Let's have some good discussion on this.
http://bringmethenews.com/2016/04/2...ear-arguments-on-minnesotas-breathalyzer-law/
http://bringmethenews.com/2016/04/2...ear-arguments-on-minnesotas-breathalyzer-law/
Criminality of refusing breathalizers
- Thread starter countryroads89_rivals
- Start date
If a warrant could be obtained in a reasonable amount of time, say within 30 minutes to an hour, I would have no problem with the need for a warrant.
Agreed, and apparently it's possible in some jurisdictions get a warrant electronically in much less than that - as quickly as five minutes, depending on location.
I say when the time comes that driverless cars are feasible, if you insist on driving yourself then the legal system no longer has to bend over backwards for you. If you insist on driving yourself (and that alone will make you a worse driver when driverless cars becoming common), if a cop thinks you might be drinking too then you gotta breath in the tube, no waiting required for the cop.
If I see an armed person running out of a bank with the alarms blaring and run into a house, I don't need a warrant to enter that house. I have cause to enter that house. If I see someone weaving all over the road on Friday night, I have cause to believe the person might have been drinking. It's not an unreasonable search.
It baffles me that this gets heard, but the checkpoints are not considered a violation of rights. In fact, I think the SC ruled on those specifically in the past, and they upheld them.
Just because a person is weaving doesn't mean they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. They could be a poor driver, they could be a distracted driver, they could be a drowsey driver, they could be suffering from diabetic shock (which I have seen). Do we think some police officers may just want to pull someone over for the hell of it? I don't drink and drive but at the same time, I don't feel that I should give up a right to an unreasonable search - be forced to take a breathalizer. I would like to think I could tell an officer to get a warrant if he wants to test me. Furthermore, if the judge had any wisdom about him, he could look up a person's driving and criminal record and if both were spotless, he may elect to deny the warrant.
Don't they usually give the drivers a field sobriety test first? Couldn't that lead to probable cause?
BTW, I see some states may start doing the same punishments for not turning over a cell phone for a textalizer. :scream:
I could see the "criminal" portion being tossed, but I don't see how this would affect each state's DMV administrative punishments of suspending the license.
It absolutely doesn't mean they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it is reasonable to think that is a good possibility, especially if the officer thinks he smells alcohol. Reasonable suspicion is usually used to explain why a warrant isn't necessary. In my example of an armed guy running from the bank and into a house, the cops can't barge in and start going through your dresser drawers. That's not a reasonable search. The guy isn't hiding there. They have to get a warrant to search those sorts of places.
Indeed. And what's funny about this case is that the defendants at the base of it were all obviously stinko when detained. [roll]
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ng_case_looks_good_for_the_drunk_drivers.html
So, the tough question becomes "is it reasonable to believe someone is operating under the influence, based on weaving alone". You did add the odor of alcohol in your post, which greatly adds to the "reasonableness" when coupled with the swerving.
Maybe I should start with the fact that I've never been pulled over for DUI or tested for it in any way on a traffic stop or checkpoint. I don't believe the script runs with someone weaving on the road, and the cop handing the driver a breathalizer. Every traffic stop I've been involved in has the officer come up and talk to me first. Anyone who has been drinking enough to impact their driving has some telltale signs, and some of those may show up in speech patterns or the like. The cop may pull them over because they are weaving. He uses that first interaction to get a probable cause to think alcohol may be involved - whether that is odor or speech pattern or whatever else.
I think we have other things that are deemed "acceptable" searches that are worse than this. John Oliver did a story on asset seizure cases, and he used TN as an example of how that could go badly. Someone gets stopped for a traffic violation, and the officer asks if they have any large sums of cash in the vehicle. They cited one instance where a guy was stopped for speeding, and he had $20k in cash that he was going to use to purchase a vehicle - had the advertisement for the vehicle and everything. They seized the cash - no mention of his explanation for having the $20k in the report. That's a bigger issue than having to take a breathalizer test if you might show signs of being intoxicated.
I agree. I will add that you could still be arrested for suspicion of a crime and taken back to a police station and tested after a warrant is obtained.
Yep. Most (or maybe less than most, but a significant number) DUI charges get pleaded down to less serious "crimes". However, the administrative punishments (DMV) hit you in the wallet, gobble up your time and restrict your privileges.