DUI refusal to submit breathalyzer

[Kirk Freeman]

Its right up there with getting your anus fingered and probed by strangers hunting for contraband.

What is up there and why are people doing this?

[Do we want a government that bends to the will of the mob that wants to control everything we do?
/QUOTE]

So, you are calling people who do not want to share the road with intoxicated drivers to be a mob? Your push to legalize drunk driving will not be going anywhere.

Why don't we just go ahead and mandate breathalyzers in the ignition system of every car?

We could, certainly the states have this power.

 

[IMPD31323]

Bicycles? How is that? You mean like those motorized bicycles that they sell in Broad Ripple?

Who's filing on bicycles? Geez, would a jury convict on that???

I could have have taken the idiot riding his bike in the middle of New York and Sherman in the center of both lanes goin the wrong way causing a wreck. I don't know if they would have filed on it or not but it states a vehicle moved by human power. I'm guessing Marion county wouldn't have filed which is why I passed. They did file and convict on the mower

 

[IMPD31323]

Sorry meant moped. Actual moped not the scooters that are everywhere. The mower guy was charged and convicted BTW

 

[IMPD31323]

Sorry I meant actual moped not the scooters you see everywhere. The mower man was tried and convicted BTW

 

[steveh_131]

So, you are calling people who do not want to share the road with intoxicated drivers to be a mob?

What about the people who do not want to share the nation with gun owners? They're a mob. And we are setting the precedent: If the mob thinks your behavior is irresponsible, the government's duty is to criminalize that behavior. Let's not set that precedent. It's not worth it.

Your push to legalize drunk driving will not be going anywhere.

That's not my point. At all. I don't expect you to get my point. But others might.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Indiana definition of vehicle:

IC 9-13-2-196
"Vehicle"
Sec. 196. (a) "Vehicle" means, except as otherwise provided in this section, a device in, upon, or by which a person or property is, or may be, transported or drawn upon a highway.
(b) "Vehicle", for purposes of IC 9-14 through IC 9-18, does not include the following:
(1) A device moved by human power.
(2) A vehicle that runs only on rails or tracks.
(3) A vehicle propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires but not operated upon rails or tracks.
(4) A firetruck and apparatus owned by a person or municipal division of the state and used for fire protection.
(5) A municipally owned ambulance.
(6) A police patrol wagon.
(7) A vehicle not designed for or employed in general highway transportation of persons or property and occasionally operated or moved over the highway, including the following:
(A) Road construction or maintenance machinery.
(B) A movable device designed, used, or maintained to alert motorists of hazardous conditions on highways.
(C) Construction dust control machinery.
(D) Well boring apparatus.
(E) Ditch digging apparatus.
(F) An implement of agriculture designed to be operated primarily in a farm field or on farm premises.
(G) An invalid chair.
(H) A yard tractor.
(8) An electric personal assistive mobility device.
(c) For purposes of IC 9-20 and IC 9-21, the term does not include devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
(d) For purposes of IC 9-22, the term refers to an automobile, a motorcycle, a truck, a trailer, a semitrailer, a tractor, a bus, a school bus, a recreational vehicle, a trailer or semitrailer used in the transportation of watercraft, or a motorized bicycle.
(e) For purposes of IC 9-24-6, the term has the meaning set forth in 49 CFR 383.5 as in effect July 1, 2010.
(f) For purposes of IC 9-30-5, IC 9-30-6, IC 9-30-8, and IC 9-30-9, the term means a device for transportation by land or air. The term does not include an electric personal assistive mobility device.

How did Bissard get jammed up? Wasn't he driving a "(6) A police patrol wagon."? It's plainly not a vehicle.

 

[vitamink]

He got jammed up for 1000 different reasons

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How did Bissard get jammed up? Wasn't he driving a "(6) A police patrol wagon."? It's plainly not a vehicle.

That's for Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

OWI is Article 30 in Title 9.

 

[public servant]

That's not my point.

Do you have a driver's license?

 

[steveh_131]

Do you have a driver's license?

Yes.

 

[public servant]

Yes.

Have you ever driven either under the influence of alcohol or drugs?

And to be fair, I'll answer both questions. Yes, I have a license and no, I've never driven under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

 

[steveh_131]

Have you ever driven either under the influence of alcohol or drugs?

No.

 

[VUPDblue]

I arrested a guy for OVWI the other night. It was his third. The one before this resulted in an accident in which the passenger in his vehicle was killed. That happened in 2003. I am of the opinion that this person should not have been allowed to have a drivers license after that incident.

 

[steveh_131]

I arrested a guy for OVWI the other night. It was his third. The one before this resulted in an accident in which the passenger in his vehicle was killed. That happened in 2003. I am of the opinion that this person should not have been allowed to have a drivers license after that incident.

I think that is reasonable.

 

[inav8r]

While the results of a PBT can't be used in court, can it be used as PC? Is that why lawyers generally advise against to submitting to FST's and PBT's?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Do you have a driver's license?

I have a valid United Nations driver's license which I purchased in the back of Wired magazine, thank you very much.

 

[VUPDblue]

While the results of a PBT can't be used in court, can it be used as PC? Is that why lawyers generally advise against to submitting to FST's and PBT's?

Yes they can be used as PC.

 

[vitamink]

... But just to show a positive test for alcohol. It's not considered accurate by court standards as it can be affected by changing conditions and environments (though it may only vary by .000000001%). The court does recognize that though a PBT test of .03 may not mean that you're .03, it does mean that you have some alcohol in your system.

 

[Denny347]

While the results of a PBT can't be used in court, can it be used as PC? Is that why lawyers generally advise against to submitting to FST's and PBT's?

Yes, but the testimony in court consists of this, "A PBT was administered." That's it. SFST's are admissible and I do not need a PBT for PC if I do not have one handy. I've arrested and got a conviction on a DUI where all I had was driving behavior and my observations. He refused SFST's and PBT.

 

[BE Mike]

Yes, but the testimony in court consists of this, "A PBT was administered." That's it. SFST's are admissible and I do not need a PBT for PC if I do not have one handy. I've arrested and got a conviction on a DUI where all I had was driving behavior and my observations. He refused SFST's and PBT.

No dash cam evidence was presented?