Comments on: Drunk driving is different

By: Shamelessly self-indulgent list | a public defender

Shamelessly self-indulgent list | a public defender — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:53:04 +0000

[...] Drunk driving is different (37 billion hits). [...]

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:04:01 +0000

Had MADD not so water-downed the legal limit, drunk drivers would be easier to spot. The legal system has made a joke of what should be a serious situation.

By: Rogue Medic

Rogue Medic — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:28:25 +0000

frequently upholding anti-drunk-driving policies that might be constitutionally problematic in other, less exigent circumstances.

Isn’t this just a watered down version of the justification for torturing people because they might be able to provide the information needed to stop a bomb from killing innocent people moments before the detonation?

While I do not mean to defend drunk driving, how is this driver creating an exigent circumstance without violating any laws? I would think that the lack of pretext excludes any claim of exigent circumstances.

PS I love the way the comments show a current preview, has adjustable text size, and allows for email updates.

By: happy bread

happy bread — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:51:24 +0000

Really so strange.

Nowadays in China, drunk driving, no difference, all will be arrested and prisoned for one week, and cancel the driving license.

By: Jdog

Jdog — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:09:26 +0000

Utterly bizarre, and shows how a lack of real-world background can lead a very smart guy to an utterly absurd conclusion or three. If Roberts had ever done a ride-along with a cop, he’d have known that pretty much any cop can find (or, if he’s willing to lie, which not just for the record, I’m opposed to, make up) probable cause for a pretextual stop with a little bit of patience.

Which is exactly what this reads like Picard was trying to do — he tails the guy, who doesn’t do much of anything (slowing at an intersection where you have the right of way is something a prudent driver will do, from time to time, while cold sober, and that’s the most suspicious thing that Harris did) and then when the guy pulls over, Picard loses his patience. Instead of going over for a chat — legally, apparently, not a seizure, as the Supremes apparently are of the opinion that folks would think that they are free to say, “Thank you, but no,” and drive away if a cop comes up to the car asking, say, “Hi — can I talk to you for a minute?” without having pulled it over — he decides that he’s got enough to do what he wanted to do in the first place . . .

Sheesh. Like there’s not enough holes in the 4th Amendment, already?

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:01:41 +0000

This is interesting. Ohio has a 800 number to call if you think someone is driving drunk. I guess the law is OK as long as the cop can come up with another reason to pull the driver over.

By: Gideon

Gideon — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:21 +0000

Well, yeah, but this is an appeal from a State court decision involving the interpretation of the 4th Amendment. Since the Fed’l Constitution provides the floor for rights, if it violates the 4th Amd., then it violates state law as well.

By: Gideon

Gideon — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:58:55 +0000

Hehe. I like your idea a lot.

Heck, we could do it with all politicians. I’d certainly do it to prosecutors…

By: hates cops

hates cops — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 05:41:53 +0000

you would never get the impression that I dislike law enforcement. How the hell is drunk driving not applicable to the constitution? I mean really…Is MADD that good of a lobbying group? I’m putting my money behind DAMM

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 04:10:07 +0000

While not up on the jurisdiction issues of drunk driving (I make sure I’m well stocked at home before drinking so I don’t need to make any of those 12:59 liquor runs), Isn’t driving a states right issue, so wouldn’t drunk driving be a state issue? What’s this doing at the federal level. Did the anonymous tip cross state lines?