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

Skip to comments.

DUI law ruled unconstitutional
TimesDispatch.com ^ | today | Matthew Bakarat

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 1fortheroad; alcohol; drunkbastards; dui; fairfaxcounty; good; onlyhad1; ruling; woohooletsdrink
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 301-318 next last
To: Rodney King
Cops could arrest these guys left and right by waiting outside bars at midnight

It happened to a friend of mine who was arrested for his 2nd DUI in 3 years. His life was a literal hell for the next 2 years. Immediate suspension of his license till his court date 6 months later, then another year of suspension followed by another 6 - 12 months of mandatory breating into some monitor they attached to his car. Mandatory AA meetings, mandatory weekly meetings with a psychologist, mandatory witnessing an autopsy at the county morgue of some 87 year old woman whose family was not informed of this. All these mandatory meetings and such are pretty darn difficult to do when one has no transportation. He had to sell his condo in Rochester Hills in order to rent an apartment across the street from his employer because he couldn't drive to work. Till that was accomplished, his son and his boss served as his daily chaufeurs to and from work.

Over $20,000 spent on fines and legal fees..........

The Oakland County judge was a female with a strong affiliation to MADD.......

201 posted on 08/13/2005 10:11:16 AM PDT by Hot Tabasco (What is a homosexual Islamic Jihadist going to do with 72 virgins? Can he give them away?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Would you feel safe if every driver on the highway was at .10?

If they were all experienced, good drivers, yes I would. I mean I'd feel about as safe as I normally feel when I'm on the road. Now teens and old people--sober--that's another story. They scare me. But so what? That doesn't give me the right to declare them criminals. I really don't think that how I feel is of any relevance at all. Laws based on fear generally cater to the most paranoid among us rather than to rational adults. For the most part, I tend to disapprove of crime and punishment that's based on nothing but feelings and statistics. I think that what's in a person's mind should be considered as a possible aggravating factor when determining punishment for an actual crime. I almost never would consider the state of a person's mind to be a crime in and of itself. And I do mean mind, not blood, since the correlation between blood content and skill is far from 1:1.

202 posted on 08/13/2005 11:00:14 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

MADD has essentially become a temperance organization.


203 posted on 08/13/2005 11:05:49 AM PDT by Koblenz (Holland: a very tolerant country. Until someone shoots you on a public street in broad daylight...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
If they were all experienced, good drivers, yes I would.

' When I drive I assume that everyone on the road is a drunken suicidal illegal alien with no drivers license and no insurance. IOW I don't trust that anyone on the road is an experienced good driver. They are all idiots and they prove it every day.

I would only hope that the guy next to me (or the idiot that is tailgating me) thinks I am a drunken suicidal illegal alien with no drivers' license and no insurance as well. The problem is that there are people out there that really think that I know how to drive and that I can read their minds.

Driving a car is the single most dangerous thing a human being does on a daily basis, yet most drivers take it for granted. We don't need to increase that risk by turning a blind eye to the guy who deliberately impairs his ability to drive by drinking a couple of beers before hopping into a 2 ton deadly weapon and pointing it at me or my children.

204 posted on 08/13/2005 11:24:01 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter

Some sobering facts:

Its the equivalent of two fully loaded airliners crashing each and every week of the year.

ratio of baby/toddler deaths (alchohol related automobile crashes) to baby/toddler deaths (all causes) = 1:200

ratio of annual alchohol crash fatalities to gun fatalities = 16:10

1 alchohol related death (all causes) /33 minutes
1 alchohol related injury (all causes) /3 minutes

Statistically, if one wears their seat belt each and every time they operate an automobile, the likelihood of being injured at least once during one's driving career is virtually certain. Failing to accomplish this each and every time one drives, not only is the potential severity of that one guaranteed injury accident much greater, but the likelihood of multiple injurious accidents is also nearly certain.

On any arbitrary weekday a number equivalent to 10% of the population of any arbitrary city are considered to be intoxicated while operating their motor vehicles on public roadways (the number being much higher from sundown Friday to Monday morning and on holidays). This number does not include boaters, personal water craft operators or airplane pilots (commercial or private).

3/5 of ALL people during their lives will be involved in an alchohol related crash (all causes, all circumstances).

After their first alcohol related traffic infraction, most drivers in retrospect will acknowledge having been intoxicated behind the wheel an estimated 2000 (on average) times.


205 posted on 08/13/2005 11:36:25 AM PDT by raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
The way the law is written now, if a driver is involved in a not at fault traffic accident, the driver who had had one drink is considered at fault pro se, e.g. being broadsided by a another vehicle running a red light, the driver having any measurable blood alcohol content is legally considered to be at fault (regardless of whether or not actually violating any traffic laws). And most likely, if the driver with any measurable alchohol content whatsoever has a prior alchohol related traffic conviction, charges against the driver who caused the accident could be dismissed entirely (no points). And this is true even in the case of the driver legally at fault (pro se) fatality in speculative accident. And heaven help the drinking driver, if his passenger dies as a result of such scenario.
206 posted on 08/13/2005 11:48:50 AM PDT by raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: roylene

I agree. However, the MADD maniacs want to eliminate drinking period, instead of drunk driving. They are so far from their mission that their founder disassociated herself with them.


207 posted on 08/13/2005 11:56:11 AM PDT by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

One-size-fits-all laws are the lazy way out.


208 posted on 08/13/2005 11:58:25 AM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roylene
Personally, I would not drive after 2 or 3 oz of wine (nearly blitzo)...

Where were you when I was single?

209 posted on 08/13/2005 11:59:53 AM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

bttt


210 posted on 08/13/2005 12:00:19 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
That tells me a lot about your judgment. It also explains your attitude on this thread. You just don't want anyone on the road who is drunker than you are. You consider yourself the standard of sobriety. I'd consider you impaired.

The problem is, you have no idea if I am or not.

211 posted on 08/13/2005 12:02:01 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: raygun

IMO, this is not justifiable, legally or morally.


212 posted on 08/13/2005 12:05:59 PM PDT by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
Some can do well on the tests too.

DUI Test

213 posted on 08/13/2005 12:09:13 PM PDT by ASA Vet (Line the border with trebuchets. Provide the invaders free flights home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: raygun

Can you source these stats? Some are pretty obviously off the wall. I doubt anyone here can claim that ALL of their no dead relatives and friends had been involved in at least 1 injury accident.


214 posted on 08/13/2005 12:09:48 PM PDT by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet
Sorry, the only things I could get from the link you provided are the likes of "G@MÁc2j«µn·I!vÖ1?ÁÖ|ZzSi÷€iÇ¡…^¸aÀ#Ü>>"pç,QS(á_ œH2?ƒWò£?îg¥ëÀu‹Ñ@®Œ?!RÚ*@ëªl ÿDë§=éæ/Ú´AÈîòp™Z{V?—«N=¡bD}¼õV…4&Ô"?S)+?NÍR§½Sê8(ñqJ¬ ua|Å¡#ü퇨ÄØOF&qg |éëæÃ\!gøB‘‚ ]%Rƒ‚†[ˆBÕ¸»2œŸ€U<ë>Õ‹Œ|??‡®õg‚÷9¼ìé!ò3-½DuᬱῙ%¨iÆ£–’„ÒÈñ´|Z ‚‘ésêvz‘ÍŸæé´uèÈ'" .
215 posted on 08/13/2005 12:13:13 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
If you are willing to drink two glasses of wine and then immediately drive your children around on a highway full of other drunks and maniacs, then I'd have to assume your judgment is impaired even before you start drinking. Think of how much more it is impaired AFTER you down those drinks.

But God has entrusted those kids to your care. May God help them.

216 posted on 08/13/2005 12:16:38 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

Nothing could be finer than reality based law and enforcement.


217 posted on 08/13/2005 12:17:18 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (illegally posting on an expired tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

Do you not have windows media player?


218 posted on 08/13/2005 12:19:59 PM PDT by ASA Vet (Line the border with trebuchets. Provide the invaders free flights home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
When I drive I assume that everyone on the road is a drunken suicidal illegal alien with no drivers license and no insurance. IOW I don't trust that anyone on the road is an experienced good driver.

Same here. That's just defensive driving. But it in no way reflects reality. It's pretend.

the guy who deliberately impairs his ability to drive by drinking a couple of beers before hopping into a 2 ton deadly weapon

You're begging the question. Prove the impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, don't just assume it.

219 posted on 08/13/2005 12:20:16 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet

Mac G4.


220 posted on 08/13/2005 12:26:05 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 301-318 next last

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.

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