Police alcohol detector raises privacy question: who owns your breath?

Status
Not open for further replies.
How appropriate that I am posting after you Bruce from OZ.

I say forget the whole driving system, lets just go "Road Warrior" from now on. :D

Toadie
"Greetings from the Lord Humungus
The Warrior of the Wasteland!
The Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla."

Humungus
"Give me the gasolene and I'll spare your lives. Just walk away. I will give you safe passage in the wasteland ... Walk away and there will be an end to the horror ..." :p




[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited August 25, 2000).]
 
We have a new device in our fight against Gun Ownership.

It detects the faint traces of nitrates left after the 'criminal" has fired a weapon.
The traces would often go overlooked by an officers breath.

The standard barrage of questions are accompanied as well.

1. Are you, or have you ever been a member of the NRA?

2. Can you recite the Second Amendment?


3. What's a ten-ring?

4. Who was the greatest President in history?

5. If a person broke into your home, would you give them every assistance to clean you out.

Failing any of these obviously easy questions would warrant further investigation, and arrest for illegal consumption off ammunition.

Any takers???

------------------
"To control people you control the food, to control a nation you control the FUEL."

H. Kissenger
 
It's not the end of the world,, it's not the NWO. It's just another gadget. The manufacturer has hit upon this "Civil liberties" line to get his product out, even going so far as to send his product brochures to the ACLU, members of the state legislature, and even the local college newpaper. It doesn't do anything my nose can do better, with less upkeep and a whole lot less cost. Also, my nose is admissible in court, this isn't, and given it's very high error rate, it never will be. Will it be used? Sure. Cops are just as fond of new toys as any other guy. will it be practical and a further erosion of your "Rights?" Nope. I went to a demonstration of this thing a few years back. It first showed up on the market around 1986 if I recall correctly. It couldn't reliably read off of a paper towel soaked with vodka, but it could read the chinese food we all had for lunch.
 
Labgrade; Anyone who is driving at .10bac or above has no business operating a motor vehicle..

The People who drink and drive at .10 and "feel" that they are in control and driving abilities are not affected are in some serious denial. Through alcohols ability to affect the brains decision making and effecting thier motor skills; people at .10 bac are willing to take more risks and make judgement errors resulting in fatalities and personal injury accidents while operating a motor vehicle.

Go and talk with someone who's family member or friend has been killed or injured while driving impaired or been hit by someone who's driving drunk. How bout thier basic right to life?? Does someones right to drink supercede; this most basic of all our liberties?

It never fails to amaze me how people will rationalize these facts so that while driving and impaired it's ok and they can handel it.... :(

[This message has been edited by 12-34hom (edited August 25, 2000).]
 
Not exactlly on topic of the "gadget" but a couple of related observations I made over the years.

It always disturbed me that the court (judge) placed less weight on the officers observations than on the actual breathalyzer. I have arrested drunks drivers that although they only tested .03 they were far too intoxicated to drive. On the other hand I've arrested drunk drivers that tested over .10 but were in better shape to drive. (Disclaimer here: As 12-34hom said, no one should be driving if their BAC is over .10. If in doubt-don't drive!)

Second is a law that was introduced in MO back in 1984(?) called the habitual offenders act. It concluded that if a person tested over .13 they habitually drove intoxicated and should there for lose their license for a year. Alright if they are driving over .13 they should not have a DL for a year. But the idea that tesing over .13 some how concludes that they drive drunk often is wrong.


------------------
Gunslinger

I was promised a Shortycicle and I want a Shortycicle!
 
I concur with Enfieldj. An officer deals with drunks on a daily basis. They know whose been drinking and who hasn't been, as a rule. Those of you who have been stopped and let go, be thankful. The odds are the officer decided to give you a break.
 
Okay 12-34,

Let's impose laws that INFRINGE so that society as a whole may be protected. If you buy into it once, you may as well go to Rosie's web site. Collaborate before Il Duce comes for you.

I am offended that you gun owners can't lock up all of your weapons, why can you just let us supervise trigger lock installations, you have no business INFRINGING on my rights to life with your cop killing bullets and assault weapons! :rolleyes:
 
hube1236: how does this relate to the topic, this thread was about.

I don't own any assualt type weapons or "cop killer bullets" What ever those are..?

Drunk drivers are a menace to all who drive; and as such should be arrested and prosocuted whenever caught driving impaired.

As far as Rosie goes, I don't agree with any of her views, but she has the right to voice them.
 
16000 people are killed by drunk drivers each year? Where did those figures come from? The same people who give us the thousands of felons figures the Brady Bill has stopped from buying guns? BS! Note: The above message brought to you by members of D.A.M.(drunk drivers against mothers).

[This message has been edited by Tom B (edited August 26, 2000).]
 
1234, Your statement "The People who drink and drive at .10 and "feel" that they are in control and driving abilities are not affected are in some serious denial. Through alcohols ability to affect the brains decision making and effecting thier motor skills; people at .10 bac are willing to take more risks and make judgement errors resulting in fatalities and personal injury accidents while operating a motor vehicle."

You could substitute .10 with OLD/and very young people who can't drive worth a damn. About a month ago there was an old lady that blew a red and killed a motorcycle cop in LA area.
I belive that there are some that while legally drunk can operate motor vehicles better than some sober persons, esp very old and very young, I think it is too easy to get a license these days, I think the ability to purchase and own firearms should be a lot more like the ownership and use of automobiles. And that the laws regulating, restricting, and outlawing firearms should be applied to autos. Dont really have any beef with you just that a lot more restriction could be placed on our "right" to drive.
Example, the idiot that rammed a pre-school with his cadilac and killed a couple of kids. If or when the parole board lets this scumbag out he can renew his license and buy another cadilac, hasnt denial of these so called priveleges been presented anywhere in this country? Or is it that only the oppressed gun owners are smart enought to figure this out? And I dont care if he can steal a car I think his licesing and driving priveleges should be revoked for life. But then again that would take some money away from the state, and in the end you can usually just follow the money trail to where the garbage is.
 
Tom B Those stats came from N.H.T.S.B. [National Highway Transportation Saftey Board] They get these stats from as reported from the individual states D.O.T.'s. each year.

Ober: That may well be true, but being old & or young is something that occurs natuaraly. Being impaired and driving is a decision that's made on a voluntary basis.

How this relates to gun ownership escapes me. Some of the answers in these posts only go to prove my point of how far some will go to rationalize illegal behaviour, to validate something thats wrong and know so but are willing to look the other way because it's still socially accepted.

People are sick of drunk drivers and all that goes with them! Take a look at some laws in other countries concerning D.W.I.

Asking folks to drive sober just ain't that big of deal.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>These tools can actually reduce your inconveniences and legal harrassment, . . .[/quote]

Ah yes, the old "It will be easier for all of us if you just cooperate" concept . . .



------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz
 
If this device is going to help LEOs rid our roads of drunk drivers, I say what's wrong with it being used? The only ones fearing this device are those people drinking and driving. Take a taxi.

I don't want to preach, but having a friend die from a collision with a drunk driver, I say use whatever tools you have to catch them. We see way too many idiots on the roads late at night trying to drive home from DC clubs (drunk or heavily buzzed) going back into Northern Virginia. Occassionally the Virginia State Police or the Fairfax County Police have sobriety checkpoints at night. It does my heart good to see them get caught.
My own brother-in-law got arrested for drunk driving, I refused to bail him out and let him stay locked up all weekend.

To all the LEOs on the Board, keep up the good work. Thanks.
 
I remember reading a statistic that showed that more than 50% of fatal traffic accidents involved a drinking driver. I'm not exactly sure what that means, but if no drinking and driving would eliminate 50% of traffic fatalities, I'm all for it.

As a person who has driven while impaired, I have been fortunate never to have harmed anyone but myself. If the law could determine a % that would be appropiate for everyone it would be nice as some can drink more than others. However once the % is known, then anyone exceeding it is an offender and there SHOULD be a serious penalty.
Kind of the way I feel about guns. Drinking should not be illegal, probably should not even be taxed or controlled, but should definitely should not be misused.

------------------
You have to be there when it's all over. Otherwise you can't say "I told you so."

Better days to be,

Ed
 
Several years a local attorney friend passed along this little bit of information. He had used it himself on one occasion. I have never had reason to do this but I have always remembered it.

He said if you were ever stopped and asked to give any type of test (breath, blood, etc.) to NEVER refuse to do so. Always just keep finding ways to avoid getting the test done.
"I think I'm having a heart attack."
"My stomach is cramping very severly."
"I think I have a severe neck injury."
"I've got to call my attorney and ask his advice about this procedure."
and on and on and on....... but never refusing to take any test. In fact continue to to state you are more than agreeable to take any test as soon as this problem is taken care of. Continue to argue politely that you will take any test offered but at that moment you have this xyz problem that may be life threatening.

In other words----stall big time and a long time while ALWAYS agreeing to take any test offered. And when everyone's patience has been depleted start over again.

After a hour or two of getting over these numerous medical crises old man liver may have done his work and you may be able to take all their tests that you've been wanting to take all along.

Never used this but never forgot it either.

Re: Breathalizer/flashlight
Would these only be available to LEO or available to non LEOs? I can think of a couple of stops where I think one would have come in handy myself.

RKBA!
 
Regarding implied consent: do your homework. The Washington State Patrol is always telling people (during public awareness campaigns) that when you get a license, you agree to perform sobriety tests, or risk loosing your license. Once you read the law, however, you see that it's only the blood alcohol test that is mandatory to keep your license. All that dancing about and reciting of letters on the road-side is refusable with no risk.
 
In Iowa, the OFFICER has the choice of tests, breath, blood or urine, or a combination of any of them. Refusal to submit to a P.B.T. is enough P.C to arrest and request further tests.

Also the advice given by the lawyer don't work, there's a two hour window that a sample must be procured in and if after a reasonable time limit the person is still playing games with the officer, it's marked down a refusal; thier license is revoked by the D.O.T. & they are still charged & taken into court charged with D.W.I... :)

Wanna play stuiped games? the legislators & peace officers in your state have seen it all when it comes to evadeing testing procedures. Thats why D.W.I. laws are set up tough and are only going to get tougher as time goes by.

Don't wanna deal with all the hassels associated with this crime simple; don't drive impaired...
 
I have just finished researching the DUI/DWI laws for California and Iowa (the two states mentioned in the context of implied consent in this thread.)

In both states, it appears you can refuse the field sobriety tests without risk of loosing your license. "Field sobriety tests" to me (and apperently to CA and Iowa) means everything short of a blood alcohol test that is admissable in court. This would include a portable breath tester, walking the fog line, reciting the alphabet or numbers, the gaze nystagmus test, or any other tests the officer might use in the field to determine cause to arrest.

This is not legal advice, and of course my research could be faulty. My point here is: do your research and know your rights, and don't believe everything the cops tell you. Of course only you can know if you'll be able to remember your rights on the side of the road at 0230 hours with 5 cocktails aboard.

[This message has been edited by deanf (edited August 27, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by deanf (edited August 27, 2000).]
 
Any motorist can refuse to perform field sobriety testing.

There sre three standard field sobriety tests:
#1. Horizontal gaze nystagmus.
#2. Walk & turn test.
#3. One leg stand test.

[Also a pelimanary breath test can also be used for field testing].

A refusal = by the driver stopped; as requested by the peace officer along with the officers other indacations of impairmint can be used as probable cause to arrest a driver for D.W.I. After doing so and after implied consent procedures are met, a refusal from a subject to consent for chemical testing for alcohol or drugs will result in revocation of driving privlidges.




[This message has been edited by 12-34hom (edited August 27, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top