It appears when a person is talking, the gadget measures alcohol concentration, if a hit is registered, they are asked to pull over for further investigation.
And the debate is…?
Within the 4th AM? I think it is.
Of all the things to be alarmed about in that article, the passive analysis of alcohol on the breath ranks pretty low to me.
You don’t think it provides “Reasonable suspicion” to warrant a further detention?
From the article:
Also, it was an entirely voluntary program.
The story you linked to says absolutely nothing like this
When I asked what the debate was, I was wondering what your particular informed opinion was on the matter.
As intrusions go, this one doesn’t.
And as pointed out in a quote from a driver, being directed into a parking lot by somebody (who is probably dressed in uniform-y looking clothing) doesn’t feel voluntary, even though it is.
…He also noted the fine print on a form given to drivers informs them their breath was tested by “passive alcohol sensor readings before the consent process has been completed.”…
IF a hit is recorded on the sensor, IMO, that supplies the necessary RS to further detain, do you agree?
The stop did not seem voluntary at all nor the passive alcohol testing.
The other parts while technically may have been voluntary where presented in a form that seems to make it appear mandatory and also in a form that seems to intimidate the driver.
Exactly, while I think it would be upheld if challenged, it is not a “simple” 4th AM issue.
It is not exactly clear what reading has to come up to ask for a consent form be signed, but if a .07+ or so came up, that would provide RS.
However, the consent form seems to indicate mandatory compliance rather than a voluntary act?
Sorry-I wasn’t understanding your “4th AM” abbreviation at first. “4th Amendment”, correct?
Yes, 4th, that is why I put it in debates. After going over it in my mind, I am mixed on my opinion?
I think that’s for you to tell us.
Now that I’ve had time to do more than skim over the article you provided, I can see where people might think they had no choice when it came to the tests.
IF a hit comes up, why would they need a consent form? I think the RS may be weak, so they want to dot the I’s.
It’s hard to tell now what the POLICY mandates?
It’s hard to tell from the sentence structure whether this is a statement or a question.