Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
ben
()
Date: August 04, 2005 06:02PM
That's what at least one Fairfax County Traffic Judge seems to think.
I was in traffic court supporting one of my friends today (that's moral support, thank god I wasn't in the car with him) and Judge O-Reilly (I think) has been ruling that the DWI/DUI statute is unconstitutional, based on the burden of proof.
Basically (and from what I understand) the judge has ruled this way because he believes that simply blowing a BAC of .08+ does not prove that an individual was in fact intoxicated.
Of course the prosecutor wasn't having any of this and was attempting to venue shop herself to a different judge so she could get more convictions for her record..
Score one for civil liberties!
I was in traffic court supporting one of my friends today (that's moral support, thank god I wasn't in the car with him) and Judge O-Reilly (I think) has been ruling that the DWI/DUI statute is unconstitutional, based on the burden of proof.
Basically (and from what I understand) the judge has ruled this way because he believes that simply blowing a BAC of .08+ does not prove that an individual was in fact intoxicated.
Of course the prosecutor wasn't having any of this and was attempting to venue shop herself to a different judge so she could get more convictions for her record..
Score one for civil liberties!
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
soccerguy315
()
Date: August 04, 2005 11:58PM
this judge is an idiot.
No sympathy for people who get behind the wheel after drinking.
No sympathy for people who get behind the wheel after drinking.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
ben
()
Date: August 05, 2005 12:09AM
soccerguy315 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> this judge is an idiot.
>
> No sympathy for people who get behind the wheel
> after drinking.
This judge is an idiot for realizing that having a BAC of .08 is a good starting point, but an altogether meaningless measure when you're talking about individuals? And he's an idiot for wanting the commonwealth to have some actual PROOF of intoxication?
-------------------------------------------------------
> this judge is an idiot.
>
> No sympathy for people who get behind the wheel
> after drinking.
This judge is an idiot for realizing that having a BAC of .08 is a good starting point, but an altogether meaningless measure when you're talking about individuals? And he's an idiot for wanting the commonwealth to have some actual PROOF of intoxication?
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
SRE
()
Date: August 05, 2005 08:04AM
BAC of 0.08 is a valid starting point for the typical person. Until there is a program (Designated Drinkers against Mothers for example) where an individual can be "tested" to determine just how high of a BAC (or how manu Jager Bombs) they can still "safely" operate a vehicle, we will be stuck with this threshold.
The commonwealth still has the burden of proof. The operator having a BAC of 0.08 is not enough in today's legal system. The officer needs valid cause for the stop. This may not sound like much, as *most* of us have had an encounter with the police over very minor things, but a good defense can address such issues. I was not in court for this case, and do not know the evidence or the circumstances, but from what little I know of it, I am pleased the the Judge is making the commonwealth address all aspects of these cases, not just that the operator was 0.08!
www.ddam.org
The commonwealth still has the burden of proof. The operator having a BAC of 0.08 is not enough in today's legal system. The officer needs valid cause for the stop. This may not sound like much, as *most* of us have had an encounter with the police over very minor things, but a good defense can address such issues. I was not in court for this case, and do not know the evidence or the circumstances, but from what little I know of it, I am pleased the the Judge is making the commonwealth address all aspects of these cases, not just that the operator was 0.08!
www.ddam.org
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
asnpcwiz
()
Date: August 05, 2005 09:13AM
Ben, no offense to your friend or you, but the judge is an idiot and so is your friend. First of all, anyone who has alcohol in his/her body shouldn't be driving. And by all means, if they get caught, they deserve to serve the time. I'm pretty liberal when it comes to the law but when it's something that can easily threaten all of our lives, I think judges to cut no slack. Granted some people aren't intoxicated at .08, the truth of the matter is that some are...and in a case like this, I'd rather be safe than dead.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
ben
()
Date: August 05, 2005 10:12AM
asnpcwiz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ben, no offense to your friend or you, but the
> judge is an idiot and so is your friend. First of
> all, anyone who has alcohol in his/her body
> shouldn't be driving. And by all means, if they
> get caught, they deserve to serve the time. I'm
> pretty liberal when it comes to the law but when
> it's something that can easily threaten all of our
> lives, I think judges to cut no slack. Granted
> some people aren't intoxicated at .08, the truth
> of the matter is that some are...and in a case
> like this, I'd rather be safe than dead.
Did I ever say my friend *wasn't* an idiot? Even he knows he's an idiot. The other two people that I know that have DUI arrests know they're idiots- and they're happy they got pulled over before they seriously hurt someone.
Why is the judge an idiot? Because he actually wants the state to prove that some one was intoxicated before potentially ruining their life? Not that I exactly understand all of the legal arguments, but that seemed to be the case.
If you want safety before freedom, I'd suggest you find another country amigo.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ben, no offense to your friend or you, but the
> judge is an idiot and so is your friend. First of
> all, anyone who has alcohol in his/her body
> shouldn't be driving. And by all means, if they
> get caught, they deserve to serve the time. I'm
> pretty liberal when it comes to the law but when
> it's something that can easily threaten all of our
> lives, I think judges to cut no slack. Granted
> some people aren't intoxicated at .08, the truth
> of the matter is that some are...and in a case
> like this, I'd rather be safe than dead.
Did I ever say my friend *wasn't* an idiot? Even he knows he's an idiot. The other two people that I know that have DUI arrests know they're idiots- and they're happy they got pulled over before they seriously hurt someone.
Why is the judge an idiot? Because he actually wants the state to prove that some one was intoxicated before potentially ruining their life? Not that I exactly understand all of the legal arguments, but that seemed to be the case.
If you want safety before freedom, I'd suggest you find another country amigo.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
Learn the Law
()
Date: August 05, 2005 03:37PM
Ben (and other ignorant users)
The law in Virginia makes it illegal to drive with a BAC of .08% or over. The government, therefore, can prove its case without proving actual intoxication.
As for the constitutionality of the presumptions contained in Virginia's (along with other states') DUI statutes, courts from across the country have been upholding their constitutionality for the past 50 years.
So, before guzzling some moonshine, hopping in your pickup truck and heading for the gun show, you should at the very least learn the law.
The law in Virginia makes it illegal to drive with a BAC of .08% or over. The government, therefore, can prove its case without proving actual intoxication.
As for the constitutionality of the presumptions contained in Virginia's (along with other states') DUI statutes, courts from across the country have been upholding their constitutionality for the past 50 years.
So, before guzzling some moonshine, hopping in your pickup truck and heading for the gun show, you should at the very least learn the law.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
darbrewe
()
Date: August 05, 2005 04:12PM
.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2015 02:36AM by darbrewe.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2015 02:36AM by darbrewe.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
ben
()
Date: August 05, 2005 05:05PM
Learn the Law Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ben (and other ignorant users)
>
> The law in Virginia makes it illegal to drive with
> a BAC of .08% or over. The government, therefore,
> can prove its case without proving actual
> intoxication.
>
> As for the constitutionality of the presumptions
> contained in Virginia's (along with other states')
> DUI statutes, courts from across the country have
> been upholding their constitutionality for the
> past 50 years.
>
> So, before guzzling some moonshine, hopping in
> your pickup truck and heading for the gun show,
> you should at the very least learn the law.
Apparently you missed the part where there's a judge, right now, in Fairfax County Traffic Court, dismissing DUI / DWI cases brought by the Commonwealth. This isn't a philosophical exercise where I argue why I think DUI laws are unconstitutional, it's actually happening.
Reading comprehension, people.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ben (and other ignorant users)
>
> The law in Virginia makes it illegal to drive with
> a BAC of .08% or over. The government, therefore,
> can prove its case without proving actual
> intoxication.
>
> As for the constitutionality of the presumptions
> contained in Virginia's (along with other states')
> DUI statutes, courts from across the country have
> been upholding their constitutionality for the
> past 50 years.
>
> So, before guzzling some moonshine, hopping in
> your pickup truck and heading for the gun show,
> you should at the very least learn the law.
Apparently you missed the part where there's a judge, right now, in Fairfax County Traffic Court, dismissing DUI / DWI cases brought by the Commonwealth. This isn't a philosophical exercise where I argue why I think DUI laws are unconstitutional, it's actually happening.
Reading comprehension, people.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
SWweeman
()
Date: August 08, 2005 06:50AM
Learn the Law Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ben (and other ignorant users)
>
> The law in Virginia makes it illegal to drive with
> a BAC of .08% or over. The government, therefore,
> can prove its case without proving actual
> intoxication.
>
> As for the constitutionality of the presumptions
> contained in Virginia's (along with other states')
> DUI statutes, courts from across the country have
> been upholding their constitutionality for the
> past 50 years.
>
> So, before guzzling some moonshine, hopping in
> your pickup truck and heading for the gun show,
> you should at the very least learn the law.
I think your friend got a lucky break. In VA, all you have to do is have the key in the ignition and get popped for DWI. The vehicle doesn't even have to be moving. The judges of our legal system have broad powers to interpret the law as they see fit. Normally they stay within the letter, but obviously this judge broadened the rules. That would probably explain why the prosecutor was judge shopping.
I see Ben was just trying to point out there is a judge at the courthouse who is a little different. The prosecutor, though, doesn't seek out other judges so she can have a high prosecution record. The prosecutors that work traffic court range from new to seasoned attorneys with decades of experience, so keeping statistics isn't something they do. She probably shopped judges to ensure your friend got convicted for his actions and received an appropriate punishment for a 1st time offender. I assume he was a first time offender.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ben (and other ignorant users)
>
> The law in Virginia makes it illegal to drive with
> a BAC of .08% or over. The government, therefore,
> can prove its case without proving actual
> intoxication.
>
> As for the constitutionality of the presumptions
> contained in Virginia's (along with other states')
> DUI statutes, courts from across the country have
> been upholding their constitutionality for the
> past 50 years.
>
> So, before guzzling some moonshine, hopping in
> your pickup truck and heading for the gun show,
> you should at the very least learn the law.
I think your friend got a lucky break. In VA, all you have to do is have the key in the ignition and get popped for DWI. The vehicle doesn't even have to be moving. The judges of our legal system have broad powers to interpret the law as they see fit. Normally they stay within the letter, but obviously this judge broadened the rules. That would probably explain why the prosecutor was judge shopping.
I see Ben was just trying to point out there is a judge at the courthouse who is a little different. The prosecutor, though, doesn't seek out other judges so she can have a high prosecution record. The prosecutors that work traffic court range from new to seasoned attorneys with decades of experience, so keeping statistics isn't something they do. She probably shopped judges to ensure your friend got convicted for his actions and received an appropriate punishment for a 1st time offender. I assume he was a first time offender.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
asnpcwiz
()
Date: August 08, 2005 09:38AM
ben Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Did I ever say my friend *wasn't* an idiot? Even
> he knows he's an idiot. The other two people that
> I know that have DUI arrests know they're idiots-
> and they're happy they got pulled over before they
> seriously hurt someone.
>
> Why is the judge an idiot? Because he actually
> wants the state to prove that some one was
> intoxicated before potentially ruining their life?
> Not that I exactly understand all of the legal
> arguments, but that seemed to be the case.
>
> If you want safety before freedom, I'd suggest you
> find another country amigo.
>
> adytum.net
> don,t dream
Yes your friend is an idiot and the judge is an idiot too. If the law states that a DUI is determined by blowing a .08, than that means you are Driving Under the Influence at .08...it doesn't mean you are intoxicated or drunk. It's the same thing as the law stating that 55 mph is the speed limit. It doesn't mean that 55 mph is too fast to drive, it simply states it's the speed limit. In both situations, the law sets a standard for everyone to follow. Some people may be drunk at .08, and some might not be, regardless we are all Driving Under the Influence if we blow a .08. Could you imagine if we changed the laws for everytime someone thought it was unconstitutional? For me driving 55 mph is dog slow, but for you, it might too fast for your little pea brain to handle. Regardless, the law sets the standard for us all to follow...for all of our safety.
And your whole suggestion about going to another country was definitely a dumb ass remark. I'm from Vietnam you numb nutts. You think you're not safe here...try living there. Try living in any third world country where the law cares about taking care of themselves before the people. You think they give a shit about your rights, freedom, or safety there? That's the problem with some Americans. They have it great here and don't even realize it. Try living in a world were poverty, and anarchy is a way of life and then come bitch about not being safe here.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2005 09:47AM by asnpcwiz.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Did I ever say my friend *wasn't* an idiot? Even
> he knows he's an idiot. The other two people that
> I know that have DUI arrests know they're idiots-
> and they're happy they got pulled over before they
> seriously hurt someone.
>
> Why is the judge an idiot? Because he actually
> wants the state to prove that some one was
> intoxicated before potentially ruining their life?
> Not that I exactly understand all of the legal
> arguments, but that seemed to be the case.
>
> If you want safety before freedom, I'd suggest you
> find another country amigo.
>
> adytum.net
> don,t dream
Yes your friend is an idiot and the judge is an idiot too. If the law states that a DUI is determined by blowing a .08, than that means you are Driving Under the Influence at .08...it doesn't mean you are intoxicated or drunk. It's the same thing as the law stating that 55 mph is the speed limit. It doesn't mean that 55 mph is too fast to drive, it simply states it's the speed limit. In both situations, the law sets a standard for everyone to follow. Some people may be drunk at .08, and some might not be, regardless we are all Driving Under the Influence if we blow a .08. Could you imagine if we changed the laws for everytime someone thought it was unconstitutional? For me driving 55 mph is dog slow, but for you, it might too fast for your little pea brain to handle. Regardless, the law sets the standard for us all to follow...for all of our safety.
And your whole suggestion about going to another country was definitely a dumb ass remark. I'm from Vietnam you numb nutts. You think you're not safe here...try living there. Try living in any third world country where the law cares about taking care of themselves before the people. You think they give a shit about your rights, freedom, or safety there? That's the problem with some Americans. They have it great here and don't even realize it. Try living in a world were poverty, and anarchy is a way of life and then come bitch about not being safe here.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2005 09:47AM by asnpcwiz.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
ben
()
Date: August 08, 2005 01:26PM
asnpcwiz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And your whole suggestion about going to another
> country was definitely a dumb ass remark. I'm
> from Vietnam you numb nutts. You think you're not
> safe here...try living there. Try living in any
> third world country where the law cares about
> taking care of themselves before the people. You
> think they give a shit about your rights, freedom,
> or safety there? That's the problem with some
> Americans. They have it great here and don't even
> realize it. Try living in a world were poverty,
> and anarchy is a way of life and then come bitch
> about not being safe here.
>
Way to take an extreme position. I didn't say to move somewhere where you'll get your ass shot off. Try one of the many other industrialized nanny-states in Western Europe. What you want to do is called satisficing, or taking a "good enough" solution. If you honestly think that it's a problem that "some Americans" value their freedom, then you have a very twisted sense of logic.
I would prefer to be completely free than just relatively more free than a backwards country. That's kinda the foundation of this country and the constitution that governs it. You need to brush up on the constitution and natural law if you think that just because a law is on the books it's valid and enforceable.
-------------------------------------------------------
> And your whole suggestion about going to another
> country was definitely a dumb ass remark. I'm
> from Vietnam you numb nutts. You think you're not
> safe here...try living there. Try living in any
> third world country where the law cares about
> taking care of themselves before the people. You
> think they give a shit about your rights, freedom,
> or safety there? That's the problem with some
> Americans. They have it great here and don't even
> realize it. Try living in a world were poverty,
> and anarchy is a way of life and then come bitch
> about not being safe here.
>
Way to take an extreme position. I didn't say to move somewhere where you'll get your ass shot off. Try one of the many other industrialized nanny-states in Western Europe. What you want to do is called satisficing, or taking a "good enough" solution. If you honestly think that it's a problem that "some Americans" value their freedom, then you have a very twisted sense of logic.
I would prefer to be completely free than just relatively more free than a backwards country. That's kinda the foundation of this country and the constitution that governs it. You need to brush up on the constitution and natural law if you think that just because a law is on the books it's valid and enforceable.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
Randy
()
Date: August 08, 2005 02:21PM
Here is what the Virginia Code actually says;
§ 18.2-266. Driving motor vehicle, engine, etc., while intoxicated, etc It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train (i) while such person has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more by weight by volume or 0.08 grams or more per 210 liters of breath as indicated by a chemical test administered as provided in this article, (ii) while such person is under the influence of alcohol, (iii) while such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatsoever nature, or any combination of such drugs, to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, or (iv) while such person is under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely. A charge alleging a violation of this section shall support a conviction under clauses (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv). For the purposes of this section, the term "motor vehicle" includes mopeds, while operated on the public highways of this Commonwealth. HISTORY: Code 1950, § 18.1-54; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1977, c. 637; 1984, c. 666; 1986, c. 635; 1987, c. 661; 1992, c. 830; 1994, cc. 359, 363; 1996, c. 439
Sections ii and iv seem to give some leeway to the judge if he or she decides to interpret it that way.
§ 18.2-266. Driving motor vehicle, engine, etc., while intoxicated, etc It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train (i) while such person has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more by weight by volume or 0.08 grams or more per 210 liters of breath as indicated by a chemical test administered as provided in this article, (ii) while such person is under the influence of alcohol, (iii) while such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatsoever nature, or any combination of such drugs, to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, or (iv) while such person is under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely. A charge alleging a violation of this section shall support a conviction under clauses (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv). For the purposes of this section, the term "motor vehicle" includes mopeds, while operated on the public highways of this Commonwealth. HISTORY: Code 1950, § 18.1-54; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1977, c. 637; 1984, c. 666; 1986, c. 635; 1987, c. 661; 1992, c. 830; 1994, cc. 359, 363; 1996, c. 439
Sections ii and iv seem to give some leeway to the judge if he or she decides to interpret it that way.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
SRE
()
Date: August 08, 2005 02:56PM
Randy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...It shall be unlawful for
> any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle,
> engine or train ... impairs his ability to drive or
> operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely,
> or (iv) while such person is under the combined
> influence of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a
> degree which impairs his ability to drive or
> operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely.
"The Code" tells us that a Moped is a motor vehicle, but how about a "engine"?
I have an "engine"... can I "operate" it while *trashed*?
What is the legal interpertation of an "engine", or "operate an engine"?
Come on all of your fairfaxunderground "know-it-alls"... help me out!
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...It shall be unlawful for
> any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle,
> engine or train ... impairs his ability to drive or
> operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely,
> or (iv) while such person is under the combined
> influence of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a
> degree which impairs his ability to drive or
> operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely.
"The Code" tells us that a Moped is a motor vehicle, but how about a "engine"?
I have an "engine"... can I "operate" it while *trashed*?
What is the legal interpertation of an "engine", or "operate an engine"?
Come on all of your fairfaxunderground "know-it-alls"... help me out!
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
rstidman
()
Date: August 08, 2005 02:58PM
It's a way of saying you can't operate dangerous equipment while drunk, without having to name each piece of equipment. A judge could interpret a riding mower or a boat or whatever through that, I bet.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
Randy
()
Date: August 08, 2005 03:00PM
But is it illegal to operate an outboard motor while drunk, if it is not attached to a vehicle?
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
rstidman
()
Date: August 08, 2005 03:13PM
I believe "operation" is inclusive of steering, propelling, etc.
Merely turning it on unattached, probably not.
Merely turning it on unattached, probably not.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
asnpcwiz
()
Date: August 08, 2005 03:44PM
ben Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Way to take an extreme position. I didn't say to
> move somewhere where you'll get your ass shot off.
> Try one of the many other industrialized
> nanny-states in Western Europe. What you want to
> do is called satisficing, or taking a "good
> enough" solution. If you honestly think that it's
> a problem that "some Americans" value their
> freedom, then you have a very twisted sense of
> logic.
>
> I would prefer to be completely free than just
> relatively more free than a backwards country.
> That's kinda the foundation of this country and
> the constitution that governs it. You need to
> brush up on the constitution and natural law if
> you think that just because a law is on the books
> it's valid and enforceable.
>
> adytum.net
> don,t dream
Hey, you didn't say what country, you simply said was "I suggest you find another country amigo"...so I did, the country I was from. If you meant to say "I'd suggest you find another country, comparable to the US, but not the US" then you should have said it. By the way, I'm not a law student by any means so I do not pretend to know the law. But yes, I would assume that if a law is on the books it's enforceable and valid...it may not be right...but it's still the law. But that's why we have a legal system. We are allowed to challenge laws. In this particular case, it's 100% enforceable...trust me, no police officer is going to have a hard time bringing you in for blowing a .08 if the law says it's a DUI. It's valid and enforceable. I didn't say it was the right thing...all I said was it's the law.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Way to take an extreme position. I didn't say to
> move somewhere where you'll get your ass shot off.
> Try one of the many other industrialized
> nanny-states in Western Europe. What you want to
> do is called satisficing, or taking a "good
> enough" solution. If you honestly think that it's
> a problem that "some Americans" value their
> freedom, then you have a very twisted sense of
> logic.
>
> I would prefer to be completely free than just
> relatively more free than a backwards country.
> That's kinda the foundation of this country and
> the constitution that governs it. You need to
> brush up on the constitution and natural law if
> you think that just because a law is on the books
> it's valid and enforceable.
>
> adytum.net
> don,t dream
Hey, you didn't say what country, you simply said was "I suggest you find another country amigo"...so I did, the country I was from. If you meant to say "I'd suggest you find another country, comparable to the US, but not the US" then you should have said it. By the way, I'm not a law student by any means so I do not pretend to know the law. But yes, I would assume that if a law is on the books it's enforceable and valid...it may not be right...but it's still the law. But that's why we have a legal system. We are allowed to challenge laws. In this particular case, it's 100% enforceable...trust me, no police officer is going to have a hard time bringing you in for blowing a .08 if the law says it's a DUI. It's valid and enforceable. I didn't say it was the right thing...all I said was it's the law.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
ben
()
Date: August 08, 2005 05:40PM
asnpcwiz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey, you didn't say what country, you simply said
> was "I suggest you find another country
> amigo"...so I did, the country I was from. If you
> meant to say "I'd suggest you find another
> country, comparable to the US, but not the US"
> then you should have said it. By the way, I'm not
> a law student by any means so I do not pretend to
> know the law. But yes, I would assume that if a
> law is on the books it's enforceable and
> valid...it may not be right...but it's still the
> law. But that's why we have a legal system. We
> are allowed to challenge laws. In this particular
> case, it's 100% enforceable...trust me, no police
> officer is going to have a hard time bringing you
> in for blowing a .08 if the law says it's a DUI.
> It's valid and enforceable. I didn't say it was
> the right thing...all I said was it's the law.
>
>
Okay Gravis, you're right. I didn't exactly spell out every single detail of what I meant. I thought you were an intelligent and reasonable person that would be able to understand the point that I was trying to make, instead of being an asshat and taking it out of context.
Oh, and you're wrong. The whole point of this thread was that there is a judge in Fairfax County that's throwing out DUI/DWI arrests on motions to dismiss. That would make it somewhat less than 100% enforceable. Just because a legislature passes a law does not make it constitutional. The Constitution governs that.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey, you didn't say what country, you simply said
> was "I suggest you find another country
> amigo"...so I did, the country I was from. If you
> meant to say "I'd suggest you find another
> country, comparable to the US, but not the US"
> then you should have said it. By the way, I'm not
> a law student by any means so I do not pretend to
> know the law. But yes, I would assume that if a
> law is on the books it's enforceable and
> valid...it may not be right...but it's still the
> law. But that's why we have a legal system. We
> are allowed to challenge laws. In this particular
> case, it's 100% enforceable...trust me, no police
> officer is going to have a hard time bringing you
> in for blowing a .08 if the law says it's a DUI.
> It's valid and enforceable. I didn't say it was
> the right thing...all I said was it's the law.
>
>
Okay Gravis, you're right. I didn't exactly spell out every single detail of what I meant. I thought you were an intelligent and reasonable person that would be able to understand the point that I was trying to make, instead of being an asshat and taking it out of context.
Oh, and you're wrong. The whole point of this thread was that there is a judge in Fairfax County that's throwing out DUI/DWI arrests on motions to dismiss. That would make it somewhat less than 100% enforceable. Just because a legislature passes a law does not make it constitutional. The Constitution governs that.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
SRE
()
Date: August 09, 2005 08:34AM
Randy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But is it illegal to operate an outboard motor
> while drunk, if it is not attached to a vehicle?
What about a gas powered chainsaw or weed-eater? (in my back yard?)
I'm only pointing out that the "CODE" is always able to be interperted in many ways. I am legal to be drunk on "my own property", as long as I am not "breaking" any other part of the "CODE" (noise laws, etc.)
The VA Code does specify 0.08 BAC, and that is evidence that a person has broken the law (code), which is enough to justify the arrest. In this commonwealth (as well as the rest of the great counrty), arrest does not mean conviction.
I do support the DUI laws as they are today. I support the MADD programs, DUI checkpoints, and the increased enforcement of the DUI laws... (Including the manditory jail time). If someone is operating their vehicle, and they are operating it in an unsafe (or questionable) manor, the police should execute a traffic stop.
If the police have measurable and specific probable cause, then I'm fine with it. However, sitting in the shadows of a pub/bar, waiting for someone to leave is not enough probable cause. (I'm going off-topic, sorry... I guess I'll start a topic about accountability of the police!)
-------------------------------------------------------
> But is it illegal to operate an outboard motor
> while drunk, if it is not attached to a vehicle?
What about a gas powered chainsaw or weed-eater? (in my back yard?)
I'm only pointing out that the "CODE" is always able to be interperted in many ways. I am legal to be drunk on "my own property", as long as I am not "breaking" any other part of the "CODE" (noise laws, etc.)
The VA Code does specify 0.08 BAC, and that is evidence that a person has broken the law (code), which is enough to justify the arrest. In this commonwealth (as well as the rest of the great counrty), arrest does not mean conviction.
I do support the DUI laws as they are today. I support the MADD programs, DUI checkpoints, and the increased enforcement of the DUI laws... (Including the manditory jail time). If someone is operating their vehicle, and they are operating it in an unsafe (or questionable) manor, the police should execute a traffic stop.
If the police have measurable and specific probable cause, then I'm fine with it. However, sitting in the shadows of a pub/bar, waiting for someone to leave is not enough probable cause. (I'm going off-topic, sorry... I guess I'll start a topic about accountability of the police!)
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
asnpcwiz
()
Date: August 09, 2005 09:23AM
ben Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, and you're wrong. The whole point of this
> thread was that there is a judge in Fairfax County
> that's throwing out DUI/DWI arrests on motions to
> dismiss. That would make it somewhat less than
> 100% enforceable. Just because a legislature
> passes a law does not make it constitutional. The
> Constitution governs that.
>
> adytum.net
> don,t dream
Just because a some numb nutt judge decides he wants to allow people to drink and drive doesn't mean that it isn't 100% enforceable. By 100% enforceable, I assume you mean that there would be no problem prosecuting and charging you with a crime. In this case, if you blow a .08 BAC there is no court room in the United States that would have technical problems prosecuting you. If some asshat judge wants to let you go because he's a fucking idiot, that's a different story...it doesn't mean the law isn't 100% enforcesable though.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, and you're wrong. The whole point of this
> thread was that there is a judge in Fairfax County
> that's throwing out DUI/DWI arrests on motions to
> dismiss. That would make it somewhat less than
> 100% enforceable. Just because a legislature
> passes a law does not make it constitutional. The
> Constitution governs that.
>
> adytum.net
> don,t dream
Just because a some numb nutt judge decides he wants to allow people to drink and drive doesn't mean that it isn't 100% enforceable. By 100% enforceable, I assume you mean that there would be no problem prosecuting and charging you with a crime. In this case, if you blow a .08 BAC there is no court room in the United States that would have technical problems prosecuting you. If some asshat judge wants to let you go because he's a fucking idiot, that's a different story...it doesn't mean the law isn't 100% enforcesable though.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
rstidman
()
Date: August 09, 2005 12:47PM
yeah I kinda lost site
you guys are argueing over exactley what again?
you guys are argueing over exactley what again?
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
Daniel
()
Date: August 09, 2005 03:40PM
In response to 'SRE'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do support the DUI laws as they are today. I support the MADD programs, DUI checkpoints, and the increased enforcement of the DUI laws... (Including the manditory jail time). If someone is operating their vehicle, and they are operating :: it in an unsafe (or questionable) manor, the police should execute a traffic stop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am with you on the DUI laws. However the DUI checkpoints are a complete bust... (pardon the pun) or atleast a lack there of.
If the police did as their cruisers say(or used to) "To Protect and Serve" our jails would be almost empty, being that more then 85% of people in prison are there for consentual crimes.
Results of Sully DUI check: from 11:00 p.m. Friday, July 29 to 2:00 a.m. Saturday.
835 cars passed through the checkpoint... Three motorists was arrested for driving while intoxicated...
and West Springfield.
Approximately 750 cars passed through One motorist was arrested for driving while intoxicated.
and Fair Oaks
Approximately 748 cars passed through the checkpoint conducted in the 4800 block of Shirley Gate Road. One motorist was arrested for driving while intoxicated and one motorist was issued a summons for driving without a license.
Now the first thing that comes to mind is..
Well have you ever been through a checkpoint? theres ATLEAST 50+ cops.
Im not saying that they get paid very well, but that to me seems like a whole lot of money to spend; set-up, and take down, all for atmost 3 drunks. If you asked me the only reason they are still doing it is media coverage. (which is welcomed at a checkpoint)
Need i go on? Theres plenty more which can be found at http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/ps/police/reports/news.htm
Might i also add, this post was not intended to start a debate, he was simply stating something of interest to the community.
Debating the meaning of the 'laws' is just about as open ended as
a conversation about philosophy.
Springfiled
------------------
http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/ps/police/reports/Reports2005/072505DWICheck.htm
Sully
--------------------
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/ps/police/reports/Reports2005/080105dwicheckpointwspresults.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do support the DUI laws as they are today. I support the MADD programs, DUI checkpoints, and the increased enforcement of the DUI laws... (Including the manditory jail time). If someone is operating their vehicle, and they are operating :: it in an unsafe (or questionable) manor, the police should execute a traffic stop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am with you on the DUI laws. However the DUI checkpoints are a complete bust... (pardon the pun) or atleast a lack there of.
If the police did as their cruisers say(or used to) "To Protect and Serve" our jails would be almost empty, being that more then 85% of people in prison are there for consentual crimes.
Results of Sully DUI check: from 11:00 p.m. Friday, July 29 to 2:00 a.m. Saturday.
835 cars passed through the checkpoint... Three motorists was arrested for driving while intoxicated...
and West Springfield.
Approximately 750 cars passed through One motorist was arrested for driving while intoxicated.
and Fair Oaks
Approximately 748 cars passed through the checkpoint conducted in the 4800 block of Shirley Gate Road. One motorist was arrested for driving while intoxicated and one motorist was issued a summons for driving without a license.
Now the first thing that comes to mind is..
Well have you ever been through a checkpoint? theres ATLEAST 50+ cops.
Im not saying that they get paid very well, but that to me seems like a whole lot of money to spend; set-up, and take down, all for atmost 3 drunks. If you asked me the only reason they are still doing it is media coverage. (which is welcomed at a checkpoint)
Need i go on? Theres plenty more which can be found at http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/ps/police/reports/news.htm
Might i also add, this post was not intended to start a debate, he was simply stating something of interest to the community.
Debating the meaning of the 'laws' is just about as open ended as
a conversation about philosophy.
Springfiled
------------------
http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/ps/police/reports/Reports2005/072505DWICheck.htm
Sully
--------------------
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/ps/police/reports/Reports2005/080105dwicheckpointwspresults.htm
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
LTL
()
Date: August 09, 2005 04:50PM
What's a consensual crime? If it's a crime, at least the legislature didn't consent to it.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
rstidman
()
Date: August 09, 2005 04:51PM
I think his point was the same basic point we've been making all along, that cops are useless and anarchy is preferable to having police who are glorified bill collectors.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
SRE
()
Date: August 10, 2005 12:06PM
Consensual Crime....
Sound like fun to me!
http://www.bitoffun.com/stupid_laws_Virginia.htm
I have broken a few of these this week.... Yea!
Sound like fun to me!
http://www.bitoffun.com/stupid_laws_Virginia.htm
I have broken a few of these this week.... Yea!
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
ben
()
Date: August 10, 2005 01:00PM
SRE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Consensual Crime....
>
> Sound like fun to me!
>
>
>
> I have broken a few of these this week.... Yea!
Who hasn't. ;)
-------------------------------------------------------
> Consensual Crime....
>
> Sound like fun to me!
>
>
>
> I have broken a few of these this week.... Yea!
Who hasn't. ;)
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
DrFunkenstien
()
Date: August 10, 2005 01:41PM
Regardless of what you have had to drink...how much you reek of malted hops...and how much you slur when you speak...if the cop has no probable cause...then he has absolutely no right whatsoever to even be pulling you over
I suggest everyone do as I do...I crack the window when i am pulled over to slide out my ID and registration...then I roll the window back up...when he comes back with the ticket...I sign / return the tablet and then roll the window back up and am on my way. No need for discussion...no need for argument...on the way out I call my attorney. Its that simple...and it is your right to do so
I suggest everyone do as I do...I crack the window when i am pulled over to slide out my ID and registration...then I roll the window back up...when he comes back with the ticket...I sign / return the tablet and then roll the window back up and am on my way. No need for discussion...no need for argument...on the way out I call my attorney. Its that simple...and it is your right to do so
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
LTL
()
Date: August 10, 2005 02:02PM
RStidman, your "basic point" reeks of the same juvenile thinking that probably lands you in trouble with the police. I'd wager that you're the type of person who loves to talk about how bad the police are and how great anarchy would be, but would be the first to cry to the police or to your local government official if someone egged your house or keyed your car.
Perhaps you should put down the joint, take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why your experiences with the police have been negative ones.
Perhaps you should put down the joint, take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why your experiences with the police have been negative ones.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
rstidman
()
Date: August 10, 2005 03:25PM
no, LTL, whining to the police is for people like you, people who post anonymously to a message board to personally attack people you dojn't agree with.
Maybe you should take a look in the mirror, take your dick out of your hand, and try to figure out why you're such a jerkoff.
I have little or no doubt YOU wouldn't make it in anarchy, you're obviously going to die from starvation when you're too weak to crawl out from under that rock.
Maybe you should take a look in the mirror, take your dick out of your hand, and try to figure out why you're such a jerkoff.
I have little or no doubt YOU wouldn't make it in anarchy, you're obviously going to die from starvation when you're too weak to crawl out from under that rock.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
LTL
()
Date: August 10, 2005 03:47PM
Don't worry about who I am. Next time you're in the courthouse, I'll find you.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
rstidman
()
Date: August 10, 2005 03:49PM
And if you work there, you'll lose your job. You're still an anonymous coward. Easy to have a big set of balls on the net.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
rstidman
()
Date: August 10, 2005 03:50PM
I mean, no way you're police, so what are you going to do, hit me with your hairnet when they let you go on break from your cafeteria shift?
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
LTL
()
Date: August 10, 2005 04:01PM
That's a lot of talk about having balls from someone that didn't even have the guts to show up for his last 2 court dates. Way to fight the power.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
Bob
()
Date: August 10, 2005 06:32PM
Well anyway back to the subject at hand, plain and simple this judge is a joke. It's always a shame when someone reputable from one of the top 10 counties does something completely beligerent just to stand out - this judge is in essence breaking the law himself (especially if he is doing this for EVERY case, and neglecting all the evidence from the police). While almost 90% of this story is heresay and the judge hasn't actually stated anything to the media it is hard to make assumptions such as him breaking the law or being a fool, but if in fact he is doing what the Trooper's have complained about I am ashamed to work for a county where our own judges dismiss cases such as this. What a friggin' Idiot.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
rstidman
()
Date: August 10, 2005 07:51PM
LTL,
First of all, you're child of rape and I feel sorry for you.
Second of all, you assume that everyone, like you, never leaves the county. I DID go to my last two court dates... you're just to dumb to figure out where they were, you flotsam. I might add I FUCKING WALKED at each of them. You're referring to two dates I could give a flying fuck less about, the Highway Sign violations, from several months ago. That shit seriously doesn't even make me blink.
And since you didn't refute that you work in the court cafeteria, I'd like to recommend you guys add ziti to the menu.
First of all, you're child of rape and I feel sorry for you.
Second of all, you assume that everyone, like you, never leaves the county. I DID go to my last two court dates... you're just to dumb to figure out where they were, you flotsam. I might add I FUCKING WALKED at each of them. You're referring to two dates I could give a flying fuck less about, the Highway Sign violations, from several months ago. That shit seriously doesn't even make me blink.
And since you didn't refute that you work in the court cafeteria, I'd like to recommend you guys add ziti to the menu.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
kklare
()
Date: August 10, 2005 10:57PM
LTL,
I like the veggie omelet with plenty of cheese and i swear if u fuck it up i will slap you with the next speeding citation i get. and i get MANY! your ass will be papercut beyond belief.
I like the veggie omelet with plenty of cheese and i swear if u fuck it up i will slap you with the next speeding citation i get. and i get MANY! your ass will be papercut beyond belief.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
Randy
()
Date: August 11, 2005 09:04AM
The discussion made it onto NBC4s web site
http://www.nbc4.com/news/4834976/detail.html
The discussion of throwing out DUI cases that is, not the discussion of anonymous posters parentage, and the menu at the court cafeteria.
http://www.nbc4.com/news/4834976/detail.html
The discussion of throwing out DUI cases that is, not the discussion of anonymous posters parentage, and the menu at the court cafeteria.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
asnpcwiz
()
Date: August 11, 2005 10:16AM
This judge is a fucking idiot...blowing a .08 is proof that you are DUI, not that you are drunk. By the law's definition of a DUI, if you a blow a .08 you are under the influence of some substance and should not be driving. I don't see how this is any different from most traffic rules. He wants you to prove that you are intoxicated when you blow a .08? How is it any different if you define a DUI as blowing a .08 or if you define speeding as going past 55 mph?!?! It's like me saying I don't consider driving over 55 mph speeding, wreckless or endangerment...let the officer prove that I consider 55 mph speeding...he doesn't have to prove it...by definition it just is. Just like a .08 is a DUI.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
Randy
()
Date: August 11, 2005 10:29AM
I was hoping his argument was going to be that forcing someone to have their BAC measured without other evidence of impairment amounted to an unlawful search. I don't see as much support for the burden of proof on the defendant as discussed in the article.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
smd
()
Date: August 11, 2005 04:37PM
I would just like to ask whether or not rstidman and kklare are just juveniles, monkeys, or flat out idiots with no real humor skills.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
rstidman
()
Date: August 11, 2005 04:52PM
Yet another anonymous attack... the cowards are flowing like the blood of the nonbelievers...
sounds like LTL wants to make it look like he's got a friend that agrees with him.
Or: this individual is too stupid to figure out the account system AND is a coward...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2005 04:55PM by rstidman.
sounds like LTL wants to make it look like he's got a friend that agrees with him.
Or: this individual is too stupid to figure out the account system AND is a coward...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2005 04:55PM by rstidman.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
kklare
()
Date: August 12, 2005 01:53PM
smd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would just like to ask whether or not rstidman
> and kklare are just juveniles, monkeys, or flat
> out idiots with no real humor skills.
>
smd, why do you care? unless, of course, you are 'LTL'. you fucking pussy. now go cook me that omelet.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would just like to ask whether or not rstidman
> and kklare are just juveniles, monkeys, or flat
> out idiots with no real humor skills.
>
smd, why do you care? unless, of course, you are 'LTL'. you fucking pussy. now go cook me that omelet.
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
CERTenly1002
()
Date: October 13, 2011 02:13AM
CERT agree the DUI for free
Re: DUI / DWI unconstitutional?
Posted by:
Spacy
()
Date: October 14, 2011 12:09AM
asnpcwiz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This judge is a fucking idiot...blowing a .08 is
> proof that you are DUI, not that you are drunk.
The only thing I can think of to make some sense of this story is that the judge is not disagreeing with the 0.08, but rather with the way in which the person was forced to blow. Maybe it was at a traffic blockade, which seems un-Constitutional to me. Maybe it was something to do with forcing you to submit to the test (although that seems okay to me, if there was already probable cause...a big "if").
If the judge is just objecting to 0.08 means DUI by statute, I dunno, that seems dumb. What is the name of this judge? Can we look him up and ask him or something? It sounds very interesting.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2011 12:10AM by Spacy.
-------------------------------------------------------
> This judge is a fucking idiot...blowing a .08 is
> proof that you are DUI, not that you are drunk.
The only thing I can think of to make some sense of this story is that the judge is not disagreeing with the 0.08, but rather with the way in which the person was forced to blow. Maybe it was at a traffic blockade, which seems un-Constitutional to me. Maybe it was something to do with forcing you to submit to the test (although that seems okay to me, if there was already probable cause...a big "if").
If the judge is just objecting to 0.08 means DUI by statute, I dunno, that seems dumb. What is the name of this judge? Can we look him up and ask him or something? It sounds very interesting.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2011 12:10AM by Spacy.