If the state determines that alcohol impairs judgment so much that you can’t consent to sex, why is the state allowed to accept the consent to a breathalyzer test?
It would seem that if you are drunk you can’[t give your consent, and any consent you do give would be inadmissible.
You give the consent when you apply for the driver’s license.
Yep, that’s the “implied consent law”.
FWIW, in most (or at least several) states you are not required to submit to a breathalyzer test. However, if you don’t, you lose your license for a year.
Implied consent can’t be given. That’s why it’s implied.
oh, also, people really need to be clear on the distinction between a preliminary breath test and the breathalyzer that they’re talking about with implied consent laws.
If the penalty is loss of license, it makes no sense to say it’s not required.
Nobody said it was free. Just not required. You aren’t required to get a drivers license in the first place. But if you want to drive, that’s the price. If you want to keep the driver’s license, the breathalyzer is the price. But your aren’t required to keep the license. And you aren’t required to take the breathalyzer.
What if you have never applied and were driving without a license?
Read Really Not All That Bright’s statement again. He said in several states it’s not required to submit to a breathalyzer test, however, if you don’t, you lose your license for a year. Then how is it a requirement in the other states? Again, if there’s a penalty for not doing something, then doing it is a requirement. Not being required to keep a license has nothing to do with this.
I just looked up California’s law(where I live) and I was somewhat wrong.
By driving on public roads, you give consent.
ETA:Part of the application paperwork does deal with implied consent.
I apologize for the threadjack, but wanted to share this:
I live in Japan. A friend’s husband was stopped for speeding. He was going fast enough to warrant immediate revocation of his license, but alas, he had never applied for one and so was driving sans license.
Apparently this seeming impossibility threw the good folks at the police station: he had no license, therefore nothing to revoke.
He got off scott-free. You know he tells this story to everyone he meets.
Not that I doubt your friend who would **never **sacrifice accuracy in story retelling for dramatic value or anything, but… they weren’t able to fine him and/or charge him for driving without a license? :rolleyes:
it’s already been answered, but most states the consent is implied every time you drive on the streets - the ones that make it a part of the driver’s licensing process probably double up on the “implied” consent.
plus, I know in Illinois at least that getting caught driving while intoxicated (and, again, you do not need a breathalyzer test, and it doesn’t matter if you don’t have a BAC over .08, to get convicted for a DUI) is a felony, even for the most mickey mouse first time DUI offense, if you don’t have a valid license at the time you’re pulled over.
It may be required in all states. I only know it’s required in some states. However, the point is that you cannot be compelled to take a breathalyzer by threat of a fine, jail time, or whatever. Hence, “not required”. In a case where a driver knows he is over the legal limit, he should absolutely refuse to take a breathalyzer, and will thereby probably avoid prosecution. A year of not driving is a lot cheaper than a DUI.
It’s possible that there are states where you not only lose your license, but go to jail.
Anyway, as Rumor correctly points out, you can be convicted of DUI without any objective measure of blood alcohol content, though you have to be pretty well snookered.
Yes, you can. What do you mean you can’t be? How can something be a requirement if there’s no penalty for not submitting?
Officer: You are required to take this breathalyzer test.
Me: What happens if I don’t?
Officer: Oh, nothing.
You said:
If there’s a penalty for not submitting (losing your license), then submitting is a requirement by definition.
If the penalty is losing your license in the states you claim there is no requirement, what distinguishes those states from those that do have a requirement?
Read my previous post again.
I can take some guesses as to how you’d like me to interpret your last post, but it would be simpler if you just answered my questions rather than me attempting to answer them myself.
REQUIRED = you go to choky if you don’t do it.
NOT REQUIRED = don’t go to choky. Lose your license.
Happy?
Whatever. You’re the only one I’ve come across that has “requirement” defined by whether or not jail time is involved. Any penalty makes doing or not doing something a requirement.