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, 07:32 PM
 
Location: Johns Creek area
9,798 posts, read 8,958,390 times
Reputation: 5321

Advertisements

This opinion changes nothing EXCEPT the prosecutor cannot use one's refusal to take a breathalyzer test as evidence of guilt. If you refuse and the police believe you were drunk, you're still going to jail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 10:06 PM
 
2,547 posts, read 1,215,379 times
Reputation: 1943
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnsleyPark View Post
This opinion changes nothing EXCEPT the prosecutor cannot use one's refusal to take a breathalyzer test as evidence of guilt. If you refuse and the police believe you were drunk, you're still going to jail.



Yes, I also agree that if the officer believes you are drunk, you will be arrested even if you say no to a breathalyzer test.



I think people on this thread are automatically assuming people who fail the breathalyzer are drunk. Please do some research because .08 really isn't drunk. The reason why the BAC was lowered to this amount was because of intense lobbying from MADD (a non-profit that's being ran like a corporation), which got a C- from a non-profit watchdog. There are those who are on the road tired from work and have trouble keeping their eyes open. They are more impaired/dangerous than someone who has a BAC of .08 or near to that.


I think it's important that we make sure our laws are doing more good than harm and aren't being implemented because a "non-profit" is benefiting financially from it.

Last edited by DreamerD; Yesterday at 10:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:21 PM
 
2,547 posts, read 1,215,379 times
Reputation: 1943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Need4Camaro View Post
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.

Thank you for this. I still think being arrested can harm someone though when filling out a job application. I'm pretty sure I've seen some ask if you have been arrested for such and such. I never knew such a thing were legal because I always used to see "convicted" and wondered if the person is innocent, then why would they have to answer about being arrested for something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:22 PM
 
2,547 posts, read 1,215,379 times
Reputation: 1943
Quote:
Originally Posted by atltechdude View Post
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.


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.

This!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:26 PM
 
574 posts, read 332,840 times
Reputation: 1872
Default consider the case that you are actually innocent

Not everyone accused is guilty.
Suppose that a person has been stopped and has not had a drink, or even is a teetotaler.
He is completely innocent and just doesn't want to. So he refuses the breath test. The police take him in and draw blood. It's zero BAC of course


The completely innocent person goes to trial and under the old law, the prosecutor can present the fact that he refused the breath test, and enters as evidence the claim that the reason he refused was that that he had been drinking. It's obvious that this claim is contrary to fact, but the old Ga law held it to be otherwise. That ain't right. The law must tend to produce results based on the actual truth.
Situations like this is one of the reasons you cannot be required to testify against yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:33 PM
 
2,547 posts, read 1,215,379 times
Reputation: 1943
Quote:
Originally Posted by atltechdude View Post
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.

I've done research and I can tell you that they don't get off scotch free as people keep saying. They can even pass the field tests and still be arrested and have a breathalyzer test taken (obviously the person has to agree). If people even knew how messed up our laws are. MADD often sites that I think over 16,000 auto accidents are alcohol related. Related is different from caused. It can be you hit a pedestrian (you are sober) and the pedestrian has a bottle of beer in their hand. It can be a bottle was found near to the scene and you aren't drunk. The definition is so loose and this is what MADD uses. Some people are killing themselves in jail because of this stuff and they're not even drunk when they get arrested for a DUI (this assumes they are not swerving on the road or doing anything to be a danger to other drivers). People are losing jobs/can't get jobs, having to face a system that benefits the wealthy and only punishes the poor, etc. I get it if someone is drunk and a danger to the road but we can't lump everyone into the same category. It's not fair.



I hope everyone reading this feels okay when the BAC gets lowered again due to lobbying from MADD and just see how many of their loved ones get sent to jail/prison and we all know who cops love targeting versus let go.

Last edited by DreamerD; Yesterday at 10:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:12 PM
 
Location: atlanta
4,111 posts, read 4,712,191 times
Reputation: 3436
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.

to be fair, this isn't how the federal system works. the US supreme court isn't over the GA supreme court, they are concurrent systems. since states have their own separate constitutions, laws can be declared unconstitutional in a state court even if the US supreme court has upheld it. the federal supreme court doesn't have jurisdiction in determining whether something is against the state constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Johns Creek area
9,798 posts, read 8,958,390 times
Reputation: 5321
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3 View Post
to be fair, this isn't how the federal system works. the US supreme court isn't over the GA supreme court, they are concurrent systems. since states have their own separate constitutions, laws can be declared unconstitutional in a state court even if the US supreme court has upheld it. the federal supreme court doesn't have jurisdiction in determining whether something is against the state constitution.
You are generally correct that the US Supreme Court cannot overturn State laws, whether they are laws established by the legislative process or by judicial proceedings. That having been said, the US Supreme Court can overturn state law, those established by the legislative process and those established by judicial proceedings, if those laws run afoul of the US Constitution.
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