Hell hanging around bars at closing time, they might even pick up one of those Muslim terrorists by mistake and the all crap would break out.
You're talking reckless in the legal sense, I presume. *That's* what's wrong with the DUI laws. Attitude should not be a crime, but bad (or erratic) driving should be. I don't care *why* a person's driving is bad, only that it *is* bad. Penalties should be based on the driving, not based on *why* a person is driving the way he is. People driving without enough sleep are a far greater danger and cause significantly more wrecks than people with a 0.08 blood level. Same goes for teenagers and old people. Neither us driving at 0.08 would be as big a danger as a 0.00 17-year-old or an 85-year-old would be. Notice when an old person has an accident, we actually excuse it *because* he's old rather than arresting him for being the danger that he is? Until we start punishing everyone equally, the law will be an ass. IMHO
Would you allow your teenage children to go out for the evening if you knew the driver of the car they were going to be riding in was a 25 year old driver with a blood alcohol content of .05?
If you knew everyone on the road had a .08 BAC, would you let your teenage children drive on the road with them?
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.