Are alcohol/drug tests mandatory after car crash?

[tom88]

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.?

You are funny. Because an appeal court mentions a breathalyzer doesn't mean the breathalyzer was admitted for evidence. I am not a cop, but you must have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Neither of the cases you “cited” have anything to do with the admissibility of a preliminary breath test in a court of law, yet you offer them as proof that a pbt is admissible.

Then you offer that reasonable suspicion is sufficient for a search.

What is it exactly you do for a living? I’ll be happy to provide my resume once I know yours.

 

[Fairmount]

MMdad

See, he could never argue his points face to face. He doesn't know what face to face is. He is behind this internet thing.
Because MMDad is the smartest man ever to live, just ask him.He often Quotes from wiki and is the master of copy and paste.

 

[MMDad]

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

An officer would obviously have to have more than just the refusal - he'd have to have enough evidence to create probable cause. My only point is that the entire chain of events, from the stop (or crash) to observations to sobriety tests to PBT, are part of the entirety of determining probable cause.

When reasonable suspicion exists for the cop to conduct a Terry stop, failure to cooperate would definitely be a factor in deciding if probable cause exists. If a cop smells alcohol, asks the driver to do the tests, and the driver says no the cop isn't going to just say "okay, you're free to go."

If a cop does a PBT and it shows 0.00 he isn't going to waste his time with an arrest.

If it shows 0.20, yet the suspect was able to perform the tests, he isn't going to let him go.

You are correct that the quantitative measure is not admissable evidence of the BAC. But the fact that a test was performed, and the result of that test, are certainly admissable if someone challenged the validity of an arrest. If the cop has nothing more than "he refused the tests, but didn't smell, look, or act drunk" the arrest would not be valid since a prudent person would not believe that a crime had occured.

 

[Baja28]

He doesn't know what face to face is. He is behind this internet thing.

Oh this is rich!! And what/who are you hiding from Tommy?

 

[tom88]

See, he could never argue his points face to face. He doesn't know what face to face is. He is behind this internet thing.
Because MMDad is the smartest man ever to live, just ask him.He often Quotes from wiki and is the master of copy and paste.

Unfortunately for him wiki doesn’t explain the rules of evidence and admissibility. That is why he is likely making an ass of himself by citing case law which has nothing to do with his argument. His rudimentary understanding of the legal system has him thinking if the word is mentioned in a petition for certiorari then it must be evidence. That one actually made me laugh…I mean really laugh. I’m having fun listening to his banter as it stands, I’ll wait for what he comes up with next.

 

[tom88]

When reasonable suspicion exists for the cop to conduct a Terry stop, failure to cooperate would definitely be a factor in deciding if probable cause exists. If a cop smells alcohol, asks the driver to do the tests, and the driver says no the cop isn't going to just say "okay, you're free to go."

I take it you are referring to Terry V. Ohio. What the hell does Terry have to do with this? Did you even read Terry? A "terry" stop has NOTHING to do with drunk driving.

Where are you getting your information?

 

[tom88]

I'm tired, i'm going to bed. MMdad, you seem like a guy who's heart is in the right place. Do better research and learn what you are talking about. There is more to it than reading wiki links.

 

[MMDad]

You are funny. Because an appeal court mentions a breathalyzer doesn't mean the breathalyzer was admitted for evidence. I am not a cop, but you must have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Neither of the cases you “cited” have anything to do with the admissibility of a preliminary breath test in a court of law, yet you offer them as proof that a pbt is admissible.

Then you offer that reasonable suspicion is sufficient for a search.

What is it exactly you do for a living? I’ll be happy to provide my resume once I know yours.

Damn you are hard headed! I stated early on that the results of a PBT were not admissible to prove the BAC. Yet you continue to argue as if I stated that they are. I said “the result is not admissible in court other than to show why they decided to arrest the person and take them in for an admissible breath test.” That is exactly what was admitted in the cases I quoted! I never once stated that the PBT can be admitted to establish BAC!

I am not the one who says reasonable suspicion is needed to conduct a search. The courts say that. If you disagree with the courts, take it up with them.

Looks like your stay at the A&E hotel last night has affected your reading comprehension.

 

[Fairmount]

Not You...

Oh this is rich!! And what/who are you hiding from Tommy?

I always knew you two were connected somehow. You both are more addicted to this web site, more than I'll ever be addicted at alcohol.

You two might as well get a room, as fast as you came (cam no pun) to his defense.

 

[Baja28]

I always knew you two were connected somehow. You both are more addicted to this web site, more than I'll ever be addicted at alcohol.

You two might as well get a room, as fast as you came (cam no pun) to his defense.

yes Tommy, we are connected at the hip. He's my MPD and I'm his.

No one can be more addicted to booze than you Tommy boy. Your posts couldn't be written better by a professional comic. You better run to bed now before you pass out.

 

[Fairmount]

Damn you are hard headed! I stated early on that the results of a PBT were not admissible to prove the BAC. Yet you continue to argue as if I stated that they are. I said “the result is not admissible in court other than to show why they decided to arrest the person and take them in for an admissible breath test.” That is exactly what was admitted in the cases I quoted! I never once stated that the PBT can be admitted to establish BAC!

I am not the one who says reasonable suspicion is needed to conduct a search. The courts say that. If you disagree with the courts, take it up with them.

Looks like your stay at the A&E hotel last night has affected your reading comprehension.

That's why I admire you MMDad, you are such a smarty.

Oh no mikey baja is getting ready to save you!

 

[Fairmount]

yes Tommy, we are connected at the hip. He's my MPD and I'm his.

No one can be more addicted to booze than you Tommy boy. Your posts couldn't be written better by a professional comic. You better run to bed now before you pass out.

Good night Mikey!
I know you're not connected at the hips, because one of you is so much smarter than the other. Can you tell which?

 

[MMDad]

I take it you are referring to Terry V. Ohio. What the hell does Terry have to do with this? Did you even read Terry? A "terry" stop has NOTHING to do with drunk driving.

Where are you getting your information?

The Brown case I linked talked about Terry. Go ahead and tell the court that they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[MMDad]

Unfortunately for him wiki doesn’t explain the rules of evidence and admissibility. That is why he is likely making an ass of himself by citing case law which has nothing to do with his argument. His rudimentary understanding of the legal system has him thinking if the word is mentioned in a petition for certiorari then it must be evidence. That one actually made me laugh…I mean really laugh. I’m having fun listening to his banter as it stands, I’ll wait for what he comes up with next.

Hey, the resident forum wanted felon agrees with you. That ought to bolster your case!

After all, he is an expert at failing sobriety tests, going to jail, repeating it all over again and again, and finally running away to hide because he doesn't have the courage to own up to his multiple crimes.

Yes, he does have a felony warrant out for his arrest.

 

[Fairmount]

Hey, the resident forum wanted felon agrees with you. That ought to bolster your case!

After all, he is an expert at failing sobriety tests, going to jail, repeating it all over again and again, and finally running away to hide because he doesn't have the courage to own up to his multiple crimes.

Yes, he does have a felony warrant out for his arrest.

Mikey, just creamed his jeans. And he's all teary eyed. He gets that way when you speak!

Thanks MMDAd!

 

[MMDad]

Mikey, just creamed his jeans. And he's all teary eyed. He gets that way when you speak!

Thanks MMDAd!

Drink up Tommy. You'll pass out soon, and when you come to it will be Friday. Time traveller!

By the way Tommy, have you found a new job? They don't like wanted felons in the work place, do they. It must really suck to only have enough to buy beer and nothing else.

 

[tom88]

The Brown case I linked talked about Terry. Go ahead and tell the court that they don't know what they're talking about.

I could see that discussing this with you is going to be futile because you are the sort who will latch on to a word in a brief and believe that is the topic of the brief. For your information, a "terry" stop has to do with a limited search for weapons when an officer has reasonable articuable suspicion the subject may be carrying one. It has nothing to do with a pbt.

Here is a link to Terry V. Ohio. Please read it. It's not from wiki, so it might give you a little more insight into REAL information instead of information written by those who choose to share opinions. You understand that is what wiki is don't you?

Terry v. Ohio

 

[foodcritic]

I could see that discussing this with you is going to be futile because you are the sort who will latch on to a word in a brief and believe that is the topic of the brief. For your information, a "terry" stop has to do with a limited search for weapons when an officer has reasonable articuable suspicion the subject may be carrying one. It has nothing to do with a pbt.

Here is a link to Terry V. Ohio. Please read it. It's not from wiki, so it might give you a little more insight into REAL information instead of information written by those who choose to share opinions. You understand that is what wiki is don't you?

Terry v. Ohio

We all may be talking about facets of the same thing.
In Terry YOUR ARE BEING SEARCHED. However the court's view was that the officer could "pat down" for weapons only. This search is being done based on reasonable suspicion, no warrant no arrest be made. The searched person may not be the right person just at wrong time/place. The court allowed it and think it's reasonable. I agree.

The law is that you can't be searched with out a warrant OR you have been arrested and this is true, Terry is just a very limited exception to the rule.

Back to the pbt. I don't personally think a PBT result can be used to establish PC. I am not going to rule it out completely I just don't know for sure and would have to research it. I outlined earlier what the tests were that developed PC.

Reasonable suspicion allows you make your initial stop and investigate further. At some point based, based on the facts, PC is developed. Being arrested for the DUI, in theory is still only a detention , until you have the Intox test which concludes that your actually intoxicated (.08 bac). There are other charges that cover the officer in the event your less than .08. For example Driving while impaired is an arrestable offense.

Also a PBT can only get you so far. Studies are indicating that impaired driving is increasing significantly (based on studies of fatal accidents). The impairment is drug related and so the PBT is useless to establish anything. That is where the totality of the evidence is needed. SFST is the gold standard (DRE are becoming more common) for determining impairment.

 

[MMDad]

I could see that discussing this with you is going to be futile because you are the sort who will latch on to a word in a brief and believe that is the topic of the brief. For your information, a "terry" stop has to do with a limited search for weapons when an officer has reasonable articuable suspicion the subject may be carrying one. It has nothing to do with a pbt.

Here is a link to Terry V. Ohio. Please read it. It's not from wiki, so it might give you a little more insight into REAL information instead of information written by those who choose to share opinions. You understand that is what wiki is don't you?

Terry v. Ohio

I've read Terry, but not at your link. I prefer using Supreme Court of the United States. I do not get my information from Wiki. You are using an even less reliable source to accuse me of that - the wanted felon in the middle of a drunken rant. I actually prefer to read the MD COA opinions to see how Maryland law is affected by other decisions.


Terry is the basis for understanding the difference between a probable cause arrest and a reasonable suspicion stop. For example, Hiibel says: "Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), the Court has recognized that a law enforcement officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further." That's why I brought up Terry. In Terry, it was acknowledged that a search without probable cause could still be conducted, but it also required that there be a reason for the search. For example, if a cop stops you for 51 in a 50, he can't just frisk you in hopes he finds something. Even if he doesn't have probable cause to make an arrest, he can detain you based on reasonable suspicion while he investigates.

Stop fixating on a weapons search vs. PBT. The point I am making is about searches, reasonable suspicion, and probable cause. Terry established precedent for those searches, wether that be for weapons as in Terry, asking for ID as in Hiibel, or a PBT as we're discussing.

 

[MMDad]

The impairment is drug related and so the PBT is useless to establish anything.

That's my main objection to legalizing pot and other recreational drugs. How do you quantify the level of impairment on the side of the road? For pot, the standard urinalysis is great for finding out if you are a habitual user, but not to determine if you are still stoned off some chronic you smoked three hours ago. And if people are so offended by blowing in a tube, imagine making them stand on the side of the road and pee in a cup!

Without a measure of impairment, the guy could go before the judge, channel Spicoli, and say "Dude! That is so totally bogus! I don't even smoke pot, but everyone thinks I'm stoned! I'll even take a piss test right here" as he whips it out and fills a drinking glass..... You get the idea.