Are alcohol/drug tests mandatory after car crash?

[foodcritic]

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.

This is actually an easy one. SFST's or a DRE. Impairment is impairment based on the clues exhibited during SFST. The clues are added to together based on the 3 tests. Also pupil dilation/equal tracking are a component.

So you can be on mary jane or Oxy. (Mary Jane smells better)

 

[vegmom]

So, we have a friend that is like 17 and hit some ice last night. Lost traction, over corrected and slammed into a tree. Had seat belt on. Airbags deployed (I think speed was an issue). Just banged and bruised but thankfully, no injuries...
So when the sheriff arrived, they immediately administered a breath test. The driver was sober. No indication of alcohol was evident (no smell, no beer cans, etc.) as there was no drinking going on.
Is this the norm now? I thought the only reason a breath test was given was to validate the suspicion of drugs or alcohol, not to determine if was there. Have the rules changed? Are we to expect this type of 'search' as a result of an accident? I thought we are innocent until proven guilty. This sounds like they had to prove innocence... Any lawyers/sheriff's that would care to comment on this? I'd sure appreciate it.

Could it be possible that insurance companies are leaning on them to do breath tests for single car accidents/certain at-risk drivers? Sounds like a CYA move to me.

 

[BernieP]

Could it be possible that insurance companies are leaning on them to do breath tests for single car accidents/certain at-risk drivers? Sounds like a CYA move to me.

It's based more on statisitcs, teenage males have a high probablility of one (or more) of the following in their vehcle;
1. having consumed alcohol, open adult beverage container
2. marijuana and / or paraphinalia
3. other CDS

By nature they are also the ones who speed and take bigger risks when driving.

Not only is there a high probablity of finding some contriband in a teenagers vehicle, they also are not aware of their rights and will consent to the search.

 

[Wrkn4livn]

It's based more on statisitcs, teenage males have a high probablility of one (or more) of the following in their vehcle;
1. having consumed alcohol, open adult beverage container
2. marijuana and / or paraphinalia
3. other CDS

By nature they are also the ones who speed and take bigger risks when driving.

Not only is there a high probablity of finding some contriband in a teenagers vehicle, they also are not aware of their rights and will consent to the search.

That make sense. I really think it was a case on inexperience (male/female, irrelevant but it was the latter). I did drive the course and did see where water was draining down across the road right at a slight left bend in the road, just before the tree. It looks like she could have lost traction on the front right tire, tried to over correct to the left and pulled the car right into the tree.
Too fast and not paying attention, inexperience=accident.
Thanks again for all the feedback! Good stuff!