U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-18-2019, 06:22 PM
 
4,593 posts, read 3,037,533 times
Reputation: 2985

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW View Post
In other words if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear right? Same argument can be made for forced searches of your house, your car, or your person. It's a very slippery slope.
Except that this one has a very real present danger: letting an obviously-drunk person get behind the wheel. If there are other agreeable, constitutional ways of proving someone is drunk, then cool. But simply saying "Oh well, he's drunk, but he said no, so we're handing his keys back to him and letting him on his way" is simply asinine.

If some drunk guy plowed into your family and you later found out he had been pulled over half an hour prior and refused testing and was thus let go, I'm sure you'd still be on that "Well, that's the Constitution for ya" bandwagon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
The Supreme Court simply ruled that refusal to do a breathalyzer test can't be used as evidence in court.

Theoretically, officers can still arrest suspected drunk drivers and have them tried based on other evidence (physical impairment, manner of driving, etc.).
I can certainly see that refusing a test is not proof of anything and thus can't be real evidence, although surely it can be mentioned as part of the story.

As long as drunk drivers can still be arrested and proven drunk in some way, at least there's something. But I have no doubt that we'll continue to push limits until there's no way to actually successfully arrest a drunk driver.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-18-2019, 06:31 PM
bu2
 
9,388 posts, read 6,020,141 times
Reputation: 3832
This would not seem to be a new issue. Hasn't it been raised in other states?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2019, 07:38 PM
 
28,641 posts, read 25,430,791 times
Reputation: 9884
If someone is noticeably (or even apparently) drunk, they can still be arrested, can't they?

What I'm getting from this court decision is just that the refusal to take a breath test doesn't automatically make you guilty of DUI.

They can still pull your license for refusing the breath test, and they can still get a warrant for a blood test. At least that's what it sounds like to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2019, 07:45 PM
 
Location: Decatur, GA
5,086 posts, read 3,861,150 times
Reputation: 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
Except that this one has a very real present danger: letting an obviously-drunk person get behind the wheel. If there are other agreeable, constitutional ways of proving someone is drunk, then cool. But simply saying "Oh well, he's drunk, but he said no, so we're handing his keys back to him and letting him on his way" is simply asinine.
It's called due process. If someone arrested for drunk driving is later found to have had that due process violated, best case, they get a re-trial, worst case, they're let off.

Quote:
If some drunk guy plowed into your family and you later found out he had been pulled over half an hour prior and refused testing and was thus let go, I'm sure you'd still be on that "Well, that's the Constitution for ya" bandwagon.
You're darn right I would. How would you like it if some drunk crashed into your family, in the zeal to put them away, the police violated their rights, and the court later lets them off because of that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2019, 09:48 PM
 
4,593 posts, read 3,037,533 times
Reputation: 2985
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW View Post
You're darn right I would. How would you like it if some drunk crashed into your family, in the zeal to put them away, the police violated their rights, and the court later lets them off because of that?
Well, we probably disagree on what those rights should be, so that would be an impasse.

Just to make sure I'm clear, you would be fine with the police letting a drunk guy get back in his car and drive away solely because he refused to be tested, and then he plowed into you? I just can't fathom that mindset. Sorry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2019, 10:44 PM
 
574 posts, read 332,840 times
Reputation: 1872
Here's the court's ruling:
https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/...2/s18a1204.pdf


I confess to only reading the first 20 pages and the last two. The thought process and history in there is interesting.
The upshot is that this case is narrow and only says that the state cannot mention your refusal to take a breath test in a criminal trial. Everything else is still on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2019, 05:43 PM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA (Sandy Springs)
4,210 posts, read 2,539,966 times
Reputation: 3244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thulsa View Post
Here's the court's ruling:
https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/...2/s18a1204.pdf


I confess to only reading the first 20 pages and the last two. The thought process and history in there is interesting.
The upshot is that this case is narrow and only says that the state cannot mention your refusal to take a breath test in a criminal trial. Everything else is still on.
Right so you can still be arrested and charged for DUI in the event you refuse (just other evidence would have to used to show intoxication).

If you are completely innocent and not drunk, most people will probably still opt for the test so they lower their chances to be arrested.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2019, 06:21 PM
 
8,032 posts, read 9,869,142 times
Reputation: 5970
Has anyone ever been arrested for DUI?

I know you've always been able to refuse an on-scene breath test and make them arrest you and take a blood test at the police station. That may be a smart thing to do if you think the amount of time it will take to make all that happen is enough to make sure you are below the limit at time of testing.

But almost nobody does that, and most people do take on-scene breath tests. My question is why? What do the cops say to people when they pull them over? Obviously, they have some mechanism to convince people blowing above the limit on the scene is somehow better than testing above the limit at the station. What is it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2019, 07:23 PM
 
60 posts, read 70,709 times
Reputation: 131
Default The decision does not apply to blood tests

Justice Boggs wrote a concurrence that better explains what this decision means in terms of prosecuting drunk drivers. The pertinent part:
Quote:
As acknowledged both in the Courtís opinion today and in Olevik, the scope of these decisions is limited to chemical tests of a driverís breath; they do not apply to tests of a driverís blood.... Additionally, the holding that a driverís refusal to take a breath test may not be used in a criminal proceeding does not forbid its use in an administrative proceeding concerning suspension of a driverís license... [Emphasis is mine]
So, no, drunk drivers that refuse a breath test are not just given their cars keys back and told to have a nice day. They are still arrested and then subjected to a blood alcohol test. They still lose their licenses for having refused the breath test when going in front of a judge in an administrative trial. It's only if and when there is a jury trial that prosecutors can't use the breath test refusal as proof that they were drunk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2019, 07:33 PM
 
1,346 posts, read 578,201 times
Reputation: 1124
So to reiterate this.

A cop can still arrest you under the presumption a crime has been committed whether you're innocent or guilty. Many people seem to believe that once you're arrested you instantly have a criminal record. This is not the case. It literally means you have been detained. Nothing more or less. If a cop pulls over a drunk driver, the cop can still ask the subject to walk in a straight line, check his eyes, ect. If the subject fails, the cop has reason to believe the subject was driving under the influence and can DETAIN the driver.

What this law is saying is that the subject cannot have CHARGES pressed against him just because he refused a breathalyzer. It has nothing to do with the driver being detained or not. They have other ways of telling if he was drunk breathalyzer or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top