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 Yesterday, 12:49 AM
 
60 posts, read 70,709 times
Reputation: 131

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Need4Camaro View Post
So to reiterate this.

What this law is saying is that the subject cannot have CHARGES pressed against him just because he refused a breathalyzer.
Not quite. Only criminal trials are affected by this decision. The prosecutor cannot tell the jury that the driver's refusal to take the breath test indicates guilt on the part of the driver.

At the end of a criminal trial, if a defendant did not take the stand to testify on her own behalf, the judge will direct the jury that a defendant has the right not to testify and they should not take that as a sign of guilt or innocence when they deliberate. The same now applies to DUI trials and the breath test.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 01:57 AM
 
Location: atlanta
4,111 posts, read 4,712,191 times
Reputation: 3436
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
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.
They're saying if they screw it up and violate basic rights the drunk driver will get off on a technicality. Smelling like alcohol, swerving on the road, etc. is sufficient cause for taking the person off the road. Nobody's letting drunk drivers go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:29 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
1,888 posts, read 2,090,306 times
Reputation: 2070
North Carolina, like other evolved states, replaced DUI with DWI (Driving While Impaired) way back when it passed the Safe Roads Act of 1983.

California is the only other state I know of that still calls it DUI.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:45 AM
 
1,638 posts, read 1,700,098 times
Reputation: 1255
License suspension is practically automatic if you refuse a breath test. Drunk driving is taken pretty seriously. Police can charge someone with a DUI even if they blow under the limit, if they see you swerving. Impairment is not only evidenced by a breath test.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:41 AM
 
691 posts, read 346,147 times
Reputation: 1015
I usually am on the side of civil liberties, but I'm sorry, I think this opinion was silly. This is a prime example of judges who are trying to legislate from the bench. Notice how in the opinion it acknowledges that the U.S. Supreme Court has already held that forcing drivers to submit to blood tests is constitutional, but is relying on a 2017 opinion out of the Georgia Supreme Court to strike the law down. Basically, the justices on the Court don't want to admit they were wrong.

As bu2 noted, this argument has already been made in many other states and is well settled.

The legislature will rewrite the law quickly, as they've had to do a number of times from this new crop of justices. It's a shame though the wasted time that will have been expended and the drunk drivers that will get off scott free in the meantime.

I hope one day that judicial races are more hotly contested. These are elected officials who can do basically whatever they want because once they're appointed, no one ever challenges them and voters do not pay attention to them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Johns Creek area
9,802 posts, read 8,958,390 times
Reputation: 5321
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.).
Exactly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA (Sandy Springs)
4,210 posts, read 2,539,966 times
Reputation: 3246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Need4Camaro View Post
Many people seem to believe that once you're arrested you instantly have a criminal record. This is not the case.
Well there is a record of your arrest. And just an arrest can get your picture and suspected crime in the news. Even that can cause serious damage to your reputation. Most people don't want that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Need4Camaro View Post
It literally means you have been detained.
Well no, a detainment (also known as a Terry stop) is when a cop pulls you over and is holding you temporarily for questioning. If he takes you into custody (a custodial arrest) that is a level above detainment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA (Sandy Springs)
4,210 posts, read 2,539,966 times
Reputation: 3246
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliDreaming01 View Post
the drunk drivers that will get off scott free in the meantime
Oh please. I'm having a hard time seeing how this will let drunk drivers get off scot free.

If someone is really impaired they can be arrested and tried based on other evidence (physical sobriety tests etc) and the officer's testimony of the suspect's condition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:31 PM
bu2
 
9,388 posts, read 6,020,141 times
Reputation: 3832
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliDreaming01 View Post
I usually am on the side of civil liberties, but I'm sorry, I think this opinion was silly. This is a prime example of judges who are trying to legislate from the bench. Notice how in the opinion it acknowledges that the U.S. Supreme Court has already held that forcing drivers to submit to blood tests is constitutional, but is relying on a 2017 opinion out of the Georgia Supreme Court to strike the law down. Basically, the justices on the Court don't want to admit they were wrong.

As bu2 noted, this argument has already been made in many other states and is well settled.

The legislature will rewrite the law quickly, as they've had to do a number of times from this new crop of justices. It's a shame though the wasted time that will have been expended and the drunk drivers that will get off scott free in the meantime.

I hope one day that judicial races are more hotly contested. These are elected officials who can do basically whatever they want because once they're appointed, no one ever challenges them and voters do not pay attention to them.
I didn't "know" this argument was made in many other states. I just presumed it had been.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:12 PM
 
28,641 posts, read 25,430,791 times
Reputation: 9884
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliDreaming01 View Post
I usually am on the side of civil liberties, but I'm sorry, I think this opinion was silly. This is a prime example of judges who are trying to legislate from the bench. Notice how in the opinion it acknowledges that the U.S. Supreme Court has already held that forcing drivers to submit to blood tests is constitutional, but is relying on a 2017 opinion out of the Georgia Supreme Court to strike the law down. Basically, the justices on the Court don't want to admit they were wrong.
I would much rather have the courts err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting our individual liberties.

They've been going up in smoke mighty fast these days.
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