From the nice folks at Slashdot comes a story of police laziness that may end up resulting in the reversal of “hundreds, maybe thousands” of drunk-driving convictions over the past six years.
There’s a billboard near my hometown that says “Drunk Driving: Ohio’s Scarlet Letter”. That’s a bit of hype, since Ohio, like many other states, has turned the low-criminal-penalty, fine-intensive prosecution of drunk driving into a cash cow for many courts. Many attorneys, as well; the first Ferrari 360 I ever saw in the wild belonged to a famous Columbus DUI attorney.
The fiscal rewards of prosecuting drunk drivers, together with the fact that impaired vehicle operation is perhaps one of the few remaining frontiers where significant reductions in vehicular fatalities can be achieved nationwide, mean that very few law-enforcement agencies treat the topic with anything other than the utmost sincerity and seriousness. On the other side of the aisle, we have the SFPD. For at least six years, the SFPD officers in charge of the department’s breathalyzers didn’t bother to test or calibrate the equipment, instead simply entering the suggested control values into the test results.
It is worth noting that “fuel cell” breathalyzers, which are the only types approved for evidentiary use in the United States, require calibration at least every six months to prevent significant drift, so six years without a calibration could mean that a lot of people were wrongly convicted — or that a lot of people went free, depending on the direction of the drift.
The potential for civil damage suits has to be something just barely short of stupdendous; people can and do get fired for DUI (unless you are a “supercitizen”) and the cumulative effect of years’ worth of lost wages, child custody issues, further criminal penalties, increased insurance rates, and so on will likely require a pretty stout calculator to add up.
Could this lead to a decreased reliance on breathalyzers in the field for police departments worried about liability, machine error, and so on? Let’s hope not: as history shows, if the cops can’t Breathalyze you, they may go Twilight on yo’ ass.
Welcome to post 9/11 America.. Guilty til proven guilty. Enjoy..
The “guilty until proven innocent” horse left the barn in the ’80s.
The last point in the post is what concerns me. Currently, breathalyzers are the only means to NONINVASIVELY quantify BAC in the field. If the reactionary ninnys who always seem to come out in force in response to events such as this decide to mount a crusade to have their use banned in the field, then prepare for yet another opening of Pandora’s Box.
I don’t know of any alternatives other than compulsory blood draws (likely meaning one automatically gets hauled off to jail if he/she refuses consent). This will of course not play well with those who still care about the 4th Amendment, and I don’t imagine that most law enforcement officers are all that eager to take on yet another occupational hazard (exposure to blood-borne pathogens) by becoming junior phlebotomists.
Alternatively, we may go back to the pre-Breathalyzer standard of “the officer said he looked drunk”, which is probably worse.
Or maybe police officers could focus on actual moving violations, now with dash cam video proof of bad driving. DUI enforcement has transitioned from protecting the public from severely impaired drivers to a way to greatly enhance revenue per traffic stop.
For compulsory blood draws, they have to get a warrant. When cops setup a DUI checkpoint, they have a judge ready to sign warrants and phlebotomist available to draw the blood. It isn’t a 4th amendment problem.
How about walking on a beam for 30 feet under 20 seconds without falling? It’s non invasive and can capture other types of impairment.
A coordination test has no place in driving safety. That test would immediately discover that a healthy male with a buzz is still a better driver than a woman or geezer sober.
The DUI industry would be put out of business overnight, MADD would be outraged, the discussion would turn to taking the senile off the road, millions of accidents would be prevented but more importantly millions of voters would be incensed.
Won’t. Ever. Happen.
Really, Dan? You’re going with “women can’t drive”?
Maybe you can explain then why every auto insurance company in the nation gives women cheaper rates when all other factors are equal, even for policies where you need to state annual mileage? I mean, they’re the ones with the actual data, after all.
I’m pretty sure they mean the BA in the station. The field test ones aren’t usually admitted into evidence. There are significant error rates there, but enough to justify the probably cause.
“department’s breathalyzers” seems to infer all of them.
really? We’re linking to Alex Jones now?
It appears that way, unfortunately.
I’m the LAST person who would like to see TTAC propagating ZOG/NWO wackjob theories but I looked at the link. It is relevant to Jack’s story since they’re hosting a video from a television network reporting on the matter.
Blood tests are standard in other countries, it’s most accurate. If you don’t drink and drive and end up smelling like a mini bar in your car you probably won’t have a problem.
Other countries cane people for petty crimes.
Other countries cut off the hands of thieves, literally.
Other countries use Napoleonic law where the burden to prove innocence is on the defendant, who is guilty until proven otherwise.
Other countries take corporate executives that make decisions that kill people and execute them (well actually, that seems like a good idea).
In Syria, military service is compulsory. As part of your basic training your platoon must raise a puppy to be your dog, and then the unit has to kill the puppy with their bare hands to prove they can become cold blooded killers.
Just because “other countries” do it, doesn’t make it a good idea. We have a document. It’s called the Constitution. It is completely under attack.
We aren’t talking about adopting the stupid penalties from other countries in whole, so switch off your inner Alex Jones and take a deep breath. Then blow into the breathalyzer for 10 seconds.
My mother was a lab manager for many years. The breathalyzer was not used to determine guilt. It was only used to determine who needed to have their blood drawn.
I’m not exactly sure how someone could characterize a blood test, taken with a warrant after the refusal of a non-invasive breathalyzer test, as a 4th amendment violation. How else are the police supposed to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is or is not impaired? What the Jonesians seem to be arguing for is a right of infinite refusal of any kind of BAC test, which would basically destroy the ability of the authorities to empirically investigate DUI cases. It’s basically an attempt to erode DUI law under the guise of “freedom,” even when the argument is basically nonsensical.
I’m not the most libertarian person in America, but I think any time the State is sampling your blood without consent, that’s a bridge too far.
That’s not a tenable position, what if you’re the top suspect in a murder during which they think you bled everywhere over the crime scene and they want to obtain your blood to compare the samples?
I don’t think many people would feel that the state sampling your DNA via blood testing for matching should just be flat out unacceptable, it should just be done judiciously.
But frankly it’d be next to impossible to convict someone of drunk driving if you can just refuse a breathalyzer and a blood test. The idea of implied consent really does apply here-when you get a driver’s license you’re consenting to being tested by default. Driving isn’t a right even if everyone in the US thinks it is.
If driving isn’t a right what is it? It’s not a privilege because it can’t be granted or denied willy-nilly.
People have to get over the idea that all rights are specifically spelled out in the Constitution, and they have to understand that rights have limits. The limitations do not turn a right into a privilege.
“I think any time the State is sampling your blood without consent…”
You give your consent whenever you get behind the wheel: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.191
And the blood test requirement is constitutional:
http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/schmerber-v-california-384-us-757-1966
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=384&invol=757
Point Number One: My brother was killed by a drunk driver.
Point Number Two: I agree with Jack
Mandatory blood draws violates in my opinion the Constitution, and I would be completely against it.
A mandatory blood draw wouldn’t have saved my brother. The asshat that killed him not drinking himself blind and running a stop sign at a major intersection would have.
“the first Ferrari 360 I ever saw in the wild belonged to a famous Columbus DUI attorney”
If this is the same attorney that I am thinking of, he also has a Ferrari 575M Superamerica. And he can pull it off because he won’t go near a DUI case for less than a $4000 retainer, as obscene as that is.
“Drunk Driving: Ohio’s Scarlet Letter”.
They are referring to the yellow plates with red numbers that they give convicted DuIs, if they let them drive. I think there are similar programs in severl states.
“the first Ferrari 360 I ever saw in the wild belonged to a famous Columbus DUI attorney”
I don’t want to burst your bubble, but he has lots of money from non-work related sources.
With all due respect to America, and Americans, you guys have know idea how soft and forgiving your D.U.I laws are.
Corrrect me if I’m wrong,but I think Ontario has tougher laws,than any of the US states. British Columbia is even tougher.
If I have two regular strength beers and get stopped by a Cop thats having a bad day,I’m in deep ka ka. Make that four beers,and I might as well take 50,000 dollars,and flush it down the toilet.
I could probably hold up the local Beer Store,and plea bargain my way out of it. But God forbid I should drink any of my ill gotten beer before I drive my getaway car.
A friend of mine left a bar, drove exactly 2 blocks to his home, got out and was arrested for DUI. He blew the .08 that NC says is the limit. Did he weave or run off the road? No, did he speed or do anything to alert the cops he was “impared”? No. He spent $5,000.00 to go to court, plus hundreds more on increased auto insurance, all because a local town cop followed him home after seeing him leave a bar. I know, you’re thinking, why the heck didn’t he just walk, and to be honest, I’m sure he wished he would have. But, like this story points out, we’re convicting a guy on the basis of a machine that may or may not be calibrated. And also, .08 – really? I know MADD would probably love to see that go lower but jeez man. You want to make the roads safer? Target Jerry the Geezer with his 20-800 cateracts and couldn’t hear a RPG if it landed beside him, or Suzi the sexy secretary with the iphone, make-up, and McBreakfast all going at once, or and this one really boils my nuts, Paco the Taco, he’s here illegally, got no insurance, license or anything but 5 kids in school, one on the way and can’t drive from sh!t. But OMG dat’s RAY-CIST, yeah, right cry me a river and I’ll introduce you to a neighbor that lost a daughter to Paco in a head on that occured when he crossed the line right in front of her.