Cops have a quota for DUI arrests?

[untateve]

Bushwhacked is right. In the county where I reside, you can basically be convicted on a DUI no matter your BAC, as long as it registers.

 

IOW, you could look like the guy who this cop's wife is banging. He can pull you over with the excuse you're driving erratically, make you take a breathalyzer (if you refuse in GA you lose your license for automatic 1 year - how's that 5th amendment protection about testifying against yourself again? ) you blow a .02, well under the limit, but the cop gets to arrest you to get your evil D&D stink off the road.

 

Not only can it be completely arbitrary, it's a HUGH money maker for the county. Minimum first offense sentence is 1 year probation with other stuff you have to pay for.

 

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. When you accept your license, you accept that if you do not blow when asked, you lose the privilege of driving for one year.

[Perchoutofwater]

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. When you accept your license, you accept that if you do not blow when asked, you lose the privilege of driving for one year.

 

Yep, I agree with you on this one, as much as it pains me to disagree with my libertarian friend WV.

[Kid Cid]

I guess you missed my sarchasm about the same cops stealing peoples property.

Half drunk, I've been golfing all day, sarcasm is beyond me.

[westvirginia]

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. When you accept your license, you accept that if you do not blow when asked, you lose the privilege of driving for one year.

 

But I automatically lose that privilege for one year without adjudication - for simply refusing to testify against myself?

[Kid Cid]

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. When you accept your license, you accept that if you do not blow when asked, you lose the privilege of driving for one year.

 

Well, maybe not exactly. From the quoted article.

 

Q. In the list of cases that you went over, what weight do you ascribe to the fact that the activity engaged in while "under the influence" is a licensed activity in terms of the uh...

 

A. Years ago, yeah, years ago the argument was, "We can do anything we want because driving is a privilege, not a right." You must have heard that over and over again. "Driving is a privilege, not a right." A decision in the Warren court years ago said, "Wrong; it is a right." Or to put it another way, "You have no right to it, but you have to give due process before you take it away." In that sense, it is a right, not a privilege. Nevertheless, that is the thinking, the mentality of a lot of courts in the United States today.

[untateve]

But I automatically lose that privilege for one year without adjudication - for simply refusing to testify against myself?

 

When you accepted your license, you accepted the rules that go with having that license. One of the rules is to blow upon request. If you don't like that rule you can either refuse to accept your license or you can seek to change them. Again, driving is not a right.

 

And, you are not being asked to testify. You are following a rule that you agreed to follow when you accepted your license.

[bushwacked]

Again, driving is not a right.

 

Apparently at least one guy more intimately familiar with the law don't necessarily agree.

Edited April 28, 2010 by bushwacked

[untateve]

Apparently at least one guy more intimately familiar with the law don't necessarily agree.

 

Well, then, he's wrong.

[bushwacked]

Well, then, he's wrong.

 

[Kid Cid]

When you accepted your license, you accepted the rules that go with having that license. One of the rules is to blow upon request. If you don't like that rule you can either refuse to accept your license or you can seek to change them. Again, driving is not a right.

 

And, you are not being asked to testify. You are following a rule that you agreed to follow when you accepted your license.

I see, so since this rule carries more weight than the Constitution of the US that means we are now allowed to cherry pick what parts of the Constitution we can follow?

[SEC=UGA]

I see, so since this rule carries more weight than the Constitution of the US that means we are now allowed to cherry pick what parts of the Constitution we can follow?

 

Have you been paying attention to the last two administrations? Of course we can cherry pick the parts we adhere to... It was written by a bunch of racist, slave holding, murderous, christian, rich, white dudes 230+ years ago. We are so morally superior to them that we should just rip the damn thing up and start over.

[Square]

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. When you accept your license, you accept that if you do not blow when asked, you lose the privilege of driving for one year.

There are greater points to be made about the actual issues and problems with taking a breathalyzer. If it were a better system and could be fairly prosecuted and defended against, than I'd be willing to sign off on it. But the current state of the system actually can lend itself to getting honest people incarcerated with what amounts to a farce of a "trial". Now, the evolution to your argument would be that, "that is part of the deal you sign up for when you agree to the privilege". Maybe it is for now, but I'd take any chance I could to change it. The problem is that politically this is an anchor around your neck and only a few State Supreme Courts (per below, only 4) have chosen to defend their own citizens. So how do I fight against a judge to try to change it?

 

I would like you to imagine for a moment that you’ve gone to a friend’s house for dinner. In the course of a very good dinner you’ve had a couple of glasses of a good Petit Serah and it is now time to drive home. I would like you to imagine that you are on your way home — and, I will tell you parenthetically, by the way, that two glasses of wine will not, in any state, put you under the influence of alcohol or over the legal limit of .08, or .10 depending on your home state. As you are driving along the highway, you see ahead of you some flashing lights and barricades and police cars accordioned across the highway, with flashing lights directing you into an increasingly small channel. And, as you go in, you are stopped and two police officers approach you and stick a flashlight in your face and say, "Breath on me. Have you been drinking tonight? Please step out of the car."

 

Some of you say, "Well that can’t happen in the United States. We have the Fourth Amendment to the constitution, which says, 'police officers have to have probable cause to stop you. They have to have a reason to believe you’ve done something criminal before they can stop and detain you.'" And so said the Michigan Supreme Court in the case of Sitz vs. Michigan. The Supreme Court of Michigan said, "The Fourth Amendment does not permit these types of roadblocks." And reversed the DUI conviction. They went up to the United States Supreme Court, unfortunately and that august body decided 5 to 4 that somewhere in the constitution there is something called a DUI Exception. And in a 5 to 4 vote sent it back to Michigan saying there is no violation here. What’s interesting is the Michigan Supreme Court, bless them, for there are fewer and fewer of them, said, "Well, if you will not protect our citizens in the state of Michigan from this kind of police conduct, we will. And we again reverse the conviction and this time we rely upon our own state constitution." (Applause)

 

The state of Washington and three other states have followed suit. In 46 states today it is legal to stop you for absolutely no reason other than the fact that you are driving a car. But only to check you out for drunk driving.

 

You have been stopped, you have been taken out of the car and you have been handcuffed. You are placed in a police vehicle and you are on your way back to the police station. About this time you’re probably wondering — I’ve seen this TV show somewhere — they’re supposed to read me something aren’t they? Something called Miranda? Aren’t I supposed to have a right for an attorney? A right to remain silent? Because, as you’re driving, the officer's asking you all kinds of questions. Like, "Where have you been?" "Where are you coming from?" "How much have you had to drink?" "How long ago was it?" "When was the last drink?" "Do you feel the effects?" "Where are you now?" "What time is it?"

 

Well, again, a state Supreme Court said, "Hey, this person’s handcuffed under arrest, you’ve got to advise him of his constitutional rights under Miranda." And again, it went to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Birkemer vs. McCarty in 1984. The Michigan vs. Sitz case was 1990, by the way. In Birkemer vs. McCarty, the [united] States Supreme Court fooled around for about 20 or 30 pages of opinion and finally concluded that there was a DUI exception to the constitution. And that, "Well, we really can’t tell you when you’re supposed to give Miranda in a DUI case. We do know that it is later than in other types of criminal investigations." So, U.S. Supreme Court has told us we don’t know when Miranda is supposed to be given in DUI cases, but it is clearly some time later.

 

Well, about this time you arrive at the police station and the officer takes you into a room and there is this little metal box about the size of an IBM typewriter. Some of you may remember those. And he says breathe in here. And you say, "Wait a minute, I have a right to an attorney. Can I make a phone call?" "No". And he’s right. Only in DUI cases. He’s right. You’re about to give the most incriminating evidence it is possible to give in a DUI case and you have no right to seek the advice of an attorney as to whether to breath into that machine or to attempt a urine or a blood test in the alternative.

 

And I’m only touching on a few of the problems. In California, for example and in many other states, the law says you have a right to choose between breath, blood and urine. Your choice. We have discovered in California, through our own Supreme Court that when the officer doesn’t give you that choice—just makes you breathe into that little black box—that’s okay. They’re not supposed to do it, but there’s no remedy. There’s nothing that can be done about it. You can’t suppress the evidence. Police are not stupid, so now about half of them simply don’t give you that choice, since nothing’s going to happen if they don’t. So you find out that you have no right to consult with an attorney.

 

Your next thought is, "I don’t know if I trust that little machine. Maybe I should refuse to breath into it. I think I’m okay because, becase as I remember, there’s a Fifth Amendment right in the United States constitution that I don’t have to incriminate myself and, not only that, but if it goes to trial, the prosecutor cannot even refer to the fact that I’ve exercised my Fifth Amendment right."

 

The South Dakota Supreme Court, in Neville vs. South Dakota agreed a few years ago and they said, "This gentleman refused to incriminate himself by breathing into that machine and it was reversible error for the prosecutor to comment upon that to the jury and tell them that he refused, because he knew he was guilty." Now you’re probably ahead of them. It went to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court, in South Dakota vs. Neville in 1983 said, "There’s a DUI exception to the Fifth Amendment. There is no right to refuse and the prosecution can comment freely in trial upon that refusal." And they sent it back to South Dakota. And South Dakota said "If you in Washington will not protect our citizens, we will rely upon our own state constitution," and they reversed it again based upon the South Dakota constitution’s provisions against self-incrimination. That’s the last story I have of the State Supreme Court exercising protections of its own citizens.

 

So, you decide you’re going to breathe into that machine. And you do. You breathe into one end and out the other end comes a piece of paper that says your blood-alcohol concentration is .13. Now, at this point, in most states, the police are supposed to give you a choice as to whether you want a urine or a blood saved as well, so that you have something for your defense attorney to examine with an independent analyst rather than [rely] upon a crime lab of that very same law enforcement agency.

 

This is called the Trombetta Advisement. They don’t give it usually. They’re supposed to, but if they don’t, no harm, no foul and so it rarely isn’t done. It’s called the Trombetta Advisement because a few years ago, in 1984, a defendant in California said, "Wait a minute, that machine captured my breath and minutes after analyzing it, just purged it into the room air. It could have saved the breath. (Very easy to do. Costs about $1.50 for a special kit to just preserve it.) It could have saved the breath and then my attorney could have had it analyzed by a separate laboratory. You have destroyed evidence that I could have analyzed and may have been exculpatory." This went to the United States Supreme Court and in Trombetta vs. California, the Supreme Court found yet another DUI exception to the constitution and said "Well, it would be nice if they saved the breath, but there’s no obligation to do so. And destruction of that evidence, unless you can prove that it would have been exculpatory, has no impact." So, today it is alright to destroy the evidence after you get your own results and make sure the defense doesn’t get a-hold of it.

 

Finally, you’re rather outraged because you know you’re not under the influence. You know you’re not over .08, which is the California standard and the standard in about a third of the states today. And in 10 years will be the standard in all of your states because the federal government is telling you that’s what it’s going to be. And the Mothers Against Drunk Driving are ensuring that happens. You decide to go find one of these people completely without any social value and ask them to represent you in trial. You want to tell a jury of 12 of your peers what happened. You want to give your version. So you tell your attorney, "I want a jury trial." Your attorney says, "I am really sorry, but you can’t have one. You see we don’t have jury trials for DUI cases in this state, because in 1989 the United States Supreme Court in Blanton vs. North Las Vegas, a DUI case, said, "There is no constitutional right to a jury trial in a DUI case, so long as it’s not punishable by more than six months in jail."

[westvirginia]

Well, then, he's wrong.

 

Probably. I heard he said Tebow was a ghey, no-talent hack who'd never make it in the NFL and that the Egg was "just another grill in a sea of mediocre models pretending to be something different."

 

Whadayagonnado...

[untateve]

I'm not saying it's all fair--I just don't view having a driver's license as a right.

 

Several years ago there was a woman who refused to remove her facial garb for her driver's license photo. My opinion then was that she is within her rights to not remove her facial garb but, so sorry, no license for her. You follow the rules or you don't get a license.

[detlef]

Here is my obligatory article link going against MADD (It's pretty interesting if you have the time to read it) The DUI exception to the Constitution.

 

That was a very enlightening read.

Yes it is. Read it last time it was posted and do agree that everyone should.

 

State and local governments have to make money to pay for all the unfunded federal mandates that are pushed on them. I don't like it, but I certainly understand it.

So the threat of increased taxes to pay for all this is enough to make you spew endlessly every day here about how we're turning our back on American values and the Constitution but arbitrarily arresting people to raise said cash just warrants a shrug?

 

I hope you also understand that the very people that are supposed to serve and protect us then target the population to increase their revenue. That is a direct conflict of interest. Not OK, on any level.

This

[detlef]

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. When you accept your license, you accept that if you do not blow when asked, you lose the privilege of driving for one year.

Which may be all fine and dandy, right up to the point where cops are actually given quotas to go pull guys over and have the authority to pull the crap that WV mentioned in the same post you made this reply to.

[Big John]

Update: quotas rescinded

[Jimmy Neutron]

Probably. I heard he said Tebow was a ghey, no-talent hack who'd never make it in the NFL and that the Egg was "just another grill in a sea of mediocre models pretending to be something different."

 

Whadayagonnado...

 

 

Somewhere in FL, Unta is writing himself an Rx.

[untateve]

 

Somewhere in FL, Unta is writing himself an Rx.

 

I'm not a real doctor, I'm a psychologist. I can't write prescriptions.

[millerx]

I'm not a real doctor, I'm a psychologist. I can't write prescriptions.

What you didn't go the extra mile and become a psychiatrist?