The No-Refusal Program

As we have probably read in our previous discussion about the Warrant Court of the 60s and 70s, the “exclusionary rule” has become a highly contentious issue in our country’s judicial system. A quick summary for those unfamiliar with this rule, the exclusionary rule defends individuals from the states obtaining illegal evidence that may be used in trial, even if without a doubt the defendant is guilty.

Introduction: long ago the government banned the ability to make alcohol. This has caused a huge uproar which then people started to boot legging, as more and more people started to drink in the safety of their own homes. After the government saw how people were protesting this new law, they decided that they should left the ban. Since then people were able to drink in public, which in return has created another issue, now that they are drunk at a bar, how do they get home. Rather than taking the safe option and utilize some of the state and local programs and call a tow truck, the Driver chooses to just drive how drunk. They think that it’s ok, since they do not have their full mind.

Furthermore, they understand the factors that may compromise field sobriety tests and breath tests. Thus, it may be helpful for drivers who have been arrested for DUI to obtain legal representation. An attorney may question the accuracy of these types of tests, as well as whether their rights were upheld during the traffic stops that led to their arrests.

It is a tragic truth: About 10,000 lives are lost in the United States because of drunk driving each year. Alcohol is wildly known as one of the main reasons of causing social security issue. Small amount can make people feel relaxed, but bigger amount could make them loss their coordination, get feeling of confusion and disorientation, and significantly slowed their reaction time. On average, one person dies every hour because of alcoholic traffic accident in United State. Therefore, the NTSB put out a recommendation last May that the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) level for drivers should be lowered from the current level of .08% to .05%. But for several reasons, we shouldn’t lower the

Driving under the Influence is a dangerous trend and is known to cause many critical accidents and deaths which could have been easily prevented. Even though the consequences for DUI arrests are strict, they seem to not be effective enough. The toll of alcohol-related deaths, repeated offenders, and accidents is still rising, leaving the streets dangerous and families devastated. Over half the drivers arrested for drunk driving in the nation, are repeated offenders. I stand strongly against drunk drivers; They are a threat to themselves and society and believe that they should be taught a tough lesson when caught. Therefore, the charges for Driving Under the Influence laws need to

Russman Law states that in 1910 the first DUI law was adopted by New York. California was next, and soon, many other states followed. These laws only forbid driving while intoxicated. There was no level of inebriation that qualified as drunk driving. Robert Borkenstein invented the Breathalyzer in 1953. The breathalyzer is a machine that determines the level of alcohol in a person’s blood by measuring alcohol vapors in their breath. It wasn’t until 1972 when states began to pass DUI laws which had to prove that the person’s blood alcohol concentration was over the legal limit (Russman, 2013). Idaho Code §18-8004 was adopted in 1984. This code states that it is illegal to drive or be in physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substances, or a combination of both in the state of Idaho (Idaho Legislature, 2017). Effects from alcohol can start occurring at a blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent.

In the article, "Supreme Court to Review Laws Criminalizing Refusal of Body Substance Tests" by Adam Liptak from The New York Times, Mr. Liptak discusses how there were different interpretations of the fourth amendment among the states and how people challenge the state's interpretations. The issue of this article is, "Is it a violation of fourth amendment right to be unable to refuse breath, blood or urine tests when one is suspected of drunk driving?" In U.S., 13 states have laws that make it a crime if one refuses to be tested. The Supreme Court reviewed three cases to decide whether they would challenge the laws or not. For example, in a Minnesota

Missouri v. McNeely(2013) was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on an appeal from the Supreme Court in Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment under exigent circumstances. On October 3, 2010, Tyler Gabriel McNeely was stopped by a police officer in Missouri for speeding and crossing over a centerline. The police officer asked McNeely if he could take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol level because he had noticed signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol. After refusing to take the breath test, McNeely was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital so they could do a blood test. McNeely refused, but the officer still told a lab technician to take his blood. His blood alcohol level tested far above the legal limit, and he was later charged with driving under the influence. He later argued that the taking of his blood without consent violated his Fourth Amendment rights in which the court agreed. I found this case interesting because we see a lot of drunk driving today and it 's an uneasy feeling knowing that drunk drivers could possibly get away with the crime they are committing since it may take a while for an officer to get a warrant. I would like to see the stages that the Supreme Court went through to get to the decision they came up with.

If there is no indication, for example, that an individual has driven recklessly or caused a car crash, and the officer at the scene has not observed any common signs of intoxication such as slurred speech, unsteady walk, or inability to understand, then there would be no probable cause. Case law has determined, simply noticing an odor of alcohol is not enough for probable cause. There must be some other indication for probable cause to require such a test as mandated by the Express Consent law. See People v. Roybal, 655 P.2d 410 (Colo. 1980). In People v. Roybal, the court ruled that where there is an absence of any indication that the defendant was at fault in causing the collision, than the police lacked the requisite probable cause to administer a

In Scotus blog, the United States Supreme Court judges against a familiar foe were at their best. It was very easy putting doctrinal clodhopping aside in trying out the amateur court team. Birchfield v. North Dakota a Wednesday court case involving laws imposing on motorist’s criminal penalties for being suspected of drunken driving (Birchfield v. North Dakota, 2016). Furthermore, when a chemical test, especially for breath or blood, was rejected. North Dakota with other eleven states passed measures avoiding annoying issues. These include how to obtain a warrant before you stick into the driver 's arm a needle or a tube in the driver 's mouth. Refusal to take a blood test led to the arrest of Danny Birchfield, who argued that this law was violating the Fourth Amendment typically requiring a police warrant to conduct a search. For North Dakota, motorists have to give their consent to chemical tests when they intend to drive in the state. Danny Birchfield challenged this saying that consent, which is legally mandated, does not permit at all. Birchfield’s problem was drunk driving since police had already arrested after he was driving into a ditch and forcefully attempting to turn out of it. He then emerged out of his car smelling alcohol. Fellow petitioners, in this case, were also losers after consolidating to his case. After almost hitting the stop sign, Steve Michael Bylund was also pulled over consequently holding his car on the road. An empty glass of wine is what was

Abstract Sobriety tests are mainly used when there is suspicion that the driver may be drunk or impaired. This addresses how drunk the driver is or how much alcohol/drugs are in the person's system. This is the most leading cause for deaths within lives. Alcohol changes your perception of getting behind the wheel. Sobriety tests are primarily tools that are decisioned made and have officers decide whether to make the arrest or not.

A good theoretical basis exists for believing that properly conducted sobriety checkpoints and campaigns, may reduce drunk driving, and data from multiple checkpoint programs support this belief. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of checkpoints, opposing those who believe them to violate the fourth amendment. Each year, more deaths result for alcohol-related automobile accidents than any other cause. Sobriety checkpoints, along with media coverage and cooperation from multiple groups, are a necessity to reduce the amount of drunk driving in America.

All you have to do at a checkpoint is quickly interact with a police officer who, once you establish your sobriety, will send you on your way. Maybe somebody they know is a police officer and they would never violate somebody’s rights. However, thanks to Chris Voluntariyst, a YouTube activist who posts videos of checkpoint interactions, we have video evidence of how a law abiding citizen can be treated like a criminal. In his video titled “4th of July DUI Checkpoint” we see him interact with a police officer briefly before being instructed to pull to the side of the road(Voluntaryist). After complying with orders while asking if he is being detained he is told to step out of his vehicle(Voluntariyst). At this point, police should be able to tell he is sober and send him on his way. Instead they search his vehicle and are caught on video discussing their weak case for detaining Voluntariyst and one police officer can be heard claiming, “He is perfectly innocent.”(Voluntariyst) It seems to me that if one person can capture blatant abuse of power on video at a checkpoint, perhaps it is not an isolated incident. I would be inclined to believe that, while it may not be the standard of police conduct, it is entirely possible that the small violation of rights by allowing police to stop us with no reasonable suspicion

The motorist in the video Top 3 Sobriety Tests No. 2 aroused the officer's suspicion when her car was veering between lanes the highway. When stopped, the motorist seemed uncertain of what she was doing and where she was. "I don't know," she replied when asked how much she had to drink. She was barely able to put the car in park and seemed more concerned about tying her shoelaces than the test or her serious situation. Questions which often arise when determining if someone is driving under the influence are: "Does the person answer the officer's question or exhibit a stream of consciousness talking that bears no relation to the question? Does the person appear to be disheveled or unable to stay alert?" (Gaensslen, R.E., & Larsen 2010: 122). The woman in the video exhibited all of these 'red flag' signs. However, the officer's use of the field sobriety tests indicates that even when intoxication may seem 'obvious' it is still necessary to establish DUI with objective sources of information. The ability of the driver to perform the tests assigned

While media never fails to show the unfavorable and dramatic effects of drunken driving, what they do not seem to bring light to is the details. The media often paints pictures in societies brain that all drunk driving is the same, but that is not the case. Organizations are pushing the government to lower the legal level of intoxication from .08 to .05; claiming that with cause a decrease in the amount of drunk driving accidents in the United State, but according to Ted Gregory, “Less than 1% of US traffic deaths are caused by a driver with a BAC of .05-.08” and “70% of drunken driving deaths involve a driver with a BAC of .15 or higher.” (par. 16). The current legal punishments for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) crimes are justified and appropriate.