Posted on 12/30/2013 1:05:39 PM PST by moonshinner_09
Authorities plan to crack down on impaired drivers – either drunk or under the influence of drugs – using new DUI technology this New Year’s holiday.
A state grant will allow Los Angeles police officers to expand its use of swab testing at DUI checkpoints and jails to check for narcotics use, city officials announced at a press conference on Friday.The grant comes at an opportune time as authorities said they are seeing more incidents of motorists driving under the influence of marijuana and other drugs.
Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer said the prevalence of medical marijuana dispensaries throughout Los Angeles have heightened the number of impaired drivers in the city.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbclosangeles.com ...
Neo-prohibitionists. Very few are mothers or even potential mothers.
With the NHTSA, they co-authored both the field sobriety tests and the "statement(s) of probable cause" that are used in every DWI arrest. If you look at thousands of them from hundreds of jurisdictions, they are identical except for the variables.
MADD is a template factory for manufacturing criminals and a domestic terrorist organization as far as I'm concerned.
You are wrong. "Impaired" is "impaired".
You can be "impaired" by booze, illicit drugs, otc drugs, caffeine, tea, lack of sleep, or just too fat or short or tall to operate the controls.
Whatever the cop on the side of the road wants is what will be and increasingly, there is no defense.
You were quoting a different poster from me that I quoted at the beginning of my post. I went on to make much the same point you are making. We are on the same page on this one. Although in my state "intoxication" is defined as being under the influence of "alcohol" or "controlled substances" to the extent one's driving is impaired. So, being impaired because of OTC meds, lack of sleep, caffeine, etc. cannot be a basis for an OWI charge.
You had better check that again.
"Impaired" is whatever the cop wants it to be.
Impaired has a specific statutory definition. It is an objective standard. Cops can't change that. Can cops lie about your behavior or the details of the incident to fit that standard? Sure, but they can do that on any type of charge if they want to.
No, it is not. "impaired" is whatever the cop wants it to be. Even with alcohol, people are deemed to be "impaired" at a .08% and are on their way to .00% presumed breath alcohol content, which has no relationship to blood alcohol content. The statutes you cite, which were originally written to be .20% blood alcohol content have continually been dialed down to .08% The breath alcohol content measurement is particularly insidious because it assumes an identical partition rate for every victim.
This thing is designed to turn every one of us into a criminal and has no relationship whatsoever to our ability to drive a motor vehicle.
Not in my state. In Indiana "impaired" is "the loss of normal control of a person's faculties." And it must come about from being "under the influence of "alcohol" or "controlled substances" in order for a person to be considered "intoxicated". And the statutes I cite are the current Indiana Statutes which I use in my business every day and I am looking at right now.
Well, you’re going to get targeted by MADD and NHTSA to change the definition.
Thanks for the information. I guess MADD has snowed a lot of people. I’ll research them and get informed.
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.