i believe in most states, a refusal to test is the same as a guilty plea... no trial involved
Posted on 12/16/2005 5:33:56 PM PST by RWR8189
This is all about power and politicians who want to tell people what to do. And in that regard it's no different than any other "Hot Button" issue that you see here on Free Republic.
It's still far easier to refuse the BAT and take your chances in court...with a good lawyer.
The MADD ninnymorons are long overdue for a serious blowback.
That would be a much more objective standard. However, it's a pretty costly one, and one that can't possibly become law until every police department within the state has at least one simulator in place.
But it seems almost everyone wants to see hundreds of thousands arrested, jailed, and financially raped because they have a one-in-ten-million CHANCE they MIGHT have an accident.
That's because it is always about the money. How much revenue is generated in increased number of fines, etc by decreasing the BAC laws?
Let them have your license for 6 mos if you think the alternatibe is a DUI.
Mark
i believe in most states, a refusal to test is the same as a guilty plea... no trial involved
And that is itself a travesty;it shows how little the Bill of Rights means to today's petty tyrants.
I would further provide that if someone is cited for DUI, they would be allowed to go to the testing center, consume a measured amount of alcohol, wait about 30 minutes, and then attempt the simulator at the BAC level they had while driving. If they pass, their punishment would be reduced to a small civil fine (to compensate for the police time made necessary by their failure to take the test earlier).
MADD et al. would hate this notion, but IMHO it would probably save lives. One of the problems with drunk driving is that many people think they are less impaired than they really are. Although this approach would allow some people to drive at 0.12BAC without fear of arrest, I think many more people would discover that they weren't as capable as they thought and would thus moderate their alcohol consumption appropriately.
A couple States (e.g. Minnesota and Nevada) have done economic impact studies, and found that reducing BAC reduces net revenues. First, the compliance costs of enforcement alone exceed any revenue gained. Second, it reduces alcohol excise taxes which are a significant source of revenue in many States.
This was discovered when the Federal government tied highway money to compliance with the 21 drinking age and .08 BAC limits. It turns out that the net revenue lost exceeds the highway funds at risk in most States. The Feds get compliance by appealing to the baser nature of politicians: money that is not paid out due to non-compliance is kept in an account by the Feds, which gets bigger and bigger every year. States that cave and create the required laws get all the back money they never got for non-compliance all those years plus a bonus percentage on top of that lump sum for coming back on the reservation.
Very few politicians can resist that jackpot of free un-earmarked money once it grows big enough, and that "free money" can quickly accumulate to being a non-trivial fraction of a State's annual revenue. Taking it in the ass for a massive cash windfall would make anyone else a whore, but the highway funds have shown that every politician has their price and not even a particularly high one at that.
One of my classmates in law school was arres...uh...kidnapped right after she pulled into her driveway - no harm done. When she read me the list of fines, fees, suspensions, classes, etc. she was put through, I could not believe my ears. And that was 7 years ago. I can only imagine how far they shove the cattle prod now. Of course it's about the money - she hadn't done anything to anyone. Money, and power.
i believe in most states, a refusal to test is the same as a guilty plea... no trial involved
Yeah - they call it "administrative suspensions" and pull your "license." For you see, a license suspension is not a criminal punishment - as, say, driving after you've had it pulled. Money and power.
Sorry - I meant if you get "caught" driving after having it pulled.
I know they tried to withold money from WV because we resisted lowering the level. I am pretty sure the argument was that it would cost us more money is housing people in the jails, etc than what the money amounted to that was being withheld. Of course, WV caved. I am not up on all the details, but our level was lowered to .08 this year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.