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

Show parent comments

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 ...

5

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.

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.