I said they don’t intend to detonate it right now; how’s that different than your open container of booze?
I think it’s so that even if you blow below a 0.08 they can still claim you are impaired. And/Or it may be in some states it’s to create probable cause to detain you for the blood test.
Because I could drink it later at home i.e. not driving which is perfectly legal.
And they could detonate the bomb later at a remote farm.
Why do you have a problem with the bomb but not with the booze?
This thread was already getting kind of tiresome with people talking past each other, but this bomb “analogy” is where it really jumped the shark.
Maybe we should investigate scenarios where the drunk guy is lying on the trolley tracks sleeping it off (with and without a bomb)…
As mentioned earlier, criminal laws are federal, so it’s the same law across Canada. It’s an offence to refuse to perform tests or give samples, and the punishment is exactly the same as for driving impaired / .08.
Not meant as legal advice, just commenting on a matter of public interest. Please talk to a lawyer if you are in this type of situation. You’re not my client and I’m not your lawyer, just a guy hanging out on a chat board.
It really isn’t off-base at all.
Here; I’ll make the question even easier to answer: why does society have a problem with someone possessing a bomb?
This isn’t true and you don’t have data to support this assertion.
So, they know the rules but…they don’t know the rules and the police may or may not apply the rules evenly.
How is it anyone knows the rules?
Most people want to avoid being arrested.
So, either they sleep some of being drunk off or drive when they are the most drunk.
Neither is a good option. Which would you prefer they did? (no saying neither)
Neither is a perfectly good answer. The law is not supposed to address every micro situation. It’s supposed to deter you from getting in the situation in the first place.
This is as idiotic as saying that if we have the death penalty for killing a cop, we need to abolish it for every other crime, otherwise someone already having committed a death penalty offense is going to try to shoot his way out of getting apprehended.
I’ll skip whether the death penalty is a good idea.
But yeah…if someone has done something that will get them the death penalty if caught then I think they have a lot of incentive to break any law whatsoever to avoid being caught. Why wouldn’t they? How is it going to get worse for them?
If you are standing in the parking lot of a bar, legally drunk, and you are faced with a DUI whether you sleep in the back seat or drive home then driving home becomes the better choice to avoid being caught.
Do you want that person on the road?
Or, do you think people in that position should call 911 and turn themselves in?
For me to determine if I have enough cause to place you under arrest. It does not benefit you at all.
The PBT (portable breath test) reading is not admissible as evidence of guilt in court. It is only a tool during the field sobriety test to help me make a decision. In my state you are not required to submit to it.
This is not the same as the intoxilyzer breath test that is administered after you are arrested. You are required to submit to that or you will lose your license and be fined, possibly jailed, YMMV depending on jurisdiction.
Because people are ignorant of their rights. People who are intoxicated aren’t thinking properly. And people think they can outsmart a policeman.
The test is hard to pass sober. Smart asses think they can pass the test if they’ve been drinking but more and more exercises get added to it until you fail. Which is why I would not take one if I had any detectable amount of alcohol in my system. I also would not consent to a horizontal gaze nystagmus test.
Even if below .08 you can be charged with driving under the influence if it’s shown you were impaired. The FST is used to show you were impaired.
But this is the key question that nobody has cited any research to support.
A law that gives you a DUI for being anywhere near a car, including sleeping the back seat, has the correct prior deterrent effect. It encourages you to arrange a safe way home if you’re drinking, to not get stranded drunk with your car. But if you have nevertheless screwed up and are stranded and drunk, the law then creates the wrong incentive to do something much worse - to drive home drunk rather than sleep on the back seat when those are your only two options.
The question is, which of these effects dominates? Does a DUI law written this way lead to fewer people actually behind the wheel driving drunk?
Slightly OT, but would you take the test if you were completely sober?
In Ohio, you will lose your DL if you refuse the test, even if you’re 100% sober.
I actually got arrested for this very thing. While in the military, we had a party in our dorm room and my roommate had his girlfriend stay the night. I went to sleep in my car with the drivers seat fully reclined.
I was awoken by a tapping on my windshield and found two policemen standing next to my car. They asked me to step out of the car, which I did. After a few questions, they asked if I would participate with a field sobriety test, to which I also agreed. I thought that I’d passed the test since I was able to do everything they requested, but then the cuffs went on and I was arrested for DUI. I complained, but they wouldn’t talk further about it.
At the station, they read my rights and explained the DUI charge as something called “Actual Physical Control”, or APC, and said that it carried the same weight as a DUI. Because I had my keys in my pocket, I was able to drive at any time. I asked for a blood alcohol test to be drawn, luckily, which showed a level of .04, which was below the legal limit. I was able to avoid the DUI but the arrest did affect my insurance and renewing my car tags.
It is impossible to pass since the FST is subjective and interpreted by a cop trying to arrest you.
I was loading kayaks onto our trailer after a day of paddling a river. We had collected refuse from the river during our float; old rusted cans, empty bottles, etc. A cop stopped to inspect what we were doing and was looking for ways to ruin our day. He pointed out that the garbage in my Jeep included empty beer containers, meaning I was violating the open container law. Because my Jeep doesn’t have a “trunk” there was no way we could comply.
I ignored him, figuring I’d fight whatever ticket he wrote. Once he saw I was nonplussed by his interaction, he drove away.
For how long? And can you supply a cite for that, like a state statute?
Are you sure you’re not confusing the chemical test (blood/breath/urine) with the roadside field sobriety test.
This is what I’m saying.
Criminal offence in Canada to refuse the field sobriety test. The officer’s observations can’t be used as evidence of impairment, but can be used as reasonable cause to make a demand for a breath test at the police detachment.