States Criminal Law

Discussion in 'Civil Liberties' started by hudson1955, Dec 23, 2014.

  1. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    As far as I am concerned the majority of States over criminalize, over incarcerate, over fine individuals for the sole purpose of financial gain. No State more than the one I live in, Texas. We have way too many private prisons whose sole objective is to keep their Beds filled. Not educating, rehabilitating the prisoners. And, unfortunately, the majority of their beds are filled by non-violent offenders and those addicted to prescribed drugs. These individuals cost taxpayers many thousands of dollars and fail to receive the treatment they need. Taxpayer dollars would be better spent getting these individuals therapy. Many become addicted through no fault of their own. There are many pill mills. Licensed physicians and pharmacies that are all to willing to dispense pain medication to post surgical patients or those with various conditions resulting in continuous pain.

    Also, while the States have been forced by the Federal government to make .08 bac laws in order for them to receive highway and other funds; the States have failed to legislate laws on maximum number of alcoholic beverages restaurants and bars can serve their patrons within a two hour period. This sets patrons up for arrest for DUI, DWI and public intoxication charges. It is irresponsible on the part of the Legislatures IMO.
    IMO, individuals/drivers should only be arrested for DUI, DWI, Public Intoxication where the officer visualizes dangerous driving behavior. As for Public Intoxication, where the individuals behavior is dangerous to others.

    The Government wants their cake and eat it too. The want to get the taxes from businesses selling/serving alcohol and then want to be able to arrest and get the fines from consumers too.

    I hate this system. I hate this law. I don't agree with Mothers against Drunk Drivers where they have ignored common, scientific sense. Not everyone that has consumed 2 alcoholic beverages with a .08 bac is intoxicated and unable to safely drive. These charges are ruining many peoples lives. We all have seen an intoxicated driver on the road and the fact they are intoxicated is obvious. I have reported many of them to 911, who has failed to follow-up. Fair application of any law is essential to democracy IMO.
     
  2. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,378
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am a lot more interested in a bac result, than I am in the subjective testimony of an officer who swears he saw the defendant swerve in the lane. That has to be enough to justify the intial stop as probable cause, but I have a feeling many minorities, defense attorneys, and judges would prefer a more concrete baseline suggesting inebriation than just an officers 'impression' from 25 feet away in the middle of the night.

    If there is no inherent right to drive a car, then there surely is no inherent right to drive a car at .08 BAC, regardless of the OP assurances that some folks do 'just fine'. Those who would do 'just fine' will simply have to refrain from getting that level anyway. I will not lose sleep that they have to forego on a drink or two, for the increased safety the rest of us get from, a firmly delineated standard that is a little more workable in law enforcement and courtrooms. Some folks have better reaction time and reflections , but we still insist they obey the same speed limit as the rest of us who may not be as good at swerving at the last second and maintaining control.
     
  3. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's the problem with excessively punishing what should only be a minor crime when the evidence is so subjective, based only on the testimony of one or two officers.
     
  4. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,378
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No that is the problem of excluding the bac result from one of the definitions of the crime and the investigation of the crime. I am absolutely fine with a DA sending the occasional case to jury with the evidence of one or two cops and absent a bac, as long as the burden of proof he is required to meet remains 'beyond a reasonable doubt', he just has to get there, using other evidence or particularly compelling testimony. its a hell of a lot better for all parties concerned, if there is a bac standard and result but maybe the machine broke and wasn't handy. None of this has squat to do with the penalty/ sentencing phase.
     
  5. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What you have stumbled onto is the fact that a law clearly making one thing against the law, in reality ends up criminalizing lesser things that are not actually against the law, but which nevertheless could be construed as evidence of the thing which is against the law. So for example, having two beers before you step into the car.

    So now many people do not dare drink anything before they drive, worried they might run some small risk of facing the severe penalties meted out to people caught in violation of this law.
     
  6. rwild1967

    rwild1967 Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,343
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Posting from the drunk tank on your cell phone?
     
  7. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,378
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Driving under while intoxicated or under the influence is a more narrowly drawn statute for drugs or alcohol, Driving while impaired, which can mean alcohol, sedatives given while getting your wisdom tooth removed, or bei ng sleep deprived for extended periods or even driving with dementia l. I am not which of those charges you want to turn into some minor traffic violation, but I want BOTH on the books, and both with a large variety of penalties .

    I am okay if people do not dare to drink anything.
     
  8. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    Haven't had a violation in over 35 years. What I want is just and fair laws. If the States forced by the Federal Government pass a law that requires you be forced to give a "blood" sample without first having to prove in court that the officer had the right to stop and arrest you, then you have lost all constitutional rights to due process. And, for those that don't know the law, you never, ever have to take field sobriety tests because there is not one State that legally requires it and if the officer stopped you he already believes you are driving under the influence, taking the FST.s only gives them more evidence. Also, if you haven't been drinking or have had only 1 to 2 drinks in 1 hours do not agree to the PBT(preliminary breath test) because they are not accurate, demand a Legal Breath Test at the station or a blood test. When it comes out negative you have grounds to submit charges against the officer for wrongful arrest.
    Having the smell of alcohol on your breath or red eyes is not grounds for arrest, yet too many drivers are arrested for just that.

    My recommendation is that you don't drive if you have had more than 2 drinks within one hour. If a restaurant or bar serves you more than that they should be held liable for doing so if you are subsequently stopped for failing to come to a complete stop, having a head or tail light out or an expired sticker but showing no sign of impairment.

    I have followed many drunk drivers that failed to stop at a stop sign or stop light or drove up on the curb and while following them have phoned 911. Not once has 911 dispatched police. I usually end up yelling at the driver. It ticks me off when I know of many drivers who were comply with traffic laws and only stopped due to their race, age or because they were reported by hired cops outside of establishments.

    Cops targeting minority, I think not. They target young adults, ages 21-30, minorities and those driving old cars in affluent areas.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Haven't had a violation in over 35 years. What I want is just and fair laws. If the States forced by the Federal Government pass a law that requires you be forced to give a "blood" sample without first having to prove in court that the officer had the right to stop and arrest you, then you have lost all constitutional rights to due process. And, for those that don't know the law, you never, ever have to take field sobriety tests because there is not one State that legally requires it and if the officer stopped you he already believes you are driving under the influence, taking the FST.s only gives them more evidence. Also, if you haven't been drinking or have had only 1 to 2 drinks in 1 hours do not agree to the PBT(preliminary breath test) because they are not accurate, demand a Legal Breath Test at the station or a blood test. When it comes out negative you have grounds to submit charges against the officer for wrongful arrest.
    Having the smell of alcohol on your breath or red eyes is not grounds for arrest, yet too many drivers are arrested for just that.

    My recommendation is that you don't drive if you have had more than 2 drinks within one hour. If a restaurant or bar serves you more than that they should be held liable for doing so if you are subsequently stopped for failing to come to a complete stop, having a head or tail light out or an expired sticker but showing no sign of impairment.

    I have followed many drunk drivers that failed to stop at a stop sign or stop light or drove up on the curb and while following them have phoned 911. Not once has 911 dispatched police. I usually end up yelling at the driver. It ticks me off when I know of many drivers who were comply with traffic laws and only stopped due to their race, age or because they were reported by hired cops outside of establishments.

    Cops targeting minority, I think not. They target young adults, ages 21-30, minorities and those driving old cars in affluent areas.
     
  9. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    It doesn't matter if you are speeding, stopped for an expired registration or similar reason; once stopped, if you smell of alcohol you may subjected to FST's(which you are not legal required to take and never should take as no one ever passes then). The Federal Government requires States to pass .08 bac laws or lose federal highway funding. But they don't require businesses that serve alcoholic beverages to regulate the number of drinks served in 1 hour or to provide a method of testing patrons bac before they leave the establishment. In other words, States and the Federal government make millions on alcoholic beverage sales so they clearly don't want to limit those sales. Yet, they have no problem arresting patrons that drink more than 2 drinks with 1 hour. Those patrons driving home showing no signs of impairment. Arresting those stopped for other reasons showing no signs of impairment.

    Preying on drivers that don't understand their rights, subjecting them to illegal tests that the majority fail when sober.
    Failing to offer them legally sanctioned breath tests available at the police station.
     
  10. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    You do realize that .08 bac is a subjective number and there is no scientific proof that anyone blowing .08 is intoxicated and impaired/unable to drive a vehicle? In fact, a driver may be impaired after 1 glass of an alcoholic beverage while other drivers may not show signs of impairment until they have consumed several alcoholic beverages and even then it depends on the number of hours in which these beverages were consumed and whether or not the individual had consumed food during that period of time. This is why arrest for intoxication should be based on observation of the driver and not on an arbitrary, irrelevant BAC. And, drivers should only be subjected to bac tests where they were stopped for unsafe driving or failing to obey traffic signals. Period. I only hope you nay sayers are stopped after you have been out for dinner and consumed several drinks and, asked to perform SFST's and subsequently fail. Good luck. Hasn't happened to me but to many of my friends who were not intoxicated by hauled off to jail.
     
  11. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,378
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You do realize that I don't give a crap if your buds have to stop a glass or two short to ensure they don't reach .08. There is no scientific proof that going 69 miles an hour on a freeway is dangerous to all drivers of all vehicles in all weather conditions either. Normally an officer simply records your speed and issues a ticket based on the statute. The officers do not wait and watch how you appear to be handling the curves at 75 miles per hour, or consider that your make and model is noted to have great maneuverability. They give you a ticket for exceeding the speed limit. The law is full of arbitrary numbers and formulas.

    By the way the last person who should be believed, on the face of this planet, on whether they were or were not intoxicated, is a driver justifying themselves post arrest, to a buddy . Its incredible that you buy what your friends decide as 'intoxicated' as truth incarnate. Christ you have never had occasion to doubt someone who said. "but I am fine, I know how to handle my liquor".
     
  12. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    Ok, I hear you. Then the law should include regulations on how many alcoholic beverages bars and restaurants can serve an individual within 1 hour. And, on average that would be 2. Without this guideline, there are extreme numbers of people driving with a bac .08 or above when leaving an establishment. Limiting consumption is where it should begin, IMO. Or lets just ban the sale of alcoholic beverages at bars and restaurants all together. That is much more fair and would be much more effective. But that would me less money to the local, state and Federal governments.
     
  13. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,378
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey you got no problem with me on that. I have no problem with regulating bars and restaurants to help prevent more drunk drivers from leaving the establishment.
     
  14. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    At least if you dislike Texas' laws you can move somewhere with less laws/police. If you don't like Federal law that's tough (*)(*)(*)(*).

    I agree state law is often totalitarian, but the problem is not solved by collectivizing it into ever larger, less representative bodies.

    [Hr][/hr]

    We have .05 limits here, police checkpoints and breath testing without cause. Consider yourself lucky.
     
  15. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    Won't reply to your statements on .08 bac and the fact all states were forced to pass the law or lose the Federal Governments funding for roads. But, I will add that when I drive on the freeways/highways in Illinois the speed limit is still 55mph. In Texas, it is 65-70mph. Therefore, the Federal Government has failed you by not also forcing every State to limit hwy speed to 55mph. Also, they failed you, a person that thinks it is o.k. for the Federal Government to become the "king" and control the States; when they allow the use of cell phones while driving, driving when you had less than 8 hours sleep, driving and smoking, driving with a screaming child in the back seat and I could go on. There is a huge difference between having 2 alcoholic beverages within 1 hour, which could put you at .08 and having 3-6 or more beverages. Plus, if .08 is so important than why didn't the Federal Government require all restaurants and bars serving alcohol provide breathalyzers that would be available for patrons? 2 drinks for one person not the same bac result for another. This law is unjust, the changes allowing mandatory blood tests are an assault on person. How far do you want subjective control by law enforcement to go. It is obvious, yes obvious, when a person is driving while under the influence of a drug, I have followed many while calling 911. But, simply having the smell of alcohol when stopped for a minor traffic infraction should not mean you can have your blood drawn or subjected to field tests most sober people have difficulty passing. I can only hope you are subjected to this one day. I suggest you refuse the field tests as they aren't required by law and only take the roadside breath test if you haven't had anything at all to drink within the last hour.
     
  16. hudson1955

    hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    "my buds stop a glass or to short to ensure they don't reach .08. First of all my friends to my knowledge don't drive if they are intoxicated and have never been charged with DWI and neither have I. However, I doubt the normal person doesn't even know how many drinks it takes for them to be .08. They base their ability to drive safely on how they feel, safe driving after X drinks previously, and the like. This is why I say, if the Government really wanted to ensure people patronizing a bar or restaurant are safe to drive, they should legally have to limit the number of drinks they can serve per hour? How many should that be IYO? 1, 2,3? And, I never said any of my friends ever attempted to justify themselves post arrest as none of my friends have been arrested. They Federal government seems to think none of us are responsible enough to know when we have had too much to drink. As usual the majority suffers for the small overall percent of irresponsible individuals. And, you should only be charged with driving while intoxicated when your driving showed signs of such, period. Regardless of the .08 law, they are still drunk drivers, explain that. Well, I will, it is because those individuals abuse alcohol, many are alcoholics, most drink beyond the point of being able to determine their ability to drive. That is a small percentage of drivers overall, yet anyone of us can be forced to submit to road side tests, blood tests and the like after being stopped for improper lane change, failing to come to a complete stop and other minor traffic incidents that more than too often had nothing to do with drink a couple of glass of wine with dinner and the like. Can't use your cell phone while driving in many Cities, States because a small overall percentage of idiots choose to answer their phone or make calls or text message at inappropriate and dangerous times. Yet a large percentage of drivers choose to not use their phones in high traffic situations. Another example of loss of personal rights due to the few idiots out there. Tired of it.
     
  17. Alucard

    Alucard New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    7,828
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are too many people in prison who should not have been placed there in the first place.
     

Share This Page