# New Mexico: Drunk until proven innocent. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 18, 2004, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mexico-drunk-until-proven-innocent/229818 "2004-02-18T17:24:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mexico-drunk-until-proven-innocent/229818/21 "2004-02-19T18:23:45Z")
> [@](#): > > I recall (no cite) that under U.S. motor vehicle laws, states cannot impose non-uinform requiements on cars sold. I believe that there is an exception that states can require for “California emissions” packages, but no other requirements are permitted. Perhaps. But states can have varying standards on what’s required to _register and license_ a motor vehicle, can they not? Some jurisdictions, even within a _single_ state require emissions tests which other areas do not. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mexico-drunk-until-proven-innocent/229818/22 "2004-02-20T11:22:30Z")
I don’t see any difference in law between this proposal and consumer protection laws that require that equipment like lawn mowers or snow blowers have “dead man’s” handles - i.e. - the machinery will only operate so long as the operator keeps the handle closed. The moment the operator lets go, the engine cuts out. You may not agree that the legislature should pass such a law, but how is it unconstitutional? You’re not facing any charges, no evidence is gathered to be used against you - you just have to meet the statutory requirement of sobriety to operate the motor vehicle. ---
**Author:** ![Erasticity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3e96dc/32.png) [@Erasticity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erasticity)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2004, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mexico-drunk-until-proven-innocent/229818/23 "2004-02-20T11:56:34Z")
This entire discussion reminds me of my Army time; before any convoy drive, the commander of my unit required every driver and Vehicle commander (the passenger in the front seat) to pass a Breathalizer (i.e. 0% Alchohol). The guy giving the test would stand in front of the formation and shout out that everyone would get BLOWN before they could drive… ---
**Author:** ![Carl\_in\_NM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8baadc/32.png) [@Carl\_in\_NM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carl_in_NM)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2004, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mexico-drunk-until-proven-innocent/229818/24 "2004-02-21T03:48:47Z")
Thats just about par for the NM legislature, though. They continually pass useless legislation but do nothing to address the root of the problem. WeirdDave is absolutely correct in his statement that businesses that might consider coming into the state will look elsewhere rather than absorb this additonal cost of doing business here. The economy will suffer further in that when people are looking to purchase a new car it’ll be very attractive to drive across the state line into Texas, Arizona or Colorado to spend our money and pay the sales tax there rather than submit to this nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2004, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mexico-drunk-until-proven-innocent/229818/25 "2004-02-21T04:33:08Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Still, let’s all please remember: driving is a privilege, not a right. The state could outlaw automobiles entirely, should it choose to. That’s what all the courts say, and so that’s the law but that’s just semantics. If they call it a privilege they can screw around with it all they want; if they call it a right they have to have a rational basis to screw around with it, so they call it a privilege so they can screw around with it all they want without espousing a rational basis. I’m not on on the US Supreme Court or any state supreme court, but to me using machinery, even a car, is a right, not a privilege. My opinion and whatever the coffee shop currently charges for a cup of coffee will get you a cup of coffee. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2004, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mexico-drunk-until-proven-innocent/229818/26 "2004-02-21T05:10:19Z")
I’ve often wondered why they don’t try to put a device into cars that is like a card reader–something that requires a valid driver’s license for the car to run. Then threats to take away a DUI’s license might actually mean something. (And it would mean I’d actually have to get my license renewed on time for once.) Just as there are people who will buy alcohol and cigs for minors, there are people who would breathe into a tube for someone. But give them your driver’s license? Not as likely. Julie [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mexico-drunk-until-proven-innocent/229818.md?page=1)