Posted on 12/31/2008 2:53:07 PM PST by Ron Jeremy
I normally agree with you, CB - but with all due respect, I don't see an exemption to the 4th and 5th Amendments when someone is driving a car.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized:"
You will notice that expectation of privacy is not mentioned. You may also want to note that the Amendment guarantees your right to be secure in your person even before it mentions your house.
I felt the same way you did, then I reread his post and the one he was replying to.
An individual that drinks alcohol daily will have a far greater BAC level to achieve “intoxication” than the teetotaler, who may very well be wasted at .08. The current system gives the accused no chance to prove his competence.
I say use the field sobriety tests to establish impairment, and IF impaired, use the original BAC standard of .15.
Screw the rabid nannies!
Go back and reread the post. The whole post.
Only because of the way they describe their position.
They are against drunk driving, so if I am against them, by extension, I am for drunk driving.
As if.
Happy New Year Gabz, and thanks for all the pings.
“Just ask any farmer about tagging their livestock...”
You know when they come to tag my laying hens it becomes ‘Butcherin’ Day!’
I loathe these people.
I was trying to point out how fallacious his argument was. His argument was right out of 1984.
While I totally agree with you that driving is not a right, there still remains the right against self-incrimination, and a myriad of other rights that are routinely tossed by the wayside in DUI cases.
What about the guy that is sleeping it off in the backseat of the car, but because he has his keys in his pockets is busted for DUI --- in his own driveway? The cops never saw him driving, but that doesn't matter, he's in the vehicle and has the keys and is intoxicated, but he is also on private property.
Sorry, my learned friend, but DUI laws are abused and the fanatics at MADD see to it that it happens.
As to the situation mentioned, it is a true story. The man involved and his wife had a fight and instead of keeping it going he just went out to the car --- she called the cops on him and she is the one that told me the story.
Besides, we are talking about operating motor vehicles on public roads. If the guy were just spinning wheels up and down his own driveway he’d soon discover the law was far different in those cases ~ although there are still limitations on operating motor vehicles, or even stationary engines, while drunk on private property.
Was the ability to ride one's horse or horse drawn buggy into town a Privilege or a Right?
If I wish to drive my car around my 100 acres, is that a privilege or a right?
Just because YOUR government now owns and maintains the roads does not mean that my ability to drive a car on those same roads is now a privilege.
Yea, I know you are an attorney and can easily out debate my argument but the fact remains that YOUR government has now turned my once "Right" into a privilege.
You know damn well that that does not make it right.........
I agree.
Two very important points.
1)According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), “A motor vehicle crash is considered to be alcohol-related if at least one driver or non-occupant (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash is determined to have had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 gram per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatality that occurs in an alcohol-related crash is considered an alcohol-related fatality. The term ‘alcohol-related’ does not indicate that a crash or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol.
And:
2)From the book: Alcohol in America: Taking Action to Prevent Abuse (1985)
Starting on page 32, here’s what they had to say:
Using several epidemiological studies of drunk driving, Reed has calculated a more accurate estimate of the number of deaths that could be prevented if no one ever drove after drinking. These studies compared the blood alcohol levels of drivers involved in accidents with the blood alcohol levels of drivers not involved in accidents(this latter control group was randomly selected at times and places similar to those at which the accidents occurred). The data shows that 24 percent of the fatalities would not have occurred if the drivers had not been drinking.
So, 76% of drunk driving fatalities would have occurred whether alcohol was present or not.
Most deaths claiming to be “alcohol” related are in fact not related to alcohol at all.
Mark
My mistake..
Wow!
He had me up until the point he said the California Supreme Court is to the right of the US Supreme Court.
He really has no idea does he? Their position on this issue is a “lefty” position of “we know better than you or your messy science” and not even a conservative opinion.
You've agreed to be bound by the state driving code. Like it or not, whatever it says in the state driving code is what you'll be prosecuted under, Constitution not withstanding unless we intend to void legally binding contracts when one party no longer likes what they've agreed to
You've got it and my prayers, FRiend. I don't know about Arizona, but in Delaware, no matter how sober you are, if you refuse the breathalyzer you lose your license.
Dude - DUI is a thoughtcrime.
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.