Mel Gibson Busted for DUI

[Harvey]

I wasn't there so I have no idea what the arresting officer witnessed. Are you defending Gibson against DUI or for being an antisemitic bigotted (and sexist, based on the report) prick?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I wasn't there so I have no idea what the arresting officer witnessed. Are you defending Gibson against DUI or for being an antisemitic bigotted (and sexist, based on the report) prick?

You're not talking to me are you?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Are cops violating the constitution (4th amendment) by searching persons (breathylizer) and the air (effects) around them for alcohol without a warrant?

Negative. The Supreme Court has consistently held that driving a motor vehicle is already a heavily-regulated activity, and so vehicle searches don't require a warrant as long as there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. As it happens that's arguably irrelevant: the Breathalyzer itself is voluntary, and if he'd refused to take one they would have just arrested him based on their reasonable suspicion he was committing a crime by driving drunk.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I can understand erratic driving, but what right to do they have to search the car for the smell of alcohol without probable cause?

That isn't a "search." His breath was in plain view (or "plain smell," if you prefer) as soon as they spoke to him. It's analogous to a situation in which the police see a contraband firearm or drugs in the car during a routine traffic stop. In any case, as I said above, vehicle searches incident to a traffic stop don't require a warrant.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I can understand erratic driving, but what right to do they have to search the car for the smell of alcohol without probable cause?

That isn't a "search." His breath was in plain view (or "plain smell," if you prefer) as soon as they spoke to him.

So if you refuse to look and breathe and the officer, they can't arrest you?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

So if you refuse to look and breathe and the officer, they can't arrest you?

How would one "refuse to breathe"? Refusing to look and breathe would be suspicious in and of itself, and the police can lawfully order you to look at them and breathe toward them without a warrant. These types of external viewings have been held not to be searches or seizures - they can also, for example, force a suspect to shave his beard for purposes of a lineup. The line is crossed when the body itself is intruded (which is why they need consent or a warrant to draw blood, for example).

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

So if you refuse to look and breathe and the officer, they can't arrest you?

How would one "refuse to breathe"? Refusing to look and breathe would be suspicious in and of itself, and the police can lawfully order you to look at them and breathe toward them without a warrant. These types of external viewings have been held not to be searches or seizures - they can also, for example, force a suspect to shave his beard for purposes of a lineup. The line is crossed when the body itself is intruded (which is why they need consent or a warrant to draw blood, for example).

I see. What about the little meters on the flashlights they're starting to use to detect unsmellable little particles int he air of the car? Is that unreasonable? Many believe so.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I can understand erratic driving, but what right to do they have to search the car for the smell of alcohol without probable cause?

That isn't a "search." His breath was in plain view (or "plain smell," if you prefer) as soon as they spoke to him.

So if you refuse to look and breathe and the officer, they can't arrest you?

You either have no clue on how the police operate or really love Mel Gibson, do you have something to tell us

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I see. What about the little meters on the flashlights they're starting to use to detect unsmellable little particles int he air of the car? Is that unreasonable? Many believe so.

I've never heard of such a device, but the answer, I think, is no - that would still be a "plain view" exception to the general requirement of a warrant. By way of analogy, it's been held that the police don't need a warrant to view a home suspected of marijuana cultivation with an infrared camera - it's still considered plain view, even though specialized equipment is required to see it.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I see. What about the little meters on the flashlights they're starting to use to detect unsmellable little particles int he air of the car? Is that unreasonable? Many believe so.

I've never heard of such a device, but the answer, I think, is no - that would still be a "plain view" exception to the general requirement of a warrant. By way of analogy, it's been held that the police don't need a warrant to view a home suspected of marijuana cultivation with an infrared camera - it's still considered plain view, even though specialized equipment is required to see it.

I highly disagree with that (being the civil libertarian that I am). Plain view isn't the same as using special equipment. Special equipment can then be translated as using police dogs. Police dogs running around and sniffing everything without a warrant? I wouldn't liek that.

Police have too much power these days. They can pull you over for ANYTHING (Oh, it looked like you weren't wearing your seatbelt!) and it's wrong.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Todd33

You either have no clue on how the police operate or really love Mel Gibson, do you have something to tell us

Are you saying it's an arrestable offense for refusing to look into an officers eye? Is it an arrestable offense for refusing to let an officer search your house? What about for refusing a breathylizer? I guess people don't have rights anymore. "refusing a breathylizer huh? Well that means you're probably drunk, time to HAUL YOUR ASS IN YOU CRIMINAL!"

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Todd33

You either have no clue on how the police operate or really love Mel Gibson, do you have something to tell us

Are you saying it's an arrestable offense for refusing to look into an officers eye? Is it an arrestable offense for refusing to let an officer search your house? What about for refusing a breathylizer? I guess people don't have rights anymore. "refusing a breathylizer huh? Well that means you're probably drunk, time to HAUL YOUR ASS IN YOU CRIMINAL!"

It's not arrest-able, it's probable cause. They can make you get out of the car and take the test. It's their job to make sure that the driver is not drunk, to stop an accident before it happens. Do you always side with the criminal or just when they are white or named Mel Gibson?

Would you rather have a drunk hold their breath and get away and kill a family? How about your family?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Todd33


It's not arrest-able, it's probable cause. They can make you get out of the car and take the test. It's their job to make sure that the driver is not drunk, to stop an accident before it happens. Do you always side with the criminal or just when they are white or named Mel Gibson?

Would you rather have a drunk hold their breath and get away and kill a family? How about your family?

Hmm I do believe in DUI laws, just not the radical ones we have. I also believe in civil liberties...the police should operate decently, and I'm sick of this "well who cares if we give up a few rights for protection" BS. I don't care if it's protection against terrorists or drunk drivers. The police have been granted rights violating the constitution, and the courts uphold them on the grounds that they only need reasonable suspicion? What is reasonable suspicion?

So lets say I'm driving 10mph over the speed limit. I refuse to look the officer in the eye or face his direction while I talk (which is my right). Is upholding my rights suddenly suspicion that I've been drinking?

 

[Todd33]

So if you are pulled over for speeding, they should not have the right to test you? Do you have the right to drive drunk? What rights are you exactly scared of losing? They cannot, in general, arrest you for no good reason.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Todd33
So if you are pulled over for speeding, they should not have the right to test you? Do you have the right to drive drunk? What rights are you exactly scared of losing? They cannot, in general, arrest you for no good reason.

They should be able to test me only if I was showing signs of impairment while driving. Going several miles over the limit isn't impairment.

The problem is that the DUI limit is too low (0.08) that it's almost impossible to detect people if they're at .08 without special equipment or random unreasonable tests. To me, that's going over the line.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Todd33
So if you are pulled over for speeding, they should not have the right to test you? Do you have the right to drive drunk? What rights are you exactly scared of losing? They cannot, in general, arrest you for no good reason.

They should be able to test me only if I was showing signs of impairment while driving. Going several miles over the limit isn't impairment.

The problem is that the DUI limit is too low (0.08) that it's almost impossible to detect people if they're at .08 without special equipment or random unreasonable tests. To me, that's going over the line.

Cops do not ask everyone that is speeding to take a test, they are pretty good at reading the overt signs. If they are wrong, then you pass the Breathalyzer and leave with a ticket. I'm not sure what you are upset about, they are doing a civic duty to take dangerous people out from behind the wheel. It's not a strip search, it's a 30 sec breath test or a 2 min walk-the-line test. There are hundreds of other civil liberty causes that are far more worthy than DUI test.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Todd33
So if you are pulled over for speeding, they should not have the right to test you? Do you have the right to drive drunk? What rights are you exactly scared of losing? They cannot, in general, arrest you for no good reason.

They should be able to test me only if I was showing signs of impairment while driving. Going several miles over the limit isn't impairment.

The problem is that the DUI limit is too low (0.08) that it's almost impossible to detect people if they're at .08 without special equipment or random unreasonable tests. To me, that's going over the line.

Cops do not ask everyone that is speeding to take a test, they are pretty good at reading the overt signs. If they are wrong, then you pass the Breathalyzer and leave with a ticket. I'm not sure what you are upset about, they are doing a civic duty to take dangerous people out from behind the wheel. It's not a strip search, it's a 30 sec breath test or a 2 min walk-the-line test. There are hundreds of other civil liberty causes that are far more worthy than DUI test.

Just sticking to the topic at hand. The DUI limit is so slow that the cops must be over-agressive with special tools and instruments just to catch social drinkers and fvck them over.

 

[mc00]

mel gibson was one my fav actor until he came of out god closet, now he is not my fav(unless he release LW 5 ROFL) actor.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Just sticking to the topic at hand. The DUI limit is so slow that the cops must be over-agressive with special tools and instruments just to catch social drinkers and fvck them over.

Guess what, those "special" tools would be required no matter what the limit was, they need something that holds up in court. I'm sorry if you got busted during one of your social drinking outings, but I don't think anyone needs to get killed because drinkers are too stupid to have a designated driver.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Todd33


It's not arrest-able, it's probable cause. They can make you get out of the car and take the test. It's their job to make sure that the driver is not drunk, to stop an accident before it happens. Do you always side with the criminal or just when they are white or named Mel Gibson?

Would you rather have a drunk hold their breath and get away and kill a family? How about your family?

Hmm I do believe in DUI laws, just not the radical ones we have. I also believe in civil liberties...the police should operate decently, and I'm sick of this "well who cares if we give up a few rights for protection" BS. I don't care if it's protection against terrorists or drunk drivers. The police have been granted rights violating the constitution, and the courts uphold them on the grounds that they only need reasonable suspicion? What is reasonable suspicion?

So lets say I'm driving 10mph over the speed limit. I refuse to look the officer in the eye or face his direction while I talk (which is my right). Is upholding my rights suddenly suspicion that I've been drinking?

The first page of my DMV manual: Driving is not a right.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Just sticking to the topic at hand. The DUI limit is so slow that the cops must be over-agressive with special tools and instruments just to catch social drinkers and fvck them over.

Guess what, those "special" tools would be required no matter what the limit was, they need something that holds up in court. I'm sorry if you got busted during one of your social drinking outings, but I don't think anyone needs to get killed because drinkers are too stupid to have a designated driver.

I haven't been busted. I don't think anyone needs to get thrown in jail because most drinkers are still great drivers even at a .08.

Besides...cops being tied up throwing social drinkers in jail take pressure off of drinkers who have had much more to drink and are indeed REALLY a threat on the road. I'm trying to save lives here.

Driving isn't a right. It is indeed a priviledge, and I believe those who have shown they can have a few drinks and still drive, should keep that priviledge.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Just sticking to the topic at hand. The DUI limit is so slow that the cops must be over-agressive with special tools and instruments just to catch social drinkers and fvck them over.

Guess what, those "special" tools would be required no matter what the limit was, they need something that holds up in court. I'm sorry if you got busted during one of your social drinking outings, but I don't think anyone needs to get killed because drinkers are too stupid to have a designated driver.

I haven't been busted. I don't think anyone needs to get thrown in jail because most drinkers are still great drivers even at a .08.

By whose judgement? If anything, DUI laws need to be strengthed.

MADD is one of the few things that came good out of liberals

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: zendari

By whose judgement? If anything, DUI laws need to be strengthed.

MADD is one of the few things that came good out of liberals

MADD members don't think clearly. They let the loss of a loved one cloud good judgement. Although I sympathize with their losses, they have done nothing but shoot themselves in the foot. If the police are targetting social drinkers(and they are, it's a big money-making deal with the police), there is less pressure put on heavier, more dangerous drinkers.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

MADD members don't think clearly. They let the loss of a loved one cloud good judgement. Although I sympathize with their losses, they have done nothing but shoot themselves in the foot. If the police are targetting social drinkers(and they are, it's a big money-making deal with the police), there is less pressure put on heavier, more dangerous drinkers.

That's a pretty transparently flawed piece of reasoning on your part IMO. It defies common sense and reality.

 

[straightalker]

Well a DUI is something all types of people get. So there's nothing unique about Mel Gibson there. What is strange however, very strange, is his continual fascination with human blood and the violence that produces it.

Apocalypto, his latest movie, is going to feature some more blood feast. This time the Mayans are the subject of the blood letting. Last time it was Jesus.