# Is this legal? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 28, 2013, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160 "2013-03-28T06:29:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/101 "2013-04-02T00:07:33Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > No, you don’t have to be read your rights even after you’re arrested. You can be arrested and stuffed into a police car and taken to jail and charged and go to trial and get convicted and sentenced and end up in the big house, all without once getting read your Miranda rights. > > What the cops won’t do is _question_ you before they read you your Miranda rights. If they don’t need to question you to establish a case against you, they don’t ever have to read you your rights. And ordering you to pee in a cup isn’t questioning you. Neither is chit-chatting with you before they arrest you. > > It is a widely believed myth that the cops have to read you your rights after they arrest you, but that is, in fact, a myth. I’m not entirely sure why you are explaining what I just said back to me. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/102 "2013-04-02T00:44:07Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > And is it actually illegal to ingest heroin in your own home? I thought it was normally illegal to transport, sell, or possess heroin–is it illegal to use it? If the police search my house and find no heroin, but have proof that I’ve “used it”, is that a crime in and of itself without the transport/sell/possession aspect? (I’m just curious on that, I genuinely don’t know the answer.) Here is the the [Vermont jury instruction on circumstantial evidence.](http://www.vtjuryinstructions.org/criminal/MS05-051.htm) It is typical of the jury instruction in most states: > [@](#): > > ``` > There are two types of evidence from which you may find the facts of this case: direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is the testimony of someone who asserts actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eye witness. Circumstantial evidence is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances tending to prove or disprove an issue in the case. > > ``` > > For example, if a witness were to testify that he or she had seen cows in a field, that would be an example of direct evidence that there were cows in the field. On the other hand, if a witness were to testify that he or she had seen fresh cow tracks in the field, that would be an example of circumstantial evidence that there had been cows in the field. > > The law does not require the State to prove guilt by direct evidence alone, that is, by testimony from someone who actually saw (Def)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ commit the alleged act or offense. One or more of the essential elements, or all of the essential elements, may be established by reasonable inference from other facts which are established by direct testimony. Circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient proof. > > The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to direct or circumstantial evidence. Nor is a greater degree of certainty required of circumstantial evidence than of direct evidence. You should consider all the evidence in the case and give it such weight as you think it deserves. So, unless the defendant can explain how he managed to “use” heroin without possessing any of it, the jury is allowed to come to the conclusion that he might have possessed some. The following is just speculation: But would having heroin inside your body be possessing it? ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/103 "2013-04-02T01:25:01Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Yes, snitches get snitches is much more important than keeping dangerous intoxicated drivers off the road. Just something I find kinda stasi about it. Cops pull over a dui, fine. Your fellow citizens pulling shit like this, no. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/104 "2013-04-02T01:30:13Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > Just something I find kinda stasi about it. Cops pull over a dui, fine. Your fellow citizens pulling shit like this, no. > > Declan Considering that just about anyone can be harmed by a drunk driver, that’s an astonishing position to take. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/105 "2013-04-02T02:32:53Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Considering that just about anyone can be harmed by a drunk driver, that’s an astonishing position to take. The drunk driver that everyone really refers to , is just a fellow citizen that falls somewhere on the bell curve of society. Most people simply do not indulge in drinking beyond a certain point due to common sense. Realistically most drivers will fall into moderately intoxicated at some point in their driving careers and then move on. People commute back and forth to work, getting your license pulled for a DUI is not on everyone’s to do list. Just how dangerous are these people when they drive, about 8 thousand of them commute every friday and saturday evening in Toronto, an equivalent city of Chicago in terms of population. Its been decades since the Driving PSA began, and my city (Etobicoke, one of six mini cities that made up Toronto, at the time) was the first to pioneer the Ride program. I suspect that both 43 division and the OPP highway division, would poo poo my attitude towards what should be a misdemeanor at most. But drunk drivers are not the menace they are made out to be, and I simply have no more patience for mouthing government platitudes. We have courts that deal with the consequences of any traffic incident, using civillians for force multipliers to the police force begets a police state and should be avoided. Reporting felony level incidents to the police , I have no problem with. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/106 "2013-04-02T02:35:12Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > In his defense he did say “in a free country it’s a fundamental right”, you can believe something to be a fundamental right in a free country but it not be viewed as a _constitutional_ violation to inhibit that right. > > Quick and dirty example would be, in the 1960s you might feel in a free country it’s a fundamental right for all adults to vote, and it’s a constitutional violation for any government to try and hinder voting rights–but up until legislation and some supporting court cases governments were routinely able to put up all kinds of barriers to voting. That doesn’t mean necessarily that voting **isn’t** a fundamental right, it just meant that in that place and time it wasn’t protected as such. > > And is it actually illegal to ingest heroin in your own home? I thought it was normally illegal to transport, sell, or possess heroin–is it illegal to use it? If the police search my house and find no heroin, but have proof that I’ve “used it”, is that a crime in and of itself without the transport/sell/possession aspect? (I’m just curious on that, I genuinely don’t know the answer.) NJSA: 2C:35-10(b). "b. Any person who uses or who is under the influence of any controlled dangerous substance, or its analog, for a purpose other than the treatment of sickness or injury as lawfully prescribed or administered by a physician is a disorderly person. (In NJ disorderly person= misdemeanor) ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/107 "2013-04-02T02:41:46Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > The drunk driver that everyone really refers to , is just a fellow citizen that falls somewhere on the bell curve of society. Most people simply do not indulge in drinking beyond a certain point due to common sense. > > Realistically most drivers will fall into moderately intoxicated at some point in their driving careers and then move on. People commute back and forth to work, getting your license pulled for a DUI is not on everyone’s to do list. > > Just how dangerous are these people when they drive, about 8 thousand of them commute every friday and saturday evening in Toronto, an equivalent city of Chicago in terms of population. Its been decades since the Driving PSA began, and my city (Etobicoke, one of six mini cities that made up Toronto, at the time) was the first to pioneer the Ride program. > > I suspect that both 43 division and the OPP highway division, would poo poo my attitude towards what should be a misdemeanor at most. But drunk drivers are not the menace they are made out to be, and I simply have no more patience for mouthing government platitudes. > > We have courts that deal with the consequences of any traffic incident, using civillians for force multipliers to the police force begets a police state and should be avoided. Reporting felony level incidents to the police , I have no problem with. > > Declan In 2010 over 10,000 people died in DWI accidents in the US. Of course it’s not a felony until someone dies so I guess you’d be ok with someone reporting that. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/108 "2013-04-02T03:03:44Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > In 2010 over 10,000 people died in DWI accidents in the US. Of course it’s not a felony until someone dies so I guess you’d be ok with someone reporting that. Well Loach, if you want to equate DWI with home invasions, bank robberies, and other felony level charges, I guess you win. I get it, you are a crusader regarding this. Do you really think I am going to try and change your mind. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/109 "2013-04-02T03:12:45Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > Well Loach, if you want to equate DWI with home invasions, bank robberies, and other felony level charges, I guess you win. > > I get it, you are a crusader regarding this. Do you really think I am going to try and change your mind. > > Declan That’s about as dumb a statement as I’ve seen around here. One does not need to be a crusader to understand that 10,000 alcohol related auto deaths is a serious issue. In contrast there were 358 murders using rifles that year. I am hardly a crusader. But I have a feeling that anyone without a totally laissez faire attitude would be a crusader in your eyes. ---
**Author:** ![snailboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/97f17d/32.png) [@snailboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snailboy)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/110 "2013-04-02T08:06:00Z")
> [@Ferret\_Herder](#): > > What, you mean like rushing home after you’ve been mixing Xanax and alcohol to slug down more beer in your driveway just because fuck cops, and not at all to attempt to fool a breathalyzer? Yeah, that totally is just asserting your rights and can’t affect anyone else! We were talking about the part about drinking beer in a parked car in one’s driveway, not driving around in public high on benzos. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > So it’s a constitutional violation to prohibit the ingestion of heroin in your own home? > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > In his defense he did say “in a free country it’s a fundamental right”, you can believe something to be a fundamental right in a free country but it not be viewed as a _constitutional_ violation to inhibit that right. Exactly. I’m not talking about what’s legal or constitutional. It’s simply a freedom you don’t have. And for a country that brags so much about freedom, there are a lot of freedoms that we don’t have. But since you brought up the constitutionality of doing heroin, the country made it a federal crime based on the interstate commercial law which says the federal government can regulate items transported across state lines. The Supreme Court upheld it based on the idea that it’s possible to transport drugs across state lines even if you don’t. I think you can see why a lot of people would disagree with this interpretation which hardly limits the federal government’s power at all. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/111 "2013-04-02T08:15:21Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > Just something I find kinda stasi about it. Cops pull over a dui, fine. Your fellow citizens pulling shit like this, no. A police state is when the police compel citizens to give them information. When citizens see somebody committing a crime and call the police, that’s just the way it’s supposed to work. Seeing a drunk driver on the road is no different than seeing somebody breaking into a house - it’s a crime in progress. ---
**Author:** ![snailboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/97f17d/32.png) [@snailboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snailboy)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/112 "2013-04-02T08:26:37Z")
I completely missed this last page. > [@Loach](#): > > In 2010 over 10,000 people died in DWI accidents in the US. Not that I approve of drunk driving, but this number is meaningless by itself. If there were a total of 500,000 traffic fatalities and 1/30 drivers were drunk, I’d say it’s time we start encouraging people to drive drunk. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/113 "2013-04-02T09:01:52Z")
There’s been a [bit over 30,000 traffic fatalities](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year)per year for the last few years in the US. So unless you are suggesting more than about 1 in 3 people are driving drunk, I don’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/114 "2013-04-02T10:19:42Z")
> [@snailboy](#): > > We were talking about the part about drinking beer in a parked car in one’s driveway, not driving around in public high on benzos. Considering that our OP admitted to doing the latter and then followed it up with the former, it’s hardly a mental leap to note that one might be slamming beer in one’s driveway either as a way to throw off impending DUI testing or, in some cases, right before driving off. Hence in many jurisdictions, drinking in one’s motor vehicle is indeed prohibited - not to mention simply sitting in it without drinking but while impaired - and one is not covered by the childhood defense of being “safe at home base.” ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/115 "2013-04-02T11:36:34Z")
Alcohol has always been a significant contributor to total traffic fatalities. NHTSA doesn’t call them “alcohol-caused” because I don’t think they’re making claims about the core cause of the accident, but “alcohol-related” which means one or more of the drivers involved in a traffic fatality had alcohol in their system at the time of the crash. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/116 "2013-04-02T11:46:53Z")
> [@snailboy](#): > > Exactly. I’m not talking about what’s legal or constitutional. It’s simply a freedom you don’t have. And for a country that brags so much about freedom, there are a lot of freedoms that we don’t have. As with any personal freedom, your right to do something is balanced against the harm it does to others or society. If driving drunk was guaranteed to only potentially harm yourself and your liver I’d say go have fun, but that is not the case. So its true, you do not have the freedom to do anything at all. That is called anarchy. Unless you are a Somalian warlord anarchy sucks as a system of government. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/117 "2013-04-02T11:59:42Z")
> [@Ferret\_Herder](#): > > Considering that our OP admitted to doing the latter and then followed it up with the former, it’s hardly a mental leap to note that one might be slamming beer in one’s driveway either as a way to throw off impending DUI testing or, in some cases, right before driving off. Hence in many jurisdictions, drinking in one’s motor vehicle is indeed prohibited - not to mention simply sitting in it without drinking but while impaired - and one is not covered by the childhood defense of being “safe at home base.” It doesn’t take a degree in reading between the lines to see that the OP was not telling the whole story. Cops are not searching random driveways in the hopes of finding someone drinking beer in their car. If the OP was telling the truth at all, the cops were looking for him, he ran, they caught up after he quickly slammed about 2 beers (its always just two). This is not a case of Big Brother invading anyone’s privacy. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Alcohol has always been a significant contributor to total traffic fatalities. NHTSA doesn’t call them “alcohol-caused” because I don’t think they’re making claims about the core cause of the accident, but “alcohol-related” which means one or more of the drivers involved in a traffic fatality had alcohol in their system at the time of the crash. A couple of factors at work here. For one, in order for NHTSA to tell if alcohol was the cause they would have to read every single accident report. Instead they compile data from the reports in which alcohol was marked as being a contributing factor. That way it is possible to just compile raw numbers. On the accident reports from states I have seen, they don’t have anything that says “cause” just contributing factors. There can be multiple contributing factors. Sometimes there is only one. But in order for alcohol to be mentioned as a contributing factor there had to have been a reason for it to have been measured. Someone having a beer a lunch would not show up in the statistics. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/118 "2013-04-02T12:58:25Z")
> [@snailboy](#): > > But since you brought up the constitutionality of doing heroin, the country made it a federal crime based on the interstate commercial law which says the federal government can regulate items transported across state lines. The Supreme Court upheld it based on the idea that it’s possible to transport drugs across state lines even if you don’t. I think you can see why a lot of people would disagree with this interpretation which hardly limits the federal government’s power at all. And the laws on the books of every state that _also_ criminalize heroin are unconstitutional because…? ---
**Author:** ![snailboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/97f17d/32.png) [@snailboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snailboy)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/119 "2013-04-02T16:53:13Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > As with any personal freedom, your right to do something is balanced against the harm it does to others or society. If driving drunk was guaranteed to only potentially harm yourself and your liver I’d say go have fun, but that is not the case. So its true, you do not have the freedom to do anything at all. That is called anarchy. Unless you are a Somalian warlord anarchy sucks as a system of government. Driving while drunk is being reckless with the lives of others on the road. Sitting in a parked car drinking hurts no one. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > And the laws on the books of every state that _also_ criminalize heroin are unconstitutional because…? They’re not, but it was a federal crime before all of the states made it a crime. Marijuana on the other hand is turning into a battle for states’ rights. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160/120 "2013-04-02T16:59:05Z")
You already said it wasn’t important whether it was constitutional. It was important that it was a fundamental freedom. If that’s the case, it hardly matters which sovereign is impinging on it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-legal/654160.md?page=7)