Posted on 12/11/2005 2:30:55 PM PST by elkfersupper
An annual campaign presented by Mothers Against Drunk Driving caused some concern within Pima County's Justice and Superior courts Tuesday.
MADD members spent the day next to the courthouses handing out ribbons as part of their Tie One on for Safety campaign, which aims to get people to use designated drivers during the holiday season.
At least two judges, Justice of the Peace Jack Peyton and Superior Court Judge Ted Borek, were presiding over driving-under-the-influence trials Tuesday and were forced to question jurors to see if they were tainted by the display. The jurors were asked if they saw the display, which included a crushed car and photos of DUI victims, if they spoke with anyone about it, and if they were swayed in any way.
The trials continued uninterrupted after only a handful of the jurors said they saw the car but weren't influenced by it.
Defense attorney James Nesci said the display was a "blatant attempt" to influence the judicial system, noting MADD could have held the event anywhere, anytime. "They have a First Amendment right to protest, but that right ends where the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial begins," Nesci said.
Theresa Babich, a victim advocate with MADD, said Presidio Park was chosen because of its heavy foot traffic, not because jurors were around.
"We weren't out soliciting anyone specifically," Babich said.
No. Like a good liberal you are misstating my position. It is already illegal to drive drunk and it is also illegal to kill people with your car.
The problem I have is the "throw the book at them" mentality your friends from MADD have toward people who have caused no damage and are not a threat of doing so (.08....05.....03). Turning innocent people into criminals only serves to create a police state.
I also have a HUGE problem with totalitarian checkpoints stopping people who are minding their own business and committing no crime.
The problem is not people who have had a little to drink. The problem is people who have had a LOT to drink. But that's been illegal for decades anyway. So your MADD kook friends need to find other way to spend their time.
OK, I did. I still think your statement is overkill.
They light up on all the powder and primer residue, and I have to unload everything, every time.
You would have found Nazi Germany a comforting place.
Apparently they exist so surely that you feel no need to address the arguments presented here other than to say "Nuh-uh."
Correct. Considered an extension of your home in most places, particularly the western states.
Or the opposite might happen. It takes a while for alcohol to be absorbed, and it is possible that by the time you reach the checkpoint you will be intoxicated whereas you otherwise might have been home in that time. And then you will be convicted, not because you behaved irresponsibly, but because of the checkpoint.
Fine. Look here for the NY Criminal Jury Instructions for misdemeanor DWI.
"when I drive on the road, my safety also depends on "someone else" - the drunk crashing into me and killing me. they aren't "searching your vehicle" - if you appear intoxicated, that gives them probable cause to test you."
Damn, you sure can stretch things!
When you drive down the road, you may be killed just as easily as as if you crossed the street and got hit by a bus. Life is a gamble. Yes, a drunk might crash into you. Living in the world of "if" and invading my rights and privacy is not allowed by the Constitution.
As far as your example of appearing intoxicated goes, yes, if given reasonable probable cause, they can search your vehicle. "Reasonable Probable Cause" would be things like weaving and irratic driving. Checkpoints have been challenged in many states as unconstituional and have been discontinued.
Driving under the influence is illegal. Period. If caught, you will pay the consequences. But, don't tread on my rights by stoping me on the road and questioning me like I'm already guilty, when I haven't done anything. Blatent Nanny-State mentality.
Do you worry "if" a meteor comes crashing down on your car, who will you hold responsible, and how will you stop it from happening again?
You could also get murdered by a random gunman tomorrow. How do you suppose we stop that? Do you think we should immediately license all guns? Register any gunowners immediately? Make all the gunowners prove that they are not breaking the law?
How far do you want to take your "argument"?
Nanny-state mentality. Not cool.
Objective analysis of the statistics indicate that there are somewhere between 500 and 3,000 fatalities of innocent victims annually in traffic accidents caused by drunk drivers.
In a nation of nearly 300 million people, with 40,000 traffic deaths per year, there are nearly 2 million people arrested annually for suspicion of DWI.
Is that justified, or is it a witch hunt?
Okey-dokey.
It's justified. There's a lot of intoxicated drivers out there. The fact that they've been lucky so far doesn't mean they should still be out there driving.
Look at how many posters here will admit they drove drunk, and are grateful they never hit anyone. That gives credibility to the argument that DWI often goes undetected. But undetected DWI is not safe DWI.
I gave you USSC case law which states that a right to trial by jury does not exist and you give me the New York Criminal Jury Instructions? That NY grants certain privileges does not change the fact that that is what they have become - privileges, not rights.
Further, you only point to the situation as it relates to NY. Many states have different laws on the subject. The point is that trial by jury and presumption of innocence are now viewed as privileges granted by the state. Not rights.
if your only issue is with the level of the BAC - then argue that point. even with a BAC at .10 or .12, you would still need some form of pro-active policing to catch people driving at that higher level. otherwise, what you are basically saying is that the only function for the police here is to clean up in the aftermath of DUI related accidents - the innocent driver is already dead or maimed for life.
are you in favor of any deterrent measures at all? DUI is not like speeding - you can't aim a radar gun at a car and determine if the driver is DUI, to develop the probable cause to stop them. what's available? checkpoints. OK, you don't like those. how about we have task forces of unmarked cars that follow people as they leave local bars to observe their driving habits. can we do that, or does the right to privacy extend to not having a cop observe me as I drive? after all, I might be innocent, why are they following me?
Driving Under the Influence of......Bread?
Phil Price, a good friend and nationally known DUI attorney in Montgomery, Alabama, conducted an interesting series of tests with one of the most commonly used breath testing machines, an Intoxilyer 5000.
Without consuming any alcoholic beverages, he submitted himself to repeated breath testing -- after eating various types of food. His findings were startling.
After consuming almost any type of bread product -- white loaf bread, donuts, pretzels, pastries, etc. -- Price consistently registered blood-alcohol readings on the machine.
These levels were commonly around .03%, but rose as high as .05% (enough, in conjunction with a drink or two, to reach illegal levels).
Further, the Intoxilyzer's slope detector (an electrical circuit designed to detect alcohol from the mouth rather than from the lungs) failed to indicate the presence of any "mouth alcohol".
He reported this in an article entitled "Intoxilyzer: A Bread Testing Device?", 15(4) Drinking/Driving Law Letter 52 (1996).
Not as currently defined. If you would look into it just a little bit, you would probably agree.
I have said the following so many times to so many people on this forum that I don't remember all those to whom I have said it, so I apologize if I've said it to you before.
Here it comes anyway.
Single-celled organisms resist confinement. We are the highest life form on the planet in the most freedom-loving country. It amazes me that people will argue for and advocate restriction of their own and their fellow citizens' movement on a "conservative" news forum.
If anyone "involved" in the accident has a BAC of 0.01 or greater, it's "alcohol related". Even if the only people with non-zero BAC were PASSENGERS. Basically, the goal of MADD is to define as many accidents as "alcohol related" as they can, even though the broader they make their reach, the less alcohol actually has to do with most of them.
A BAC level of 0.08 has a vaguely detectable statistical effect on driving, but it's nowhere near as severe as the effect of 0.15. Indeed, it pales in comparison with many other risk factors that are considered 'acceptable'. Is there any sane reason why someone who is alert but has a 0.08BAC should be treated more severely than someone with a BAC of 0.00 who's practically asleep at the wheel?
They've gone way beyond just trying to curb DWIs and are on to full blown abstinence. Several years ago here in Raleigh, NC, a nightclub established a bus service to pickup up and drop off NC State University students. Sounded like a good idea to me because it would keep people from driving, but MADD would have none of it. They pitched a fit saying it would encourage drinking. Besides, BAC is arbitrary BS. BAC effects different people in different ways. Some pass out at .08 while others show little signs of impairment.
REVENGE? What the hell are you talking about?
Well, since you think the stopping of all individuals in their vehicles to make sure they're not breaking the law in the interest of "safety" is justified:
I really feel there is a need to begin setting up checkpoints to stop drug smugglers. They would be random, but some states have to do something because it's getting to be a major problem, and it's killing a lot of innocent people. Besides, if you're not smuggling drugs, you won't have anything to worry about.
Hint - This was attempted by the NC police back in the 90's along Rt 40. It was deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and unjustified by the Supreme Court in either 2001 or 2002!
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.