NationStates Jolt Archive

I have to say, I just don't understand this ruling. I get the feeling that there's more to this story that the reporter hasn't gotten across. Clicky (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/AR2005081102079_pf.html)

In a decision that could prompt similar challenges nationwide, Judge Ian M. O'Flaherty cited a decades-old U.S. Supreme Court ruling when in the past month he dismissed charges against three alleged drunk drivers.

O'Flaherty, one of 10 judges who presides over traffic cases in Fairfax County District Court, ruled that Virginia's law is unconstitutional because it presumes an individual with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or higher is intoxicated and denies a defendant's right to the presumption of innocence.
O'Flaherty's argument seems to be that a BA test isn't enough, basically because the law is worded in such a way as to make a presumption of guilt of your BA level is over a certain percentage, in this case 0.08.

In part, this makes sense, because, as the article points out, a lot of stuff can affect a BA test--the body's metabolism and how long after the last drink was consumed are two variables. In short, they're arguing that since a BA test isn't administered at the scene, when the driver is stopped, there's a chance that the BA test results are faulty.

That makes sense to me, I suppose, but the flipside is that I wouldn't want a cop drawing blood from me on the side of the road, should I get pulled over.

I really don't know what to make of this decision. Any ideas?

I have to say, I just don't understand this ruling. I get the feeling that there's more to this story that the reporter hasn't gotten across. Clicky (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/AR2005081102079_pf.html)


O'Flaherty's argument seems to be that a BA test isn't enough, basically because the law is worded in such a way as to make a presumption of guilt of your BA level is over a certain percentage, in this case 0.08.

In part, this makes sense, because, as the article points out, a lot of stuff can affect a BA test--the body's metabolism and how long after the last drink was consumed are two variables. In short, they're arguing that since a BA test isn't administered at the scene, when the driver is stopped, there's a chance that the BA test results are faulty.

That makes sense to me, I suppose, but the flipside is that I wouldn't want a cop drawing blood from me on the side of the road, should I get pulled over.

I really don't know what to make of this decision. Any ideas?

It's obvious. Because of our President, our government is approaching a more alcohol-friendly balance point. Finally, he is having an effect I can appreciate. :p

I get the feeling this thread will be a touch neglected in favor of the "Feminists suck" thread.

Since it's only effecting Virgina right now, we'll have to see how it works its way through the system.

However, I would assume it would be overturned as you can always challenge the tests results in court, I mean, you still have a trial to go thought and the test is submited as evidence. It's just that most judges would be inclined to accept the test as valid or close to.

Since it's only effecting Virgina right now, we'll have to see how it works its way through the system.

However, I would assume it would be overturned as you can always challenge the tests results in court, I mean, you still have a trial to go thought and the test is submited as evidence. It's just that most judges would be inclined to accept the test as valid or close to.
I really doubt it will stand up, because it would throw so much into chaos, but the legal reasoning behind the decision is, to say the least, interesting.

Don't drink and drive! The slogan is to the point. So what your BA actually is shouldn't matter since it should be 0. Other peoples safety is at risk. Besides the cops use other meathods right? The walking in a straight line and saying the alphabet backwards? The analyzer isn't all they use.

Don't drink and drive! The slogan is to the point. So what your BA actually is shouldn't matter since it should be 0. Other peoples safety is at risk. Besides the cops use other meathods right? The walking in a straight line and saying the alphabet backwards? The analyzer isn't all they use.It's not that simple--I mean the testing part. The not drinking and driving part is pretty simple.

The other methods the cops use are far less accurate--that's why there's been such focus on the BA test. It gives a very accurate reading of how much alcohol is in the bloodstream at the time the test is given. The problem comes in when there's a delay between the traffic stop and the administration of the test.

Don't drink and drive! The slogan is to the point. So what your BA actually is shouldn't matter since it should be 0. Other peoples safety is at risk. Besides the cops use other meathods right? The walking in a straight line and saying the alphabet backwards? The analyzer isn't all they use.

I bet I know at least a few people who could pass both those tests at .08, and I probably couldn't recite the alphabet backwards if I were cold sober.

It's not that simple--I mean the testing part. The not drinking and driving part is pretty simple.

The other methods the cops use are far less accurate--that's why there's been such focus on the BA test. It gives a very accurate reading of how much alcohol is in the bloodstream at the time the test is given. The problem comes in when there's a delay between the traffic stop and the administration of the test.
I believe the point is that the alcohol level of the blood tends to go down, not up, as time passes...

I believe the point is that the alcohol level of the blood tends to go down, not up, as time passes...
You would think that, but apparently, that's not always the case. For instance, if you caned a beer, got in your car and got pulled over five minutes later, the alcohol from your beer won't have hit your bloodstream yet, so theoretically, when you were driving, you weren't legally intoxicated, but by the time you got to the police station to take the BA test, say, an hour later, your BA level is higher, and now you're legally drunk. If you only live ten minutes away from the bar, it seems you may have a case.

Even so... if you aren't sure whether you would pass a BA test, for whatever reason, then you shouldn't put yourself at risk to get a DUI.

If it makes it easier, don't view it as a punishment for drunkenness, view it as a punishment for stupidity. ;)

You would think that, but apparently, that's not always the case. For instance, if you caned a beer, got in your car and got pulled over five minutes later, the alcohol from your beer won't have hit your bloodstream yet, so theoretically, when you were driving, you weren't legally intoxicated, but by the time you got to the police station to take the BA test, say, an hour later, your BA level is higher, and now you're legally drunk. If you only live ten minutes away from the bar, it seems you may have a case.
True, however the point is that you shouldn't be on the road if you even have the possibility of being impared. Driving isn't a right, you know, and you waive most of your rights to have that fudge factor when you get your license.

Alone a blood-alchol test may not be the final word on the matter, but combined with a field sobriety test, it should be just fine. The breathalizer can be done while you are still in your car and just takes a moment. If you fail the breathalizer, fail the field sobriety test, are taken down to the station and fail your either a urine test or blood test, combined with the observations of an expert witness (the cop who stopped you), thats certainly proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Alone a blood-alchol test may not be the final word on the matter, but combined with a field sobriety test, it should be just fine. The breathalizer can be done while you are still in your car and just takes a moment. If you fail the breathalizer, fail the field sobriety test, are taken down to the station and fail your either a urine test or blood test, combined with the observations of an expert witness (the cop who stopped you), thats certainly proof beyond a reasonable doubt.I think that's the ruling the judge made--that the state law, because it made the presumption that a .08 BA was drunk, was unconstitutional because it didn't provide proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Like I said, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

I think that's the ruling the judge made--that the state law, because it made the presumption that a .08 BA was drunk, was unconstitutional because it didn't provide proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Like I said, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
I don't think it will. He's pretty much alone in these views, and since they can't appeal a district judge's ruling, I doubt that it will ever be decided upon at the higher appeals courts unless some brave circuit court judge throws his hat into the ring.

Well, apparently, when this decision came back, the prosecutor, who had two other open cases before the judge, decided to try them before a circuit court judge, I guess to get some clarification on the matter.

It's obvious. Because of our President, our government is approaching a more alcohol-friendly balance point. Finally, he is having an effect I can appreciate. :p
You want more impaired drivers on the roadways?

Well, apparently, when this decision came back, the prosecutor, who had two other open cases before the judge, decided to try them before a circuit court judge, I guess to get some clarification on the matter.
Nah, they just don't want to lose the cases. The government can venue shop just as well as any other lawyer.