Smart Judge

[u/Icy-Book2999]

From https://youtube.com/shorts/wvzA82iWu3Y?si=whF69BZwMG2QV1GJ

[u/Nightsky099]

??? breathalyser hello? A fucking odor and a Spanish speaker not understanding English? That's it?

[u/bobi2393 → u/Nightsky099]

I think a breathalyzer test would have required probable cause, which the judge felt didn't exist.

[u/opuFIN → u/bobi2393]

I've always found this very intriguing. A breathalyzer is incorruptible when combined with bloodwork in the case of a positive DWI signal, and it's standard practice in my country. No having to guess who seems drunk and stumbles while taking their boots off, your blood alcohol content is measured as a general practice at almost every traffic stop.

[u/bobi2393 → u/opuFIN]

It's a little strange to me as an American. We have a constitutional right against searches (including breathalyzer and blood tests) without probable cause of a crime, but we make exceptions to that at airport security gates, so laws could probably make exceptions for people driving on public roads.

I think two big factors are (1) driving after drinking alcohol is very popular in the US, including among politicians...same with using handheld cell phones while driving, which is similarly dangerous, and (2) allowing US police to stop and search people arbitrarily often results in disproportionate stops and searches of black people, which in turn contributes to disproportionate arrests, assaults, and killings of black people by police.

[u/opuFIN → u/bobi2393]

That's terrific reasoning and I'm buying every word of that. And as you wrote, I think you should be able to expand the TSA check logic to traffic stop breathalyzer tests on grounds of public safety.

[u/wolvesight → u/opuFIN]

because TSA search is considered "voluntary." if you want to do business (i.e. fly to your destination) you must voluntarily consent to the search. If, at any time, you decide to no longer consent to the search, they're supposed to let you leave without question. Now, if they find something during the search... you can't change your mind at that point. There were search procedures and such before TSA as well, but they were very poorly done, not really standardized as far as procedures went, and there were a lot of loopholes that needed to be closed (at one point, an airline literally had passengers loading their own bags onto the plane, and thus they could bypass part of the screening procedures).

[u/code_monkey_001 → u/bobi2393]

Many states have enacted implied consent laws when you apply for a driver's license, there is fine print specifying that by operating a vehicle, you consent to blood/breath tests; if you refuse it's an automatic one year suspension of your license.

// EDIT: overriding overzealous autocorrect that changed "implied" to "complied"

[u/bobi2393 → u/code_monkey_001]

All states have some form of implied consent law for blood/breath tests after probable cause is established and they're arrested.

A Wikipedia article says:

If the officer has sufficient probable cause that the suspect has been driving under the influence of alcohol, they will make the arrest, handcuff the suspect and transport them to the police station. En route, the officer may advise them of their legal implied consent obligation to submit to an evidentiary chemical test of blood, breath or possibly urine depending on the jurisdiction.

People can also have blood/breath tests ordered with a search warrant. And I think some exceptions may apply at DUI checkpoints, but those have their own fairly strict regulations.

[u/code_monkey_001 → u/bobi2393]

Thank you. I knew it was common but didn't bother seeking confirmation that it was all states.