The DUI Exception to the Constitution

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:01:47 GMT  <== Politics ==> 

Lawrence Taylor at The DUI Blog - Thanks to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, we have the crime of blowing 0.08 or greater on a breathalyzer. It doesn't necessarily meausure alcohol, is only loosely correlated with blood alcohol, and says nothing about how impaired you are, but in most states, just that one number on a machine is enough to put you in jail, no jury trial required if the sentence is less than six months. And the cop can confiscate your license to drive on the spot. Detailed analysis of the history, technology, and legal advance of this blatantly unconstitutional travesty of justice (violates the fourth and fifth amendments, in spades). [saltypig]

To paraphrase a famous quote from pre-war Germany, "First they came for the drunks, but I was not a drunk, so I did not speak up....:

Add comment Edit post Add post

Comments (1):

Backdoor Prohibition

Submitted by Mike Blessing on Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:14:59 GMT

. . . it DOES.

Here in New Mexico, the Legislature's current push is (will be -- the 60-day session just ended) to drop the threshhold from 0.08 to 0.02. NO, I'm not making this up. So far, all they've done is hold some hearings, but that's the same way that the recently-signed bans on chickenfighting and smoking in "public places" such as bars and restaurants got started.

Combine the proposed 0.02 limit with the fact that a liquor license in New Mexico costs somewhere around 250,000 FRN . . .

Edit comment