GEORGIA SUPREME COURT RULES POLICE CANNOT COMPEL DRIVERS SUSPECTED OF DUI TO TAKE A BREATHALYZER

13WMAZ ^

[JP1201]

In a new ruling, the Supreme Court of Georgia clarified the rights drivers suspected of DUI have when it comes to interaction with law enforcement officers and the implied consent law.

The court made it clear that the state's constitution does not give law enforcement officers the ability to compel drivers suspected of driving under the influence to take a breath test by blowing into a breathalyzer.

It brings to question whether or not a defendant's refusal of a breath test can be submitted as evidence in their trial. As it stands, prosecutors can submit a defendants' refusal of the test. This new ruling changes that.

In a summary of the ruling, the high court wrote "the state constitution’s protection against compelled self-incrimination applies not only to testimony but also to acts that generate incriminating evidence."

In a unanimous decision, the court overturned previous decisions which held that drivers do not have rights under the constitution to refuse a breath test requested by law enforcement officers.

[longtermmemmory]

it is simple, just make a driver’s license a civil right subject to due process protection.

As it stands now, as a privilege it is open to all sorts of desk jockey games.

[Lazamataz]

Yabut STOP SIGNS are oppression to me.

[Nifster]

Because you were lucky and didn’t kill someone or get ticketed for a DUI is not the standard

I’ve never had a DUI. I’ve been in accidents that other drivers caused. Some were drunk some weren’t

Driving I will agree requires one to pay close attention. Not unlike flying or shooting or boating.

[robroys woman]

HAHAHAHA! my breathalizer must be busted, because I was not that drunk at 1.0

BTW, I stand corrected. I said “.15” and should have said .10. The latter was where I believed I could have driven better than a lot of people around here when they are stone cold sober.

I do think my breathalizer had a limit though. I got it to .15 but could not get it to read any higher, no matter what I did.

I also found out that those consumer models are pretty much a waste of money. Apparently they are only good for a few uses before they have to be sent in and re-calibrated. Not worth it for me. And they DO suck batteries.

[Lazamataz]

It would seem that even something as simple as “red means stop, green means go” requires a government intervention that would violate a so-called “right to drive.” What if I want to drive on the LEFT side of the road?

DON'T YOU KNUCKLE UNDER TO THE MAN!!!!

[Nifster]

I don’t know anyone who has a breathalyzer....except those who have an interlock ordered by the court

[zeugma]

Awesome. Good to know that at least one state has justices that can read and understand the Constitution.

[Ken H]

“I routinely drive at 0.68% blood alcohol level.

When I get stopped, I make some witty comment, the officer laughs, and I’m on my way!”
________________________________________________________

“I’m not as think as you drunk I am!”

[jjotto]

But he’ll lose his license and pay the fine all the same.

[Mears]

Wouldn’t not drinking before driving be the best idea-—— rather than wasting money on breathalizers?

.

[zeugma]

I contend that the Founding Fathers _would_ have enumerated a “right to vehicular travel” had they conceived of its necessity.

One FF notably lamented that the enumerated BoR would be construed as “if it’s not listed, it’s not a right” - this is exactly what he had in mind. The notion of regulating drivers with licensing and strict vehicle requirements simply didn’t occur to them in a mostly-unoccupied country featuring dirt roads (if any) and at best horse-drawn carriages. Had the notion occurred to them, it would have been just as revolting as licensing presses or firearms. _Of_course_ you have a right to travel, and distances being what they are you naturally have a right to a machine that facilitates that travel (liable for any harm done in the process).

Ergo I reject the notion that “driving is a privilege, not a right.” Absolutely it’s a right, no less than the 1st & 2nd Amendments. That it’s not enumerated doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Absolutely correct in all particulars. You'll not find much support here for that position, because the nanny staters get their panties in a wad any time they are met with cognitive dissonance on this subject.

[Lazamataz]

“I’m not as think as you drunk I am!”

No, the conversation usually goes:

Officer: "Sir, do you know why I pulled you over?"

Me: "F*** yeah. I'm drunk as S***, and you were hoping to borrow some money!"

Officer: "Any drugs?"

Me: "No thanks, I have all the drugs I need!"

Officer: "Can you step out of the car?"

Me: "Can I? Yes. Will I? No."

Officer: "You're pretty funny. On your way, and don't hit anyone!"

[robroys woman]

Because you were lucky...

---

Though I agree, I would use the word, “fortunate” and I believe the Lord was watching over me. I became a Christian just a couple of years later.

I remember one of those nights I was driving my Saab 99 into the tunnel, westbound on I-90 just before the floating bridge and the left lane was baracaded. I actually moved into the right lane so late that I hit one of the barricades with my side mirror. It put a little dent in it. I had to be pretty plastered to do that, but I made the 18 mile ride home with no other glitches. It’s kinda amazing how many of us survive our youth.

When we were 20, one of my friends drank almost an entire bottle of vodka and drove home. Except he never made it. His home was two blocks south of where he started driving, but his car ended up in a very deep ditch a mile north of where he started driving. Nobody was hurt, thank God.

Self driving cars don’t drink. Technology does solve some problems.

[Let's Roll]

GA SC must be loaded with drunks.

[robroys woman]

Wouldn’t not drinking before driving be the best idea-—— rather than wasting money on breathalizers?

---

Yes it would. The problem is that if I go out to dinner with my wife, I’d like to have a beer, and she’d like to have a glass of wine. I bought the breathalyzer to find out when we would be legal and when I wouldn’t be. I found out I was being WAY overcautious. I could have at least doubled the amount of alcohol I was drinking and not worry about getting a DUI. Knowledge is power. This is what the breathalyzer gave me.

[robroys woman]

I bought mine from Costco for $20.

[1L]

>>A DUI by itself (I’m not talking about vehicular homicide, for example) is not a criminal offense in my state. I’ll bet it’s not a criminal offense in MOST states.

You are TERRIBLY mistaken about this. DWI is a criminal offense in ALL states. You can find this out by a very easy google search.

States have different ways of codifying criminal laws. Texas, for example, has a penal code, a code of criminal procedure, and other statutes that intermittently list offenses. Just because something isn’t in the penal code doesn’t mean it isn’t a crime when you violate it. The same is true for other states.

I don’t know what state you are in, but I think if you look closely, you’ll see that your state writes their laws in similar ways. So, an offense in the motor vehicle code may very well be a criminal offense.

When government is involved, there is almost always individuals rights and liberties at play regardless of whether there are criminal offense statutes at issue. Most government sanctions require due process, so there is a right involved. You may not have a constitutional right to drive, but you DO have a right to due process if you are denied certain things. That’s why there is no such thing as a privilege given by the government.

[Alberta's Child]

I live in New Jersey. Apparently it’s one of the states where DUI is NOT a criminal offense. A DUI charge is adjudicated in traffic court here, not criminal court.

[Alberta's Child]

LOL.

[zeugma]

The mere act of driving with a blood alcohol limit above a certain amount should be legal. BUT if one causes an accident or injury BECAUSE of the impairment then that should be a huge penalty and automatic loss of license for at least 5 years.

Exactly right. You can generally tell the difference between a good law and bad law by looking for an actual victim. If there isn't one, it's probably a bad law.