As anyone sees when opening a legal thread laws vary greatly from state to state. In NJ the implied consent law only covers breath samples, not blood. Consent must be given or a court order must be obtained. In PA (if my cop friends were correct) they don’t do breath tests, implied consent is for blood and you are getting stuck if you are arrested for DWI. I don’t know what the Colorado law is.
To bring it back to the OP, for DWI there usually isn’t any interogation done to the subject after arrest. Miranda does not have to be given before sobreity tests. After the arrest and before the breath sample is taken the Miranda warnings are read. Then a page long is read stating the implied consent laws and how they are not covered under Miranda (such as you don’t have the right to wait for a lawyer to be present before giving a sample). These forms are read to the subject in English. The courts have upheld that no attempt needs to be made to read the warnings in the language of the subject.
Since Briker isn’t here, allow me to say, Cite? Can you link to the state law that you are describing and does it really contain teh phrase “for the public safety”? Even if the phrase is there is doesn’t really bolster your point. The wording of one law, assuming it contains those words, doesn’t mean it a recognized piece of lawyer jargon.
Notwithstanding whether Virginia has such a law, Nevada has a “stop and identify” statute which SCOTUS has upheld as constitutional. Other states may as well.
Of course. No one is disputing that. I am merely questioning the talismanic use of “for the public safety” as though it has some special meaning when analyzing a Terry stop.
{And, of course, now I’m questioning the specific claim about criminal law in the one state I happen to know pretty damn well).
Let me cut to the chase. Shockingly, Will Repair has posted inaccurate information in a GQ thread, an event of truly unprecedented quality and character.
There is no technically about it. It is probable cause for a motor vehicle stop since all states have statutes governing use of safe equipment on the roadway. However that has nothing to do with Terry. To tie it into Terry it may go something like this: “I observed a blue pinto travelling south on RT 66 with a cracked winshield. I initiated a motor vehilce stop. As I spoke to the driver he was visibly nervous. The driver’s continuously darted around as if to look for an escape route. The driver bladed his body towards me in an offensive posture. The driver’s hand kept reaching up towards his waist even after repeated requests to keep his hands down and visible. I patted down the driver for my protection and found a hangun tucked into his pants.” Probable cause for the stop. Articulable suspicion for the pat down.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The terms that you are throwing around have very specific meanings that you seem to not care about. This may not be the forum for you.
I’ll let other’s handle your behavior. As for the rest you have done a great job of showing your ignorance. Of course I made the example very generic but it is based on reality. I have no need to make things up either here or at work since reality keeps me busy enough. I gave you no reason to make insults or question my character.
