[Shadow]

Originally Posted by Z06 Rocket

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.

I'm still not sure I'm in support of a mandatory blood draw.
It still wreaks of self incrimination.
(I know, the warehouse and evidence, and all that).

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 are definately bad apples in the private sector, and we won't even get into the judiciary.

...and I am a victim of a (nearly)head on crash with a DUI driver. Went from a potential head on, on the interstate, to a frontal quarter impact in an instant!

I was young, quick....and LUCKY!!

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 The system is way too cumbersome and outdated which causes a lot of LEO to turn away from a DUI arrest because of the hassle on scene, and in court along with the many many many hours invested in one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.

You nailed it brother!
And you're right. Unfortunately, there's no perfect answer
But to break this down even further, instead of writing more legislature, or circumventing statutory (IMO) intent, why not enforce what we have, and FORCE the judiciary to STRICTLY ENFORCE via sentencing, what's already there!
They do need to be more severe. Reductions need to go away and plea bargains need to become a thing of the past!

As far as easier to prosecute, I'd have to disagree.
I don't ever want to see "easy" become the norm in law enforcement or the court system.

We had easy 50 years ago.
We're seeing today, the ramifications of those actions.
Purgered statements by Sheriff's ("the" Sheriff, not the deputies), and States Attorney's, in order to obtain a conviction.
Manufactured evidence, and pertinent evidence for the defense, concealed.
No thanks, I'll pass on "Easy."

I don't know about you, but I remember making sometimes 3-4 DUI arrests on one evening shift.
You established PC via driving habits, made the stop, further enhanced your PC via thier answers, appearance, smell, etc., and an SFT (if they could stand up).

Once PC was established, they were arrested and transported to CBT where a breathalyzer test was offered.
If they refused, another ticket (Criminal) was issued and they got themselves another charge to bond out on, along with a mandatory loss of licensure.

The system worked!

Add the dash cams and you had a slam dunk in many cases.
Not a ton of paperwork and very non-convoluted.

Then the judges got lazy, bending to pressure and pleas from the legal community, they began to offer BPO (hardship) licenses like coffe at a diner, and a reduction to reckless was easier to get than herpes at a swingers convention!

It was "easy", quick, and the judges didn't have to waste thier time (or the courts as they put it) hearing cases??????

So we made the system "easy" and "quick" and lost the fear of the system and it's penalties at the same time!!!

As if this wasn't bad enough, lets not forget ole' "Buck" Justice.
He was the breathalyzer examiner for the State. The one in charge of certifying both the machines and the tech's.

He was pencil whipping the certifications and not making the necessary visits to recertify.

When this came out, he threw away a stellar career, because it was "easy", I believe lost his pension (I really don't recall now), and IIRC, served a little jail time. Nice way to end a career in law enforcement....because it was "easy."

As a result of these and other factors, we've now bogged the system down with paperwork and administrative BS, so as to make it a major PITA to make a DUI arrest!!
It's been this way for 20+ years in Hillsborough County

So instead of making it easier, we've made it more difficult.
The more crap you add to the establishment of PC and evidence, the more points of attack you leave open for a defense attorney.
With this new twist, I see challenges all the way to the Florida Supreme Court.

Why not take it back a notch or 2?
Make the paperwork easier (you can thank FDLE for some of this rediculous paperwork), at least simpler, less redundant and as such, less time consuming.

Go back to basic police work.
Do what you state below:

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.

I like that!
Simple, quick, and easy, yet still protected the offenders rights.
I'm always concerned when we start trying to make things too easy.

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).

Exactly!!!
Less hinge points to fail

As for the "impairment", eh, I have to back off that a bit.
That would definately have to be supported by thier actions.
But if thier actions were as you mention above, I'm with you 100%.

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.

Speed is absolute, yet most if not all offices, even the state, has a minimum before action can be taken.
(5mph IIRC pursuant to the state).
Most officers I've ever worked with, allowed 10 in a residential area, 15 on the highway.
School zones and construction areas were pretty much a -0- tolerance (<5 over).
As for the DD, etc., I couldn't have said it better

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.

I'm not sure I follow here?
In a DUI, the intent is presumed.
You drink, you drive, you have a DL.
You knew!
If the driving was bad, other factors exist, why would they not charge?
I'm confused with this statement?

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).

Seen a few over the years. Not too many though.

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.

Again, intent is given.

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 LEO isn't going to jam a needle into anyones arm, unless they have the proper credentials.

The creative writing remark was a generic comment, not so geared to the DUI.
Even then, I've seen imbellishments in descriptives on DUI reports as well.
It's not that often, as usually, there is video to back up the comments.

I've seen a lot of creative writing over the years as it pertains to the establishment of PC for other matters, or the actions of a defendant on scene. Usually written to sway a judge or SAO.

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.

The CRIME of DUI is still a traffic offense.
Misdemeanor possession of Marijuana used to be a CRIME in some states. Now, it's legal for specific purposes. All because the law was re-written.
.10 was the "standard" forever on DUI cases.
Now it's .08.
I'm not implying, nor will I ever, that DUI should ever be legal.
But you have to take everything in context.

You can't go into the pocket's of a suspected drug dealer, without good PC.
You can't open a locked container found in a suspects car, without a warrant, so why are we so quick to want to go into someones BODY to obtain evidence that can be obtained otherwise or in some cases, done without completely?

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).

The system's NOT ok with me. That's the point.
If the system (the judiciary) did it's job, then we probably wouldn't be where we are
The traffic statute was written in a specific manner, with the refusal and it's penalties built in.

Believe it or not, if the state would change the statute, make it publically known to everyone (as the Implied Consent is now), then I wouldn't have an issue with it!!Doing it buy setting precedent or case law, concerns me for much wider purposes.

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.

In a total of 30 years, I've NEVER heard an officer called a "liar", "embelisher" or "creative writer" in DUI court.
The defense attorney's have always been professional and stated thier positions regarding the officers observations and opinions, to the court.
Sure, they imply that thier client may have been tires, or distracted, yada yada yada, but that's what you pay them for

And I've never seen the court allow a defense counsel to act toward an officer in counrt, in such an abusive manner

As an officer, you have to expect that the opposing party is going to put up a defense.
It's what our system is based upon.
I don't see a problem with that.