Posted on 04/16/2008 8:55:21 AM PDT by mowowie
Been through the process here in Fla back in Dec 88.Nailed comming home from a post X-mas/pre-newyears party.My info is dated,but a DUI is(was?)considered a felony if the alcohol level was at least 2x the legal limit or it was a second DUI w/in a set period of time.The problem is individuals who continue to drive drunk after one or more DUI’s.I don’t understand the mentality.These are the folks who eventually kill themselves and/or others driving drunk.No license?No insurance?No problem.Quite frankly i was humbled by the experience:court,comm service,fines,etc.But by the grace of God i haven’t had a drink since Jan 4,1989.
You're comparing seat belt offenses to DUI? A drunk driver poses an increased risk to the drivers around him. A person not wearing his seat belt poses no additional direct risk.
We have laws against DUI for the same reason we have laws against speeding or reckless driving or even failure to signal--when an operator disregards these laws, there is an increased risk of danger for other motorists.
I hate to tell you this, but in the People’s Republic of New Jersey, and a few other places, I believe, the seatbelt laws have been upgraded to a primary offense...in other words, a cop can pull you over if he sees you driving without the belt, no other infraction is necessary.
That's a misinterpretation of DUI laws. Even when the legal limit was .10, it was still possible to be found guilty of DUI if the state could prove impairment. In general, no one under the limit would be charged because the state would have to prove that the driver was truly impaired, rather than present a blood test.
The legal limit is simply a level where impairment is legally presumed.
One class of wine would leave a 100lb woman with a BAC of about .04.
Even when the legal limit was .10, it was still possible to be found guilty of DUI while under the limit, if the state could prove impairment.
So now the courts are defining what "violent" means?
The dissent concerns me, though.
Oh you can run it to a jury trial, the thing is [at least Ky] that the statutes have been fine tuned to the point of un-opposable legalise being the rule...
Stop off at a pizza joint on yer way home today and split a pie and a pitcher o beer with a friend...are you 'legal' when you leave ???
The first thing that the mandated 'alcohol classes' will focus on is that since you got a DUI you must be alcoholic...then focus on the fact that 'rational judgement' is the first section of the brain togo south upon intake of alcohol... next they tell you 'You shoulda known better' and gotten out a slide rule to determine your BAC before leaving the resturant...
Driving 'drunk' is dangerous...so is driving while p!ssed off, putting on make-up, talking [on a phone, two-way, or otherwise], eating [donuts included], having sex, reading, ... only one of those is illegal to the tune of thousands of $$$ and years of punishment...
Power and money is all there is to it...
LFOD...
“So now the courts are defining what “violent” means?”
In that particular statute, yes. That’s what judges are supposed to do: interpret statutes.
The law said (paraphrase to make the point): you have three “violent felonies” and on the forth one, you get this mega-horrid punishment.
Well, let’s say, Defendant X has on his rap sheet: (1) a DUI; (2) assault with a deadly weapon; and (3) murder, then gets busted for some federal crime.
The prosecutor wants to enhance his sentence under this law.
Well, is that 3 “violent felonies” or just 2?
The court decided it was just 2, after reading the law.
That’s the court’s job.
In Washington D.C., ANY detectable level of blood alcohol will get you arrested for DUI!
“If DUI isn’t a felony, but running over someone while driving drunk is, does that mean attempted armed robbery isn’t a felony unless someone gets shot?”
Attempted armed robbery is closer to attempted running over someone. In both cases the attempt involves underlying intent to harm another person and could be attempted drunk or not.
DUI may be done merely in an effort to get home. There may be underlying danger to others (or maybe not) but no underlying intent to harm. Most people who are DUI would probably rather get from one place to another without doing harm, and attracting the subsequent attention from the police.
Why did Alito and Thomas dissent?
Seat belts are a Primary offense in many places now...that gets em to the door for a sniff test...
like you said, there are already mechanisms for dealing with the damage done by any negligent behavior in a car...
using arbitrary numbers and thug tactics is just plain wrong and shouldnt be accepted a 'felony', which results in loss of Rights...
Because they support law and order, no matter how twisted the law, I suspect, but I have not read the dissent.
(and I am NOT a lawyer, just a glorified tool pusher)
Well their dissent concerns me because usually they keep the role of the SC first in their minds... rather than what they think the law SHOULD say. And that’s why I supported them. By the way, I think the drinking and driving laws are way out of control too so I’m not arguing from that perspective.
We must preserve the distinction between one who willfully commits a violent act and one who unintentionally does harm, even through great stupidity.
I agree with you 100%, and I've been saying that here on FR for a long time!
Actually, the so-called "laws against speeding" have nothing to do with increased risk of danger for anyone. Any statutory speed limit involving a posted speed that is lower than the design speed of the roadway in question is -- by definition -- a meaningless statute from the standpoint of public safety. The only purpose of these laws is to provide a mechanism for law enforcement officials to generate revenue.
The evidence I would offer in support of this is pretty clear. As a licensed professional engineer in my state, I am required by law -- at the time I renew my license every two years -- to report any convictions for felonies, misdemeanors, and even motor vehicle offenses. There are two very clear exceptions to the last item here: speeding tickets and parking violations. These two items are included as exceptions to the reporting requirements because a "conviction" under one of these offenses has no correlation whatsoever with my ability as a licensed professional to exercise sound judgment in the interests of public safety.
I'd also point out that we also have laws against the illegal use of firearms. That doesn't mean there should ever be a presumption on the part of law enforcement that someone carrying a firearm automatically represents an "increased risk" to others. The point that LetsRok raised is a good one. Unless a motorist is committing some kind of other offense, there is no way for this "increased risk" to be ascertained by a police officer without engaging in the kind of "random search" process that is clearly a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Texas does the same thing. I got snagged when a highway patrol officer drove past me and saw I wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. Wasn’t doing anything otherwise. That was two years ago and it cost me $180 then. No telling how much it is now.
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.