I love that song that his wife Janis Joplin wrote when he wouldn’t give her a new car.
No, it doesn’t show “the exact opposite.” Read the opinion more carefully. The Mitchell case is specifically and pointedly an application of the exigent circumstances exception. That exception applies when you have probable cause to obtain a warrant but no time to do so. Alito’s conclusion:
“Probable cause” is a legal standard, and it is MUCH MUCH higher than “I wonder if he might have been drunk.” SCOTUS’s definition from Brinegar v United States:
The upshot of Mitchell is not that highway safety is so vital to public interest that drivers forfeit basic privacy protection, but that when officers already have grounds sufficient to believe that the driver is drunk, then they can proceed with a warrantless search to prevent other evidence from being spoiled. In order for implied consent to apply, the cops must have some pre-existing evidence: the smell of booze, or open containers, or something. In Mitchell’s case, they had a third-party report he was drunk, they found him stumbling around slurring his speech, he could barely stand upright without assistance, and a preliminary breath test showed three times the legal limit. I don’t think there is a court in this country that would dispute those facts add up to probable cause to think he was drunk. What’s the analogous evidence in Tiger Woods’s current accident that you think adds up to probable cause?
I’m saying two different things and you may be conflating the two. I’m not trying to claim that the Supreme Court (the US Supreme Court, that is) fully supports my views on this. But I have had arguments with people who were literally absolutists in matters like the interpretation of the First and Second Amendments, and now it seems some have that same sort of view of the Fourth. The first thing I’m saying is that your statement that such absolutists sit on the Supreme Court is demonstrably false, since for instance there is no absolute free speech protection against defamation nor against speech that incites public violence or disorder or other forms of public endangerment.
Nor, as we see here, is there absolute protection against search and seizure where a compelling public interest is at stake. There is no Constitutional absolutism, even in the US, which of all countries comes closest to it in theory (de jure) yet is often the farthest from it among modern democracies de facto (as in, the many injustices that have been perpetrated through the years against the most vulnerable).
The second thing I’m saying is that given the subjective nature of the many exceptions that can be made to constitutional protections, my own opinion – borne out by actual practice in many other democracies – is that the privilege of operating a motor vehicle and the concomitant obligation that it implies for doing so responsibly, justifies the forfeiture of certain privacy protections while doing so. You are correct that this is not the case in the US to nearly the extent that (in my opinion) it should be. This is not something to celebrate.
I’m not making a legal argument that such evidence exists in the present state of law. But the logical answer, and the argument for why the present state of law is deficient, is that the evidence is that he caused a very serious accident that could have claimed many lives, that could have wiped out an entire family in a car coming the other way, as indeed many such accidents have – or worse. In the absence of clear evidence that he was not at fault (say, evidence of major and unpredictable mechanical failure) then the necessary investigation – and I hope you agree that an investigation is necessary – must focus on the driver, and the possibility of impairment.
Those who are not comfortable with the possibility of such an investigation always have the option to not put themselves in control of a motor vehicle. And especially not involving themselves in single-car accidents in which there is no apparent factor to blame other than themselves.
Thing is, if you couldn’t come to stop,or at least vastly reduce your speed in the distance between you and the dog then you were going too fast. And yes that would be reckless.
If it ran out in front of you without warning that is a different matter but if it was in the road and the point at which you saw it gave you no chance to reduce your speed…you were either not paying enough attention or were going too fast.
The one thing that was drummed in to me when I was learning to drive was to always drive at a speed that allowed you to stop in time should you come round a corner and see something stopped in the road.
From how you describe it you had already taken that turn recklessly twenty times before and your luck ran out.
[Moderating]
That’ll be an official Warning for personal attacks, @Grrr . If you have an issue with a poster, take it to the Pit.
No, Ben Franklin was the inventor of the jacked-up pickup truck. He also invented three of its essential accessories: the tin-can muffler, the rear-window rifle rack, and the two-quart flask of bourbon.
Sounds pretty fast. I can probably count the times I’ve driven over 80 mph on one hand, and that includes highway driving for 40+ years.
I thought Jim Beam invented all things bourbon related.
No, Jim Beam invented the transporter.
Definitely depends on where you live. Around here, 80 on the freeway will get you rear-ended.
I got a speeding ticket (not my first and not my last) when I was a lead-footed twenty-something. The ticket included a reckless driving element simply based on the number of mph over the speed limit I was driving – nothing else.
Try going under 80 on I5 in the Central Valley. An eighteen-wheeler will crush you like a bug . Metaphorically speaking.
Damn. However you slice it, these accidents are about the worst thing that could happen to him. See, basically there are three ways for a jock to get talked about in glowing terms for decades and decades: 1. Set extraordinary records, 2. become a master at manipulating the sports media, or 3. die young. Tiger has some very nice records such as all-time winnings and most consecutive weeks ranked #1, but they’re not the kind that get him hordes of slavering fanatics droning “greatest of all time” endlessly and, more importantly, induce the wholesale supercharged burial of all his rivals by the pundits. (Ever notice that Phil Mickelson is, like, really popular now?) And #2 was never going to happen, not with his marital woes and on-camera blowups and coaching tiffs and generally icy personality. Which leaves #3, which has since been resoundingly put to bed by his Wolverine/Jason Voorhees-esque regenerative ability. The problem is that in sports, whatever doesn’t kill you most definitely does not make you stronger, and now that age has caught up to him as well, he’s going to feel the cumulative effects of all those aches even more now.
It’s been a slow, agonizing decline these past few years, and putting a few more ounces on that boulder is only going to make him even harder to watch. He’s almost certainly reached the point in his career where simply making the cut can be considered a victory.
THAT SAID!! I absolutely, categorically, emphatically refuse to declare the majors record out of reach until he goes five seasons without winning the Masters. That, and ONLY that, is the final straw. Short of death. Which still looks unlikely.
Personally, I think Mr. Woods needs to look for an occupation outside of “professional athlete golfer”. It could still be connected to golfing, but the man is too beat up, and getting older, and this accident is not going to help.
But that’s not opinion and it doesn’t matter - he’s gonna do what he wants to do, or try to do it.
Last I heard the authorities were looking into “reckless driving”. Which one can do cold sober. Meanwhile, as one human being to another, I wish Mr. Woods a successful and medically uneventful recovery from his injuries.
“Tiger Woods said he has returned to his South Florida home to continue recovery from the serious leg injuries he suffered in a one-vehicle crash in Southern California on Feb. 23.”
No comment on whether or not he plans to return to golfing.
his bones have barely started knitting. i would think right now he isn’t weight bearing.
From what I heard on the news today the man has to concentrate on just plain old walking first. Then he can worry about whether or not golf will be in his future.
Recent news reports that after examining the car’s “black box”, police have identified the cause of the crash. However, they are not announcing those results.
I found this a very curious pronouncement. Leaving aside the very considerable question as to whether or not Tiger received preferential treatment by not being tested for drugs/alcohol, for the cops to say they “know” what caused the crash suggests to me that it was likely mechanical failure of the vehicle. They don’t clearly say the results were established by the black box, but I’m not sure what other evidence they have. And they do not mention filing any charges against Tiger - or even writing him a ticket.
I don’t know what other cause they would have sufficient info to claim knowledge of.
-If he was speeding - the black box would show that but, well, people speed all the time and don’t crash.
-If they did not test his blood and Tiger did not cooperate, they would not be able to tell if he was under the influence of painkillers.
-I don’t know how the black box could tell if he was distracted - perhaps by his phone, or sleepy - perhaps due to meds. Or in general distracted/in a hurry/not paying attention.
-Phone records might show if he was texting, but again, folk text and drive all the time w/o driving off the road.
I would think that police would be cautious about saying they knew what caused a crash. They might know various factors that CONTRIBUTED to the crash, but unless it is something like brakes or steering failing, it is hard to imagine a single clear cause being unquestionably established.
Am I entirely off base here?
IF it was vehicle failure, I can only imagine the number of zeros in any settlement.
The box might indicate brake failure, that’d do it.
I suspect you’re reading a bit too much into it. Cops are always a bit too bold when assigning a “cause” of an accident. In 99% of cases the cause resolves down to “driver error” and “speed”. Which, as anyone who drives knows, is such an oversimplification that it’s insulting.
If he was speeding, and it’s almost certain that he was, that will be determined as a cause in the police lingo even if in reality it’s a contributing factor at best. Also if he was distracted, and this is becoming almost as common as speeding, it too would the the cause. He could have been texting (bad), he could have been talking on a handsfree (not great but better) or he could have been fiddling with the radio, climate controls or nav system (happens to pretty much everyone at some point). In any case it’s going to be attributed as a cause, even if the reality in this case is that it was completely incidental.
The Hyundai GV80, which almost certainly was loaded in Tiger’s case, has advanced technology including cameras and radar which would probably record everything from driver attentiveness to surrounding traffic and road conditions. It’s got soft autonomous features for lane keeping, emergency braking and collision avoidance. Any of which could indicate that something was happening inside or outside of the car that impacted this. We can’t completely rule out that the police are in contact with Hyundai’s lawyers in addition to Tiger’s and they might have a business reason for wanting to restrict the details from being released.
I suspect that these features could be used to prove that Tiger was unconscious or physically impaired prior to the crash, maybe due to a heart problem or seizure, or maybe asleep. If any of these are true then withholding the info could fit with the HIPAA protections. I think assuming he’s guilty of drug use continues to be completely improper in this situation.
But if they suspected speeding or other driver error as the “cause”, then wouldn’t they at least cite him?