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.
When you can get a DUI on a skateboard or bicycle, you know it's gotten to the point of beyond excessive.
Your arguement is insane. In every single case where someone has been charged it is because they were considered a harm to themselves or someone else. You won't just be charged if you are drunk but behaving yourself. Even on this lawyers website, they couldn't come up with a single case where they weren't putting others or themselves at danger. First off noone has been charged in the US for a DUI on a skateboard, that happened in other countries and if you are going to argue the unconstitutionality of something, well you better stick to the US. People have been charged with DUIs on bicycles when they have been so drunk they were weaving on highways and falling off on the roads.
"First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise. The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury."
I don't think you understand.
The legal system does not "presume" that a DUI offender is innocent. The system presumes that a DUI offender is guilty. This is different from other accusations, even murder. And while the presumption of innocence is not spelled out in the Constitution, the provisions in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights often rest on that presumption. Since that presumption does not apply to DUI arrests, many people feel that certain rights provided for in the Constitution are being ignored in DUI cases.
Your driving license isn't suspended, for instance, because you've been found guilty of DUI. Your license is suspended on the basis of suspicion that you drove under the influence. Drivers' licenses are often linked to how people make a living. A suspended drivers' license can put the end to people's jobs. So if you suspend someone's driver's license on the basis of suspicion, not conviction, but just on the basis of suspicion, and we have a justice system that says people should not be punished until proven guilty, are we stepping on the Constitution and the principles it espouses?
Your arguement is insane. In every single case where someone has been charged it is because they were considered a harm to themselves or someone else. You won't just be charged if you are drunk but behaving yourself. Even on this lawyers website, they couldn't come up with a single case where they weren't putting others or themselves at danger. First off noone has been charged in the US for a DUI on a skateboard, that happened in other countries and if you are going to argue the unconstitutionality of something, well you better stick to the US. People have been charged with DUIs on bicycles when they have been so drunk they were weaving on highways and falling off on the roads.
And people have been charged with DUI because they went to sleep in their cars rather than driving, and kept the keys locked in the car with them for safety reasons. There are many states that have DUI laws with such range that simply going to your car and unlocking it can be interpreted as an intent to drive under the influence, even if what you really wanted was to get a credit card from the glove compartment to charge a room for the night.
Anti-DUI laws aren't just about stopping drunk drivers, they are also about preventing drunk drivers. And prevention can embrace a lot of strategies.
DUI convictions are also quite lucrative for many local jurisdictions that are scrambling for money, even during good financial times. So there are factors in the courts that make judges far more inclined to "guilty" decisions rather than "innocent". And even without a "guilty" decision, the person arrested will be paying out of pocket to get their driver's license re-instated.
Your driving license isn't suspended, for instance, because you've been found guilty of DUI. Your license is suspended on the basis of suspicion that you drove under the influence. Drivers' licenses are often linked to how people make a living. A suspended drivers' license can put the end to people's jobs. So if you suspend someone's driver's license on the basis of suspicion, not conviction, but just on the basis of suspicion, and we have a justice system that says people should not be punished until proven guilty, are we stepping on the Constitution and the principles it espouses?
Again that goes for lots of things. People are put in jail and held without bond before trial all the time, people have bail they could never afford, people have their kids taken away while an investigation is conducted, cops are put on suspension after firing their gun, it goes on and on. DUIs are no different from anything else in the criminal court system. It is probably one of the few crimes you can do over and over and over again and not get penalized severly until you actually hurt someone in many if not most states. Do you think if I repeatedly broke in to someone's house, got caught, I would be able to stay out of jail?
And laws vary by state. My sister got charged with a DUI here in SC, she didn't just automatically have her license taken away. She hired a lawyer for about $2000 and ultimately it was dismissed but she never had her license taken away except for that night she couldn't drive home. She was taken to the station and someone had to pick her up.
Regardless of all these things, it simply isn't unconstitutional because the individual state has the right to make those laws anyway. If it was the federal government making the laws then you might have an arguement. Constitutionalists believe that an individual state should be able to do pretty much whatever it wants.
And people have been charged with DUI because they went to sleep in their cars rather than driving, and kept the keys locked in the car with them for safety reasons. There are many states that have DUI laws with such range that simply going to your car and unlocking it can be interpreted as an intent to drive under the influence, even if what you really wanted was to get a credit card from the glove compartment to charge a room for the night.
Again, this varies tremendously by state. States rights are pretty much guaranteed under the Constitution. There is no federal law regarding DUI. You can deem them unfair and I can disagree but that doesn't make them unconstitutional.
Again, this varies tremendously by state. States rights are pretty much guaranteed under the Constitution. There is no federal law regarding DUI. You can deem them unfair and I can disagree but that doesn't make them unconstitutional.
If there is a tremendous variation by state in DUI laws, then you cannot say with confidence that none of those laws crosses the law into Unconstitutionality. Some of the laws may do so, it's up to the courts to determine. We can disagree until next Tuesday, but the bottom line is that whatever the SC laws are, they are not representative of the rest of the country's laws. And some states have laws that aren't just about drinking and driving, but about assuming someone's intent.
If a man goes into a bar, and has a few beers with his friends. He leaves, and realizes that since he didn't eat, those beers have gone straight to his head. He goes to his car, unlocks it, then tosses the keys into a plant container along the road, gets into his car, locks the doors and goes to sleep. Is he guilty of drunk driving? According to the laws in several states, he can be arrested, and he can be convicted of drunk driving.
Not insane at all. It costs about $5000 for a DUI and is a huge mark against your license. That's a little excessive for riding a bike or skateboard drunk. There's never a chance were I'm going to swerve and total a car and kill someone; worst case scenario is I swerve and kill myself.
For it is against the law for a judge to do what you assert this judge did - and if this judge did as you allege, I can assure you that the judge would have been IMMEDIATELY removed from the bench.
So, I'd quit your outlandish lies
Why would I lie about something that's so obviously true. It's illegal to drive after your blood alcohol level reaches 0.08. Don't be stupid! Open your eyes and stop letting MADD and law enforcement brainwash you into thinking that drinking, remaining under the legal limit of 0.08, and then driving is against the law. If it's such an outlandish lie ask any lawyer, judge or even your mother!
Why would I lie about something that's so obviously true. It's illegal to drive after your blood alcohol level reaches 0.08. Don't be stupid! Open your eyes and stop letting MADD and law enforcement brainwash you into thinking that drinking, remaining under the legal limit of 0.08, and then driving is against the law. If it's such an outlandish lie ask any lawyer, judge or even your mother!
You are lying about what you allege the Judge said
OBTW - I am a lawyer, and have been a judge. My mother is deceased.
We've had people cited while riding a lawnmower or horse. There have been instances of drunks getting hurt or killed doing both while drunk. Some of the local cops will look the other way if a drunk is on a bicycle depending on the situation. On the bike in the daytime riding safely on a non-busy street they'll let slide. At night on a dark road or weaving in and out of traffic day or night then they'll step in for his own protection and to prevent a car crash from trying to avoid hitting the drunk. One exception that happened locally was a remote bar out in the country. Guy rode his horse to the bar. He got passed out drunk. The guys at the bar threw him over his saddle and slapped the horse on the backside telling him to go home. When he awoke the next morning he was still on his horse and was back on his own property. In his case, he wasn't operating the vehicle. The vehicle, the horse, was operating itself.
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.
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.
