The fact they were in an accident. Congratulations to the Supreme Court for putting the rights of drunk drivers above the rights of those in their path.
As noted above, something on the order of seven percent of accidents in the US involved alcohol in some form or fashion. That means the overwhelming majority did not. Do the drivers who were NOT boozing and still got in an accident have or deserve rights?
I will also inquire, just in passing: if the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to people who meet some definition of “bad guy,” who exactly does it apply to?
Of course they do. How does insisting they provide a breath sample, which will immediately come back clear and exonerate them in this regard, infringe their rights?
As I noted previously, “rights” can and should be dramatically different for someone in control of a motor vehicle than someone who is not. It’s a matter of common sense and public safety, and those who cannot see this are themselves impediments to public safety, as well-intentioned as they may be. Those advocates of unconstrained free-dumb who pretend to be shocked at restrictions on drivers might be even more shocked at the equally justifiable and much greater restrictions on pilot licenses. There’s a damn good reason for all of those restrictions on freedoms when you are granted certain privileges. You always have the option of not applying for those privileges if you don’t like the conditions.
Also, your “seven percent” statistics seemed questionable at first sight, and indeed they’re completely wrong: “in 2016, 10,497 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for 28% of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.”
A roadside breath sample is almost always useless for evidentiary purposes: the portable units rarely have the accuracy, calibration, and skilled operator necessary to be admissible in court. (Hyperventilation, for example, can affect the results; do you think somebody who has just been in an accident might be breathing too fast? Blood or vomit in the mouth can affect the results; so can spilled gasoline in the immediate vicinity.) The breath test that can be used in court is a large unit with a trained technician, typically located at the police station. However, telling the ambulance, “go by the cop shop first so we can run a breath test, then take 'em to the ER” is perhaps not the best course of action.
Okay, then get the US Constitution amended so that the Fourth Amendment reads something more like “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, unless you’re doing something that affects public safety in which case all bets are off.”
“Traffic-related deaths” != “all traffic accidents.” The source I cited above says that “NHTSA estimates that alcohol was involved in 39 percent of fatal crashes and in 7 percent of all crashes in 2005.” This wasn’t a fatal crash, was it?
I know that; what the roadside breath test can do is eliminate suspicion, if negative. If positive, then an evidential test should be obtained if possible; I am not advocating that taking priority over urgent medical care though. I believe in most cases it will be possible to both obtain evidence and provide good care.
Why alter it at all? Is not “unreasonable” a pretty malleable concept? is the word itself not used to allow for interpretation?
If you are voluntarily in charge of a vehicle with the potential to cause substantial injury and damage then “reasonable” to me certainly seems to include circumstances with unexplained crashes with high levels of public endangerment.
I’m more curious what his cellphone would say about usage at the time. Admittedly, no facts currently, but I’d probably wager that he was “distracted”.
Also, the paper this morning said he broke his leg in many places. I thought all of the injuries occurred by the side of the road in LA… 
Read the list of his past surgeries to his back and knee. Boy, it is a testament to modern medicine - as well as to his personal fortitude - that the dude can even walk normally, let alone try to compete at the highest level.
No, it cannot eliminate suspicion, because the errors can be in either direction. For example, hyperventilating (say, because you were just in a high-stress accident) can LOWER your tested alcohol level; you might “eliminate suspicion” from somebody for whom maybe you shouldn’t. Portable breath alcohol testers are designed and calibrated for somebody who is breathing normally; they will not yield accurate results for somebody breathing too fast, too slow, or in any manner impaired. If their breathing is off, however, that’s when medical care needs to take priority.
Supreme Court says no. The basic rule they have articulated is “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment – subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.”–Katz v United States (1967) [footnotes omitted] “We think you’re doing something very dangerous” has never been established as an exception to that rule.
If you think it should be, argue away. However, carefully consider that you are essentially opening up search and seizure to police discretion as to what constitutes “reasonable.” For example, would speeding way in excess of the speed limit constitute such potential for substantial injury and damage? How about handling a gun?
He’s obviously a better putter than he is a driver.
Tiger is teed off, doesn’t select the proper driver, ends up in the rough and most likely finds himself with a larger handicap.
(Too soon?)
Nah, it was all good.
Humor aside. I hope he heals.
Yeah me too, everything aside I know he’s going to have some pain and struggle ahead of him and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
There might be one or two famous people (smirk, smirk) that I might wish something like this on, but darn few and he sure isn’t one of them. He brought a lot of enjoyment to people who enjoyed following golf and I hope he can do that again. We all need as much relaxation and enjoyment as we can get-besides, I know at least one cat who loves to spend the time when his owner is away watching golf on TV-his furry little head swivels watching the swing of the club and everything.
Not me. I hope he never steps foot on a golf course again. But I’m in the minority.
He has always been the beneficiary of black privilege-jock division. Even in this…getting away with two previous automobile accidents with chemicals involved, having the media fawn over him while criticizing other golfers for doing the same things like temper tantrums on the course, bending rules on amateur play, support from the odious company Nike (naturally). Does commercials saying there were places where he couldn’t play…really Tiger-where? I suppose it is a shame what happened to him but there aren’t even any skid marks…guy worth hundreds of millions can’t afford a driver and leaves his previous place in a hurry…grow up. Roads aren’t video games or bumper cars at amusement parks. At least no innocent people in other cars or pedestrians/bicyclists were hurt.
Yes and Yes.
What are the circumstances for the exceptions?
Conduct while driving seems like a fair exception to me.
I agree. My point really was not so much about alcohol testing as about the fact that there are responsibilities and reasonable limitations on rights when in control of a motor vehicle. The fact that there are some here who argue an absolutist view of Constitutional rights just means that it’s pointless to engage with them any further. To the best of my knowledge when the Fourth Amendment was written in 1789 the fastest and most dangerous vehicle you could drive was a horse. (And horses, even without human guidance, seem to have more sense than many of today’s drivers.)