Welcome!

Welcome to our community forums, full of great people, ideas and excitement. Please register if you would like to take part.

Register

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Policy Breathalyzers Test

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cflgridiron View Post

    It will happen. I think the law is good except for allowing police to ask for a sample once someone is at home. Yes a few will get away with driving while drunk but the risk for abuse is very high. This will happen durning nasty divorces, and other disputes. This will also happen just as a joke to screw with people. I also suspect stalkers and wife beaters will use this law to control their wife/girlfriends.
    Just because someone phones the police and says "hey, my ex was driving drunk", they aren't going to immediately jump in the cruiser, go to the "exes" house and ask for a breathalyzer. They would still have to open a drunk driving investigation, like they do now when a drunk driver is reported, and make sure it's legit before they commit resources to checking the story out. Before this law, if a driver was reported for suspected drunk driving, the police could come to that person's house and request a breathalyzer as part of their investigation. So this law is only going to make it tougher for those actual drunk drivers to use a loophole than it will to have a run on people getting charged for DUI because their ex hates them

    Comment


    • Originally posted by flatlandriderfan View Post

      Just because someone phones the police and says "hey, my ex was driving drunk", they aren't going to immediately jump in the cruiser, go to the "exes" house and ask for a breathalyzer. They would still have to open a drunk driving investigation, like they do now when a drunk driver is reported, and make sure it's legit before they commit resources to checking the story out. Before this law, if a driver was reported for suspected drunk driving, the police could come to that person's house and request a breathalyzer as part of their investigation. So this law is only going to make it tougher for those actual drunk drivers to use a loophole than it will to have a run on people getting charged for DUI because their ex hates them
      However before there was a 2 hour window so it was a non-issue. Now it is an issue as an ex or a stalker can wait until the person gets home has a drink and then call the cops. Not saying it would not get resolved but could become a massive headache for the police.

      Hopefully it works ok but there is risk for causing havoc on innocent people

      They could report it without giving a name.
      Last edited by Cflgridiron; 01-12-2019, 05:31 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by flatlandriderfan View Post

        Just because someone phones the police and says "hey, my ex was driving drunk", they aren't going to immediately jump in the cruiser, go to the "exes" house and ask for a breathalyzer. They would still have to open a drunk driving investigation, like they do now when a drunk driver is reported, and make sure it's legit before they commit resources to checking the story out. Before this law, if a driver was reported for suspected drunk driving, the police could come to that person's house and request a breathalyzer as part of their investigation. So this law is only going to make it tougher for those actual drunk drivers to use a loophole than it will to have a run on people getting charged for DUI because their ex hates them
        If the police get a call of an impaired driver, I can assure you they are responding. Can you imagine if they ignored a call for an impaired driver and there was an accident? They don't know it's a prank call until they investigate.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by green_machine_#1 View Post

          If the police get a call of an impaired driver, I can assure you they are responding. Can you imagine if they ignored a call for an impaired driver and there was an accident? They don't know it's a prank call until they investigate.
          I didn't say they wouldn't respond, I said they would ask a few questions of the party making the complaint before they would respond, such as where did you see them driving, what time, etc. You and cflgridiron need to go chat with a police constable some time and ask them what there whole process is and what they are required to do when someone calls in a reported drunk driver.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by flatlandriderfan View Post

            I didn't say they wouldn't respond, I said they would ask a few questions of the party making the complaint before they would respond, such as where did you see them driving, what time, etc. You and cflgridiron need to go chat with a police constable some time and ask them what there whole process is and what they are required to do when someone calls in a reported drunk driver.
            I reported one once. By the time I was done answering questions, they knew the last time I'd taken a dump. It's quite a procedure.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Proudtobegreen View Post

              I reported one once. By the time I was done answering questions, they knew the last time I'd taken a dump. It's quite a procedure.
              As have I. It is not an anonymous system. I actually ended up being subpoenaed to testify in court about what I witnessed. I suppose someone with an ax to grind could go through all that and even commit perjury just to stick it to someone they don't like but I have my doubts it will become a regular occurrence. If there is that much bad blood between both parties that will come out when the police investigate and/or in court.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by mrguy View Post

                As have I. It is not an anonymous system. I actually ended up being subpoenaed to testify in court about what I witnessed. I suppose someone with an ax to grind could go through all that and even commit perjury just to stick it to someone they don't like but I have my doubts it will become a regular occurrence. If there is that much bad blood between both parties that will come out when the police investigate and/or in court.
                Yep. I went to court too. It's sure not a simple, "I hate him, so I'm going to get him" system.

                Comment


                • What if the ex wife calls crime stoppers on the driver. They don't ask for names or so the ads say.

                  Comment


                  • I don't really have a problem with breathalizers, without problable cause, on public roadways. You are in the public domain, you're fair game.
                    Perhaps my personal life experience tells me that the police having the ability to enter a private home without a warrant, or even problable cause, within this extremely hazy "2 hr. window" is troubling. I don't trust the police, or anyone else, implicitly.
                    Just my 2 cents.

                    Comment


                    • Something that posters here have come close to, but not outright said, is that the police are going to want to be nearly 100% confident that they can prove you were behind the wheel before going through this process. Otherwise the breathalyzer means nothing. It's going to be extremely rare for them to show up at someone's house to demand a breath sample because of this. But at least one more loophole has been removed for drunk drivers.
                      Is it May yet?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by juice View Post
                        Something that posters here have come close to, but not outright said, is that the police are going to want to be nearly 100% confident that they can prove you were behind the wheel before going through this process. Otherwise the breathalyzer means nothing. It's going to be extremely rare for them to show up at someone's house to demand a breath sample because of this. But at least one more loophole has been removed for drunk drivers.
                        Yep. The strawmen created over this supposed crushing of your rights is quite overblown.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Canyon11 View Post
                          I don't really have a problem with breathalizers, without problable cause, on public roadways. You are in the public domain, you're fair game.
                          Perhaps my personal life experience tells me that the police having the ability to enter a private home without a warrant, or even problable cause, within this extremely hazy "2 hr. window" is troubling. I don't trust the police, or anyone else, implicitly.
                          Just my 2 cents.
                          That's kind of where I am on this issue as well,...
                          the use of a breathalizers without probable cause on a public roadway? I still don't like the idea of the police being able to basically detain and question someone without probable cause, to me that is taking away the right to a presumption of innocence and turning it 180 degrees into a presumption of guilt, but I can live with it for the sake of the common good.

                          Being able to enter a private home without probable cause or a warrant? whether the likelihood is .01% ever happening or not, that is crossing the line between public good and a violation of civil liberty and should not even be legally possible for the police to do.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Grainshoveler View Post
                            Madd says 1100...Stats Can says 120....Somebody is fibbing by quite alot.
                            I'd say it's much closer to the MADD number. Stats Can has a very tight definition.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by juice View Post
                              Something that posters here have come close to, but not outright said, is that the police are going to want to be nearly 100% confident that they can prove you were behind the wheel before going through this process. Otherwise the breathalyzer means nothing. It's going to be extremely rare for them to show up at someone's house to demand a breath sample because of this. But at least one more loophole has been removed for drunk drivers.
                              Over the years the type of thing you envision has been proven over and over to be wrong. If they believe you are guilty they will use all tools they have to prove it. Court of appeal would not have near the workload if that were not true. The old adage is that witch hunts do find witches even though there are none.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by chester68 View Post

                                I'd say it's much closer to the MADD number. Stats Can has a very tight definition.
                                Yes, very tight. They actually require the driver to have been drinking.

                                Comment

                                Announcement

                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.

                                Announcement

                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.
                                Working...
                                X