Let's say you're out on the town one night having a few drinks not hurting anyone.
After awhile you decide it's time to head on home (afterall you have to up by 6am for work) you're on your way home and a cop pulls you over. Wants to know if you've been drinking?
The cop suspects you have, so he has you get out of your car for a field sobriety test. Like touching your nose with your index finger, saying your ABCs, and the like. You try to comply. You stumble. You make your way through A, C, B, D, Z, F, G, and so on.
The officer now has evidence you're intoxicated and reads you your rights. Asks if you understand them so he can arrest you.
PLEASE tell me this????????????
The cop knows your drunk. He knows your judgement is impared. So WHY is it he's reading you your rights and asking if you understand?
Wait!!!! You're drunk. You can't tell you @$$ from a hole in the ground. So how can you understand what your rights are?
So is this arrest legal?
Opinions anyone?
The way I see it. If you failed a field sobriety test, and the officer determines you are an immediate danger to the public safety (or your own safety), he has the right to detain you and bring you in for a full sobriety test at the police station.
Of course if you're too drunk to remember your rights, one could argue that you're too drunk to remember the rules of the road too.
I think it's probably better to just co-operate with the cops. It'll make your life less miserable in the long run. How many times have we seen a show like "Cops" or one of those other police dashboard camera shows, where a guy runs from the cops, crashes the car, gets injured, and then the cop tells him, "Man, I was only gonna give you a warning for a burnt out taillight."
SpaceRider
11/3/2007 3:10:54 AM
RJ,
I hope that the below information helps
DUI - Driving Under the Influence
Driving Under the Influence (DUI) is a serious offense, which can carry harsh penalties including heavy fines, license suspension, and even jail time. The severity of DUI laws varies from state-to-state; however, most states enforce DUI laws rigorously. If you have been arrested on charges of DUI, you may wish to speak with an experienced attorney who can help you understand your rights.
The Legal Limit
Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) is a common factor in determining a person’s level of intoxication. The minimum BAC needed for a DUI conviction in 45 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico is .08 grams/deciliter. In the case of underage drivers, any BAC may constitute a DUI offense.
An officer can obtain a person’s BAC through a Breathalyzer test, blood analysis, or urine test. Unfortunately, these tests are not failsafe as the margin for error is large. A qualified DUI attorney can answer any questions you may have about these tests and their outcomes.
Strengthening DUI Law
According to the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration, alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents kill someone every 31 minutes. Over the past decade, approximately 1.4 million drivers have been arrested annually on charges of DUI. Many states are taking stronger measures to prevent alcohol-related accidents. Some prevention strategies states are taking include:
· Lowering permissible levels of BAC
· Maintaining regular sobriety checkpoints
· Enacting zero tolerance laws for drivers under 21 years of age
· Requiring mandatory substance abuse and treatment for DUI offenders
· Harsher penalties for repeat DUI offenders
Your Legal Rights
A DUI charge does not guarantee a conviction. If you have been charged with DUI, it is important for you to know your rights. A qualified DUI attorney can explain your options and discuss a possible course of action. Please contact us to speak with an experienced DUI attorney FREE of charge
Drunk Driving
More than 97 percent of Americans feel that drunk driving is a serious threat to societal well-being. Drunk driving kills more than 17,000 people and injures another 500,000 every year on the US roadways. Drunk driving is responsible for more than 41 percent of all auto accident fatalities each year. About thirty percent of Americans will be involved in a drunk driving accident at some point in their lives.
Drunk driving is the nation''s most frequently committed crime, killing someone every thirty minutes. This crime is usually charged as a DUI (driving under the influence) or a DWI (driving while intoxicated), depending on the applicable state-specific laws. Each state enacts their own laws governing drunk driving offences, though many states have similar penalties for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
A drunk driving charge is punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances surrounding the drunk driving incident. In most states is it a crime to operate any motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level that meets or exceeds 0.08 BAC. Zero tolerance laws are enforced in many states, making it a crime for a minor to drive with any amount of alcohol in their
Yeah but think about it.
If you're too drunk to drive safetly then you're too drunk to understand your rights.
I'm not arguing the fact. Just reasoning the situtation.
FlynhghR
11/3/2007 10:18:03 PM
Wait, so did you get pulled over or is this a philosophical discussion?
nix06monte
11/4/2007 12:48:37 AM
I'm a cop out here in illinois and according to the supreme court we dont even have to read you miranda rights unless you are being interrogated. Interrogated is asking questions which will likely be answered with an incriminating statement. Very rarely do you have to read miranda "on the street" anyways, because questioning on the street is different from questioning at the station. Basically mirnada only applies when a resonable person believes you are no longer free to leave (arrested, detained sometimes) and are being asked incriminating statements.
Mirnada is usually an after arrest thing not like on TV. the stop you described is more than enough to get probable cause to make the arrest.
So even if you're arrested out on the street they don't have to read you your rights?
My point about the situation is.............. you know the guy's judgement is impared. So how can he begin to understand any rights he has?
He could be told, "Hey buddy. We're all going down to your house after we lock you up and (use imagination here) to your wife. And this guy being drunk would probably say, "Hey. Okay buddy. Have a good time."
SpaceRider
11/5/2007 3:27:25 PM
quote:
ORIGINAL: rj
So even if you're arrested out on the street they don't have to read you your rights?
My point about the situation is.............. you know the guy's judgement is impared. So how can he begin to understand any rights he has?
He could be told, "Hey buddy. We're all going down to your house after we lock you up and (use imagination here) to your wife. And this guy being drunk would probably say, "Hey. Okay buddy. Have a good time."
RJ, I do understand your `point.
Is anything you say when you are drunk....held against
you in a court of law ?
Ever since the Supreme Court crafted the Miranda warning in 1966, television programs have used it to add a little spice to their dramas. It's also confused millions of viewers. The Miranda rights- the "you have the right to remain silent..." routine- are warnings that must be given when a person is in custody for a criminal offense and before the officer asks questions. When a TV detective handcuffs the bad guy and reads the Miranda rights as he's hauled away, it's drama. In real life, it isn't necessary to read Miranda until the arrested suspect is about to be questioned. That's why it's called a pre-interrogation warning. What about the person who is stopped on suspicion of drunk driving? The officer will ask the driver various questions to establish how much the person has had to drink, where the person is coming from, how much sleep the person had, etc. The officer may ask the person to perform field sobriety tests, including blowing into a portable testing device. All of these things can incriminate the driver, so you might think Miranda should be given. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such a situation is a "roadside interrogation" in which the person is not in custody and doesn't have to be Mirandized. Once the driver is arrested, however, the questioning must stop until Miranda is read, and only then if the driver waives the right to remain silent.
The warning is named for Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested for the rape of a teenage girl in Phoenix. Miranda confessed after being interrogated for two hours. His conviction was thrown out when the Supreme Court ruled that he should have been advised that he had the right to remain silent, that any statements he made could be used against him, and that he had the right to an attorney even if he couldn't afford one. Miranda was scheduled for a new trial, but he angered his girlfriend during a child custody dispute and she revealed that Miranda confessed the rape to her. Ernesto stayed in prison for 14 years. Four years after he was released, Miranda was killed in a barroom brawl. The killer was given his Miranda rights. Where am I ? How did I get on this page ?
Space,
We all know any guy who's drunk and told, "You have the right to remain silent." probably isn't going to. He's going to keep running his mouth till he sobers up.
So is anything he says during this time held against him even if he confesses to stalking G. Bush?
SpaceRider
11/5/2007 3:49:44 PM
RJ,
I'm sure not a lawyer, but I do attempt to read many laws that
may apply to my life.
Ignorance of the law is not excuse!!!!
(I guess by that reasoning, everyone should know every law
in our country...like township/city/county, state, federal,
and on & on : )
I think anything that a intoxicated person says will be recorded
in the officer's report, and he will be the one that will
testify against you 
What you say after Miranda Warning, will be in the suspect
report of their interrogation.
I like the part (Anything you say, can and will be used against you: ), Well `if anything I say can be used against me, I'm not
say'in nothing: )
As far as I understand, there is a difference between being detained for questioning and being arrested.
They can detain you and test you to see if you are infact legally impared. If they find that you are simply too tired to drive, they can have someone come pick you up and take you home and not be arrested.
Arrested starts a legal process on something you can be charged for in a court of law.
Another example would be if you were a witness to a murder. The police can bring you in for questioning to get your info on the crime. They don't have to read you your miranda rights, since you didn't commit the crime.
Cowboy6622
11/5/2007 5:20:27 PM
they don't have to read you your rights until they begin "interrogating" you, and i think in some states thats only if you ask to know what your rights are. as far as i know, they can force you to testify, but only in a courtroom and after you've sworn to tell the truth. of course, if you're married to the person or ARE the person being charged, you can plead the 5th
MyIntimidator
11/5/2007 7:54:22 PM
I am in Law Enforcement here in Washington State and I know that here (and it may vary from state to state and department to department.) With the case law here in Washington and policy dictates Miranda. I know that when I have the probable cause to believe someone is drunk I read them their Miranda rights. I know that people here have been talking about detaining and interrogating as prongs to Miranda and they are absolutely right. But there are different levels of intoxication you never know what they may understand in their state. But it is all recorded so it can be played back at a later time say in court. I thing the key is to do it just about the same every time. Say you have the drunk in car and he begins telling all about his evening and you thought he was too drunk to understand his Miranda rights, a nasty Defense attorney (no offense to anyone intended) would have your ass in court if no Miranda rights were read no matter what the state of the drunk at the time. These are just my thoughts from the experience I have.
vita
11/5/2007 9:59:13 PM
RRRRUUUUUUNNN!!!!!!
Vita (Mike)
A couple tried that this morning. They got away (look for the video coming this fall on FOX) but not for long.
I like the part (Anything you say, can and will be used against you: ), Well `if anything I say can be used against me, I'm not
say'in nothing: )
What about........... "Mommy."
nix06monte
11/7/2007 12:21:33 AM
being to drunk is usually not considered a defense.
however, it has been known to happen and over turning old cases gives lawyers and appellate/supreme court judges jobs.
gale155
11/7/2007 5:03:21 AM
quote:
ORIGINAL: nix06monte
being to drunk is usually not considered a defense.
however, it has been known to happen and over turning old cases gives lawyers and appellate/supreme court judges jobs.
Our criminal justice system has been transformed into a giant money-making scheme for attorneys. In fact, this is true of our entire "legal" system. One of the reasons for this is that we keep blindly electing attorneys to legislative positions - take a look at how many attorneys currently infest Congress. These people have a vested interest in continually slapping us with new laws, while keeping everything as complicated and convoluted as possible. The federal tax code (which seems to become more complicated every year) is a perfect example of this. What happened to the debate over a true flat-tax, or a national retail sales tax? I'll tell you what happened to it - the attorneys who are supposed to be representing us in Congress keep sweeping it under the rug, and won't even talk about it. Why? Because it would put attorneys out of the tax biz, and they would be reduced to chasing ambulances for a living.
kweef
11/7/2007 7:00:04 AM
im not sure i completely agree with you...i do agree that lawyers are making alot of money, more than they should but ppl r willing to pay them massive amounts of money and y would a lawyer not charge what someone is willing to pay. but anyways laws r so hard to understand because they r written to try and make that there are no exceptions to the law...ppl r always tryin to find an exception to rules and laws are no different, if ppl werent tryin to find loop holes in laws then they wouldnt have to be written so complicated
Incase no one has noticed............... you get into say an auto accident, hurt at work, beat up by the mad cook at Bob Evans and they've made it so you HAVE to get a lawyer now days. You don't have a choice unless you want to end up on the short end of the stick.
I'm not saying most of us are out to get rich off a unfortunate incident. But if you're the innocent party you can expect lawyers from the other side looking into every part of your life. Even people close to you will get this.
kweef
11/7/2007 10:12:58 PM
very true...excellent point, i wouldnt want to go to court without a lawyer
04 Intimidator
11/11/2007 12:33:30 PM
I agree. They need to get a next of kin out there or a lawyer to cover your drunk ass.
[ View Full Version Of This Page ]
