Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shadow
As long as it's a long list of "clues" to establish PC so as not to become abused, and the warrant is done preferable after enough PC exists to make the DUI case in the first place, then I don't have a huge issue with it.
Otherwise, I'm still opposed.
|
I don't see that aspect changing. The PC will still be there, it's just that once the probable cause is established the blood draw is mandatory, not optional if they refuse the breath. The arrest would still be the same as it always has been, it's just the law is being re-written (or case law established) to show that once a crime has been committed (DUI / drugs or alcohol) then the state no longer has to lose the time sensitive evidence while the body works it out of the system.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shadow
I don't see that as necessarily the case.
Unfortunately, I've had more than one opportunity to review "creatively written" reports
In all these cases, I've never had an agency take action against the officer in question
I agree with you that 99% of all LEO's I've known or worked with over the years are/were hard working, dedicated individuals who believe in the system and work within it
It's the 1% that I'm concerned with, that makes such an invasive method on a traffic related issue, more concerning.
As we all know, there will be those that attempt to abuse the newfound freedom. All we can pray for is the judge on scene is astute enough, and there's enough oversight, to keep this from happening.
|
I assume there are "bad apples" in ANY profession, be it Law, Judicial, Private sector or wherever, but holding off on a good proactive advance to the DUI enforcement because of what you call 1% (I see it as much less %) of someone "creative writing" is not a good enough reason to stop the progress. I KNOW that the bad apples get weeded out and are not a measurable part of this equation. Letting one ruin it for all is not the correct answer. The victims of DUI crashes would beg to differ with that stance and want to see progress.
There is no 100% perfect answer, but this is a step in the right direction (in my opinion). The DUI laws need to be enforced more, they need to be more severe, and they need to be easier to prosecute by both the LEO and the courts. The system is way too cumbersome and outdated which causes a lot of LEO to turn away from a DUI arrest because of the hassle on scene, and in court along with the many many many hours invested in one simple misdemeanor that most likely gets plead down to a lesser charge of reckless driving. If it gets plead out to a lesser charge it's after tons of investment that leave the officer feeling like he ran a marathon when he could have just driven to the finish line. They ignore the offense and get a cab, turn around and go a different direction away from the DUI, or suddenly get busy when the citizen calls in a complaint of an impaired driver on their cell to 911.
The easist answer is that you establish PC for the DUI (poor driving, odor of alcohol on breath, slurred speech, fumbled dexterity, HGN) [which is then enough to arrest if they sit down and refuse anything else you ask] then you pull out a PBT (portable breath test machine for those not familiar) and have them blow. No walking the line, touching nose etc. If they are over BAM off to jail. The limit should be absolute, not "well, yea my client was over the limit, but lok at his walk, he wasn't so bad, now you all know you were there once too". If they blow under the limit THEN you go to show impairment (which can be proven down to a .05 BrAC in Florida).
Speed is absolute, if you are over then you are over,.. I believe the DUI should be the same. It's no secret what the limit is, or that DUI is a BIG problem, just get a DD or drink at home and you are all set.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shadow
That may not be the case.
A medically impaired driver, a distracted driver and a fatigued driver, may all exhibit some or all of the clues related to DUI.
Hopefully, the results of a SFST will remove any question.
|
But they (the examples above) are all evaluated and released within a few minutes of realizing that you have no crime (ie no PC). No intent, no impairment as related to DUI laws - no crime to be tired and swerve - at most a careless ticket (infraction - no crime) if the officer felt it was that bad.
The exception is the medically impaired driver. Someone who is suffering from diabetic attack and low blood sugar - No crime (seen it plenty of times). Someone who took their prescription Oxy or Xanax and got on the road after the label on the bottle clearly said don't operate machinery or drive - IMPAIRED/crime. The DUI does not saw that you are exempt if the medicine is prescribed to you (Thank God with all these illegal pill mills in FL dispensing "Legal" prescription pills by the thousands in only a 5 minute visit). Impaired by a CHEMICAL or SUBSTANCE is the key along with INTENT. The LEO are not going to jam a needle in the arm of a tired, distracted, or diabetic driver to gain evidence to "creativly write" anything. If it exists it exists. If not then it doesnt.
The proposal only makes it impossible to refuse whan a CRIME of DUI is occuring (and the arrest would occur anyway). I have seen DUI's that refuse to open the window, refuse to stand, refuse to do the FST evals, but they still go to jail. It is limited evidence, but PC and evidence none the less.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shadow
My only concern in this matter is for "justice" and thre preservation of our constitutional rights
|
If the system as it is now is ok with you then this addition should not be a problem.. The steps are still the same with the simple exception that the arrested suspect can not refuse to relinquish the evidence (breath or blood test results). I think it's fabulous that the officers would no longer be called liars, embelishers, or creative writers in court when the evidence is on the lab test results in black and white. I hope to see this law expanded beyond the DUI checkpoints out to the everyday streets for any DUI case that is investigated and charged.
.