Roachman:
So how do you get a breath out of a corpse? Jump up and down on it?
Well, in CA-US, though DUI is a violation of the Vehicle Code, it is a misdemeanor, not a civil violation, and the penalty is a fine, traffic school and a lesser fine, or possibly incarceration on a later than a first offense.
Ray (have never tried the procedure out)
Here’s one for you:
“California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard has been arrested and booked for driving under the influence of alcohol after being stopped and failing a roadside sobriety test on U.S. Highway 101 in Marin County.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1999/10/28/NEWS5782.dtl
Ray (Tell it to the. . .well. . .er. . .which judge?)
In some places (somewhere around Pittsburgh; I can’t remember where exactly), all traffic stops are automatically recorded. There’s a video camera in the car, and it is automatically activated as soon as the cop turns on the siren/lights.>> Catinhat
Here in Illinois, we have a very strange “eavesdropping” statute which by its literal language requires all party to a sound recording must give their informed consent. Includes both civil and criminal penalties. Illinois Supreme Court has interpreted it liberally to allow for law enforcement recording, but the Illinois legislature keeps amending it to emphasize the need for all to consent.
Technically, this means if the recording an arresting officer uses features sound (and I imagine many of them do), it would not be admissible as evidence in an Illinois Court. I don’t know if this has been tried much. The law also leads to the absurd result of making the video taping of your kid’s little league game a crime unless you have the sound turned off.
SoxFan59
“Its fiction, but all the facts are true!”
It sounds like our laws are stricter here in Canada.
If you are stopped at the side of the road and the officer asks you to blow into a field testing device, and you refuse, you have committed a federal criminal offence, that is treated in exactly the same way as a conviction for driving impaired/over.08.
If you get a green on the field tester, you are free to go. If you get an amber, you may have your licence suspended for up to 24 hours, under provincial law. And if you blow red, you get taken to the detachment for a breathalyzer test.
If you fail the breathalyzer at the detachment, that is evidence of the criminal offence (federal law) of driving over .08. If you refuse the test, you have committed a criminal offence (federal law), carrying exactly the same weight as driving impaired/over .08.
Our courts have not been sympathetic to attempts to challenge these provisions, favouring public safety over drinking and driving.
Update on Judge Kennard:
A friend of hers says a test of her blood reported an alcohol level under the 0.08 limit of CA-US law. The Marin County DA ain’t talkin’.
Here’s how the judge handled the roadside testing request made of her:
"Her arrest came after roadside sobriety tests, the CHP said. She later chose to have her blood tested as opposed to giving a sample of her urine or taking a breathalyzer test. "
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/10/30/MN16653.DTL
Read the above news article. It sounds as if the CHP basically screwed up on her situation on the freeway. (I posted, awhile back here, mentioning a time I was made to walk the line, when I was stopped in a city, after merely pulling to the roadside several times to see if some service stations or fast-food places had drinking fountains. I had taken a long hike on a hot day. After passing the coordination test, I wasn’t further hassled though.)
Ray