did you miss the part about the ICE?
Sober drivers do run into things, deer for instance, men pushing lawn mowerrs.. just sayin
Are alcohol/drug tests mandatory after car crash?
- Thread starter Wrkn4livn
- Start date
did you miss the part about the ICE?
Sober drivers do run into things, deer for instance, men pushing lawn mowerrs.. just sayin
Go G-Men
New Member
What is really amazing is that nobody brought up the fact that if this boy was 17 than he is a minor. I personally have instructed my children that they should never consent to a search period. If the officer wants to do any search whether it be breathalyzer or vehicle he will need probable cause or a warrant.
Secondly, if I am not mistaken, when a minor is involved in an accident they are either taken to the hospital or an guardian must appear at the scene for the minor to be released.
Seems to me that there was more going on here than we got from the OP.
It's called PROFILING
If you or I had this accident there would be no test, no question about searching the vehicle etc. I'll take the OP on their word, it was an accident caused by an over reaction to hitting ice (happens with inexperienced drivers).
The fact is because of the drivers age they are going to search the car because there is a good bet they will find something in the car.
It's so easy to say, "well they must have been doing somethng wrong" or, "well the fact is they found stuff in the car" blah blah blah
What we fail to accept that is we are allowing the rights of a certain class of individual to be violated. But because they are teenagers, that's okay, if they were black or hispanic, that would be racial profiling and bad.
Like I said, I know for a fact, that certain officers will pull over a car BECAUSE. First question is, "where are you going?" Second question is, "Can I look in your car?".
Probable cause? Age and time of day.
That's how I looked at the situation. It was profiling. The young driver was obviously upset. They ended up with bruised knees, sprained wrist and ankle and few scraps from the airbag. They did go to the hospital. It was just after midnight. It would have been MUCH worse if they had not been wearing seat belts (lap/shoulder).
You can say, 'just deal with it and move on' but I think it's more than that. I think if there are indications that drinking was taking place like smell, beer cans, smell of pot, etc., test away and penalize them! Driving IS a privilege and if one abuses the privilege, take it away from them. I forgot about the 'consent to search' goes along with the privilege of carrying a drivers license. Believe me, I'm not one of those people who thinks everything is owed to a person. I just struck me as a 'rush to judgment'... By the way, OJ was guilty so no one needs to bring THAT up.
Thanks for the feedback! It was informative (and some of the comments were funny).
Why?
On the back of every MD drivers license:
Searching the vehicle requires some degree of probable cause. Asking to administer a breath test does not; holders of MD licenses very specifically waive their rights on that score when signing the license form.
That said..you can, of course, still refuse to take the test.
Searching the vehicle requires some degree of probable cause. Asking to administer a breath test does not; holders of MD licenses very specifically waive their rights on that score when signing the license form.
That said..you can, of course, still refuse to take the test.
I think this is good advice. Why? Because it's the job of the sheriff and the county prosecutor to PUT YOU IN JAIL. That's what they are paid to do and they will do it with or without your help. People who talk to the police will usually hurt themselves without knowing it. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the law but I do know "anything you say can, and will, be used against you". It's better to not say anything and the lawyers protect you against yourself...
That sounds like consent to issue the test to me. Thanks. I'll be sure I remind my young driver... You drive, you consent to be tested any time, anywhere...
Interesting. For some reason, I've always found, instead, that being cooperative and courteous went a long way in any situation involving the police. Never met a LEO who seemed to be singularly intent on putting anyone in jail, either. On the other hand, I've seen them go to some pretty extraordinary lengths and put up with a ton of crap to avoid taking someon to jail.
Just sayin...maybe its different in this part of the county?
I agree.
I don't see how teaching a minor to be uncooperative with an officer is beneficial to anyone.
Unless of course you're sure they're doing something they shouldn't be.
:
foodcritic
New Member
Because it a CIVIL citation not criminal. Rules of evidence would be different.
Go G-Men
New Member
Just a little thing called the Constitution. We are all protected against unreasonable search and seizure.
Go G-Men
New Member
I agree.
I don't see how teaching a minor to be uncooperative with an officer is beneficial to anyone.
Unless of course you're sure they're doing something they shouldn't be.
You can be courteous to Police Officers while also understanding your constitutional rights. I have had a police officer ask me once if he could search my vehicle and I politely said he does not have my permission to do so. He seemed put off by it but no overly so.
Well...you might want to try again. The first case doesn't even pertain to field sobriety or preliminary breath tests, and the second case has nothing to do with the courts. The second case is in reference to an administrative hearing to suspend a drivers license. Your efforts are notable, however flawed. Search on though, but during your search, please ensure that the court addresses the specific use or prohibitive of use as evidence of a preliminary breath test.
I would tell you the exact case where you can find this, but I am enjoying your research. On a side note, you need probable cause to execute an arrest or search, not reasonable suspicion.
Nothing in what I said infers disrespect or not cooperating with the authorities.
foodcritic
New Member
yes. That is what I understand.
MMDad
Lem Putt
Roadside sobriety tests require reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Refusal of the test can be probable cause for an arrest. Continued refusal of the test can result in losing your license.
Your advice could very easily result in your kids losing their license. You might want to rethink your advice.
MMDad
Lem Putt
Did you even look at it? Try this part:
I see, the Maryland Court of Appeals is not a court. Got ya.
http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/cosa/2006/2273s05.pdf
I'm assuming you're a cop since you think you know the law but do not. Chuck Co.?
foodcritic
New Member
Probable cause is loosely defined is a police officers belief a crime has been committed and that the person (being arrested/charged) has committed that crime based on the evidence.
A PBT (preliminary breath test) results are not admissible in court ( a judge can consider them for sentencing however
)If they are not admissible, then refusing them can not establish probable cause for the officer (may be a clue for him). The officer can't arrest you for refusing to incriminate yourself with a PBT. Most people will take it to demonstrate their not intoxicated.
The only things that a court can use to establish the impairment/intoxication will be the officers observations, Standard Field Sobriety Tests, a DRE (Drug Recognition Expert) Chemical testing (intoximeter) or blood testing from a hospital or blood kit.
That's my story and I am sticking to it.