Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Idaho
 [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 09-13-2012, 10:54 PM
 
Location: Sandpoint, ID
3,109 posts, read 10,839,717 times
Reputation: 2629

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
I feel very strongly about the Constitutional right to face your accuser in court. If that is preserved, fine. If not -- anonymous accusations being allowed as "evidence" are a favored tool of oppressive governments, and I can tell you from firsthand experience, do far more harm than good.
Well, I'm with you on that but I believe you're off track on this issue. Since drunk driving is a misdemeanor offense it requires DIRECT observation by a peace officer unless a citizen is going to sign an arrest complaint. So if you report a drunk driver, you are only asking for a police officer to come observe that vehicle. The officer still has to establish probably cause to stop and potentially reasonable cause to arrest without a citizen signing the arrest complaint. YOUR observation may only factor in if you're willing to testify which then may be admissible as adding support to probably cause to stop the vehicle. I speak from firsthand experience training rookie cops on DUI enforcement. If you pull over a vehicle simply because a citizen (who is not willing to testify) told you someone was driving drunk, your probably cause will be thrown out and you have no case. AT ALL TIMES the person accused of a DUI would have the ability to face their accuser...whether it be the reporting party/witness or the observing police officer who made personal observations of the suspect vehicle driving in lieu of a witness willing to testify.

In either case due process has been followed, and this is a FAR cry from the much shadier world of nameless/faceless accusers to which you make reference...I can go with you down the conspiracy theory path to some degree...but there are reasonable limitations IMO. I'm a much bigger believer in Hanlon's Razor than most conspiracy theorists...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-14-2012, 01:13 AM
 
274 posts, read 471,942 times
Reputation: 204
Well said, Sage. I don't always worry about people drinking and driving or driving while under the influence of drugs, but I also worry about someone in extreme pain or having a stroke or heart attack if I call someone in for erratic driving. Your call could save someone's life, either the driver having a medical emergency or someone else who gets hit by someone having the emergency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 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 > Idaho

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:53 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top