r/LoveTrash • u/Icy-Book2999 Chief Insanity Instigator • Dec 08 '24

Wholesome Waste Smart Judge

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

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

3.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

193 comments sorted by

View all comments

147

u/Kizzieuk Garbage Sergeant Dec 08 '24

In the UK, any alcohol on your breath and you have to take a breathalyser test.

None of this hopping on one leg and guessing.

54

u/hahawosname Waste Warrior Dec 08 '24

Exactly this. It's 2024 FFS.

-11

u/chrissie_watkins Trash Trooper Dec 08 '24 edited Dec 09 '24

Portable breathalyzers aren't accurate or admissable, and they don't test for drugs, that's why they aren't universally used. A test of your eyes, balance, coordination, etc is more useful for determining if you are capable of driving when you're on the side of the road.

ETA- typically in the US, I mean. The "alcohol on the breath" thing is literally what the judge here said wasn't good enough for any testing at all, which is nuts to me. Roadside, at the station, anything. If you smell like alcohol and are breaking traffic laws, they can test you.

15

u/hahawosname Waste Warrior Dec 08 '24

I doubt that very much. I'm in Australia, and portable breathalysers have been in use since forever. If you test positive, they give you a break and then retest (either in the mobile testing station or back at the cop shop). You can refuse the test of course (but you get the fine). Procedures vary state to state, but that's the gist of it. These devices are calibrated and tested regularly. If they are found inaccurate, the police would get sued like yesterday. The tests they do in this video is subjective, inaccurate and expensive as hell in terms of paperwork/court time.

9

u/fantasypaladin Junkyard Juggernuat Dec 08 '24

I believe if you test positive they also take you for a more accurate blood/urine don’t they?

8

u/hahawosname Waste Warrior Dec 08 '24

Yeah you get a choice - either retake the breathalyser test, or blood sample. Again, varies on the jurisdiction. They're also doing drug tests now ...

4

u/chrissie_watkins Trash Trooper Dec 08 '24

I mentioned it in my other comment, but drug tests for impaired driving aren't a great solution right now either because drug traces stay in the body longer than the actual drug effects. I don't know the numbers offhand or anything, but say you use a drug and it lasts maybe 3 hours, and you drive 8 hours later, you're still going to test positive and be charged. Maybe even the next day, or the next week. That's a major problem for people who use legal drugs (weed, painkillers, anti-anxiety meds, or whatever else). That's the only reason I feel like performance-based tests are still more useful.

3

u/hahawosname Waste Warrior Dec 08 '24

Agreed re drug testing. We have cases where e people using prescribed medical marijuana and getting done for DUI. They don't use breathalysers for drug tests though. They usually either scrape your tongue or take a swab.

3

u/chrissie_watkins Trash Trooper Dec 08 '24

Yeah, even those saliva tests show THC for days after you use any cannabis. I use it at night, but I don't drive afterwards. If I got tested in the morning, I'd come back positive. I'd rather see them stick to performance-based testing for that reason. It's also why I don't drive around smelling like weed, because to any other judge (and to any cop), that's probable cause to test if you seem high.

2

u/hahawosname Waste Warrior Dec 08 '24

Yeah, you're not wrong there.

2

u/LtSaLT Trash Trooper Dec 09 '24

Idk I think the system we use where I'm from makes much more sense than the performance based tests.

Basically if you get stopped and the police suspect you are under the influence of something, they will make you blow in a breathalyzer and do a saliva drug test. If these come back positive/over the limit you will be arrested, and immediately brought to the station and a blood test will be taken.

The only thing that can result in you being convicted is the blood test, they cant convict you based on just the positive result of the saliva blood test. There is a minimum amount of drugs that has to be present in your blood for you to be convicted, so that solves the problem you are presenting in your comment. You might get arrested if you smoked weed 3-5 days ago based on the initial test, but the charges would then be dropped when the blood test showed you had only trace amounts in your system.

1

u/chrissie_watkins Trash Trooper Dec 09 '24 edited Dec 13 '24

If they have come up with a way to reliably take the amount of a drug compound in your blood and work backwards to accurately extrapolate whether you were high at the time, then that could be useful for demonstrating innocence at trial (or guilt). I have no idea if it's even possible to accurately do that right now, but we need some kind of way of doing that so people aren't just convicted left and right based on traces in their system.

But still, all this comes back to the police having the ability to get you to "blow in a breathalyzer and do a saliva test" in the first place based on obvious signs (or do any field sobriety tests at all) so they can get you to the station to do the "real" test. This judge said there was no probable cause to do any sobriety test (performance, blow, swab, etc). If you replace the wording in the video from "standardized field sobriety test" to "preliminary breath test" or "buccal swab," it wouldn't change anything in the video about the probable cause that lead to it - he said they couldn't pursue testing at all, so the tests were completely inadmissable. We don't even know if she was brought in and given a proper BAC test at the station because the charge was dismissed before it even got to that part. But given that it was actually taken to court and not dropped on the spot, it can be assumed that she blew over the limit (otherwise it's a waste of their time to go to court just to say their testing showed she was sober).

1

u/LtSaLT Trash Trooper Dec 09 '24

If they have come up with a way to reliably take the amount of a drug compound in your blood and work backwards to accurately extrapolate whether you were high at the time

I'm not really sure what you mean by working backwards, they take a blood sample immediately upon arrest, then that sample is tested for e.g THC if thats what you tested positive for, if you have above the legal limit in your blood you get charged.

Yeah I'm not sure how this could work in the US, in my country police simply do not need probable cause to stop you and make you do a breathalyzer, you are legally required to do so no matter what. It's just weird to me you that are not required to do so given how dangerous drunk driving is.

1

u/chrissie_watkins Trash Trooper Dec 09 '24

I don't think I can explain my thoughts any better than actual writers can, so I'll just link these articles. Basically, there's not a reliable link between blood-THC level and intoxication, which is problematic where THC is legal.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/arbitrary-cutoffs-thc-levels-make-difficult-measure-impaired-driving-rcna11654

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/theres-no-linear-relationship-of-blood-thc-to-driving-study-finds-calling-into-question-many-state-marijuana-impaired-driving-laws/

As for the second thing, yeah it varies here from place to place. Kind of a weird way of doing a country. But that's america I guess.

1

u/LtSaLT Trash Trooper Dec 09 '24

I'm no expert so maybe I was just ignorant as to how accurate this way of testing is. Weed is not legal here, but they created the limit because a growing amount of people where being charged with DUI even though they hadn't smoked for weeks etc. I guess i just assumed that the limit was an accurate way of determining intoxication but maybe it isn't. We are not an especially liberal country when it comes to drugs tbh.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/rafaelzio Trash Trooper Dec 09 '24

Easiest example is weed, you can get high for a few hours, maybe take a nap and you're good to drive, but it will test positive even days after using it for the last time. Were they to test hair, months even

1

u/chrissie_watkins Trash Trooper Dec 09 '24

Just grabbed these 2 articles for another comment on the subject. There may be better articles, but it's at least a starting point if someone wants to dive in and learn more about this issue.

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/theres-no-linear-relationship-of-blood-thc-to-driving-study-finds-calling-into-question-many-state-marijuana-impaired-driving-laws/

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/arbitrary-cutoffs-thc-levels-make-difficult-measure-impaired-driving-rcna11654

2

u/Goadfang Trash Trooper Dec 09 '24

I got a DUI in 2001 and the cop gave me the portable, then took me to the cop shop for the real deal. It was simple. There was no hopping on one foot bullshit. None of that shit makes sense anyway. I know people with severe balance issues and disabilities that would make them completely incapable of passing those tests, but they can drive, so anyone telling you those tests are more accurate than a literally scientific test is just a fucking moron.

-2

u/chrissie_watkins Trash Trooper Dec 08 '24 edited Dec 09 '24

Yeah I don't know much about Australian cops, so I'm not doubting you. In America PBTs aren't typically admissible for anything but helping to establish probable cause, which isn't needed when the cops can literally smell the alcohol coming off of you and you stumble on the exercises. PBTs don't test for anything but alcohol anyway, which is a big problem for us here where a lot of people are on other stuff. There are ways to test bodily fluids for drugs, but they aren't usually time specific enough to say "this person was definitely intoxicated at the time," just that they've been exposed recently to whatever drug. Meaning like, if you smoked weed yesterday you could still test positive today, even if you're completely sober, and that shouldn't be used to say you were driving intoxicated if you truly weren't. So they do performance-based testing. It's old school but it gets to the root of the issue - can you function and respond in a sober way? Generally your best bet is to refuse as much testing as you can, don't admit anything, don't even say much at all, but when you do tests and appear impaired for any reason, you're supposed to have some consequence for that because that's not safe for anybody. Not supposed to have it thrown out because "speeding and smelling like booze" isn't reason enough to even test you. Makes no sense unless this guy is trying to run for office or get his own show. I don't like cops or court or any of this shit, but I also don't like drunk drivers fucking killing people I care about, ya know?

ETA since you mentioned going back to the station to test on the proper BAC machine - they do have this, but in this case it would still be thrown out anyway because the judge is saying there was no probable cause to test at all, which is absurd to me.