Posted on 10/18/2017 9:20:53 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at 13wmaz.com ...
I agree. Additionally, I feel that the Founding Fathers missed the Right of Privacy, that no government or business may compile information on a customer, except — in the case of a given business — the general ledger of the commerce that customer engages in.
I bought a breathalizer once and did an experiment. I wanted to know what the various levels felt like and how they impacted my response time.
For me personally, I became “dangerous behind the wheel” at .15.
I mean regarding reflexes and how “drunk” I felt.
Below that, I was better than when I get sleepy behind the wheel.
YMMV.
.08 was nothing, btw. Reflexes and “feeling” were unaffected.
Again YMMV.
Here in CT, if you refuse you automatically lose your license for 6 months.
That’s the way it is everywhere. The end of the article points out that his conviction stands.
If driving is a right, then does a state have the authority to legislate a motor vehicle code — or even require a driver to have a license and a registered vehicle?
When I get stopped, I make some witty comment, the officer laughs, and I'm on my way!
No.
In fact, even license plates and an ownership Title is illegal.
Same with VIN. Totally illegal.
don’t ever want to be on the road when you are
One day, a texter rolled her suv in front of me. She was hanging upside down out of the passenger side of her upside down vehicle. I let her rest on my upper thigh and torso while we waited 20 minutes for the emergency vehicles, while eveyone else just gawked.
She was glad I was on the road that day. YMMV, of course.
Thing is, I PAY ATTENTION when I’m driving. It’s one of the reasons I avoid so many deer. The other, and more important, reason is that I pray for protection from deer every single day before I head out.
BTW, when I was in a bar band I went through a lot of sobriety checkpoints. My rule is one drink per hour. Max. Usually that means a beer. I never, ever had a problem at the checkpoints.
Who is supposed to build the roads?
I should have made myself more clear. I would not consider myself a safe driver with a .15.
My comment was really about how poor and downright dangerous many of the drivers around here are, even stone cold sober, yet they are legal and I wouldn’t be.
I’ve commuted aproximately 220,000 miles since moving to Kentucky. I’ve seen a lot of really crazy stuff - as has my dash cam. And a lot of it is due to really poorly skilled drivers.
States are currently split on this, some banning handover of passcodes, and others banning passcodes but allowing compelled fingerprint unlocking access.
-PJ
So they have to offer to buy a couple of rounds if they’ll take the breathalyzer??
Private citizens and corporations.
Ha! you beat me by .03!
I did find out from one of the cops at a sobriety checkpoint that they don’t bother with speeders until they are going more than 15 over. They were actually pretty nice guys.
Way different than Seattle, where I drove for 41 years.
Breathalizers can’t really be trusted. They give a ballpark figure that should not be admissable in court.
https://criminal.lawyers.com/dui-dwi/how-accurate-are-breathalyzers.html
It sounds like they based it on first amendment rights, not fifth amendment.
In which case no drunk tests ever without consent.
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.
It sounds like they based it on fifth amendment rights Can’t be compelled to testify against self) , not fourth amendment (unreasonable searches).
In which case no drunk tests ever without consent.
Sorry, disagree. That can be extended to allowing way too many other irresponsibly stupid things. And a loss of license for 5 years does not bring back loved ones killed by drunk/drugged out drivers.
If that’s the case then your logic doesn’t hold. If there is a “right to travel” and all roads are built by private citizens and corporations, then that means the private citizens and corporations who build the roads can no longer control their own property. They have to give free and unfettered access to everyone.
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.