3 ms·

> Couldn't the same be said for a breathalyzer? Yes, actually, and that question (wrt criminal penalties some states have heaped on) happens to be in front of

> Couldn't the same be said for a breathalyzer? Yes, actually, and that question (wrt criminal penalties some states have heaped on) happens to be in front of the Supreme Court right now in Birchfield v. North Dakota[1] (though not for the first amendment, GP is off course there). Sibling comments are correct on the legal theory behind allowing punishments for refusing to take a breathalyzer test, but it's clearly questionable whether a state should be allowed to issue criminal penalties for availing yourself of your rights. If such a thing were generally allowed, warrants wouldn't be necessary in most cases: let us search your person/phone/car/house/papers without a warrant unless you want severe automatic penalties, etc. [1] http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/argument-analysis-criminal-penalties-for-refusal-to-take-a-breathalyzer-test-in-jeopardy/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/argument-analysis-criminal...

ams6110 11y ago
If we would simply hold people liable for the consequences of their actions we would not need DUI laws or breathalyzer "implied consent" attached to driving.
- smileysteve 11y ago
  Seriously. Distracted and reckless driving have been laws long before cell phones or laws against drinking while driving. Distracted and reckless driving already carry large fines and are much more subjective with much less burden of proof than finding a text message on a phone.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    Drunk driving laws are really addressing the problem indirectly. The whole point is that EtOH affects stuff like reaction time, motor control, situational awareness, and risk assessment. The source doesn't matter, if you are not able to meet a minimum ability in those skills, then driving is a going to be dangerous. The source of the problem doesn't matter. Instead of the breathalyzer (or other tests for EtOH) we should be testing for ability. I suspect this shouldn't be hard or expensive, for example, to make a portable device that implemented objective tests[1] of ability. Obviously some research would be needed to determine which skills need to be tested and to calibrate the minimum-ability cutoffs. [1] like this reaction time test: https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/java/redgreen.html https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/java/redgreen.html
0xcde4c3db 11y ago
> unless you want severe automatic penalties Isn't that basically how traffic tickets work in general? As far as I understand it, you have the option of rejecting the ticket as long as you're willing to be arrested for the offense instead.
- ams6110 11y ago
  Not really. The ticket is just documentation of the officer's charge that you violated whatever law. You can sign it or not, tear it up, you'll still be on the docket at the local courthouse at some date in the near future, and if you don't show up you'll get a bench warrant for failure to appear.
  - taneq 11y ago
    So basically a traffic infringement notice is a standardized plea-bargain?

ams6110 11y ago

If we would simply hold people liable for the consequences of their actions we would not need DUI laws or breathalyzer "implied consent" attached to driving.

smileysteve 11y ago
Seriously. Distracted and reckless driving have been laws long before cell phones or laws against drinking while driving. Distracted and reckless driving already carry large fines and are much more subjective with much less burden of proof than finding a text message on a phone.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  Drunk driving laws are really addressing the problem indirectly. The whole point is that EtOH affects stuff like reaction time, motor control, situational awareness, and risk assessment. The source doesn't matter, if you are not able to meet a minimum ability in those skills, then driving is a going to be dangerous. The source of the problem doesn't matter. Instead of the breathalyzer (or other tests for EtOH) we should be testing for ability. I suspect this shouldn't be hard or expensive, for example, to make a portable device that implemented objective tests[1] of ability. Obviously some research would be needed to determine which skills need to be tested and to calibrate the minimum-ability cutoffs. [1] like this reaction time test: https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/java/redgreen.html https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/java/redgreen.html

0xcde4c3db 11y ago

> unless you want severe automatic penalties Isn't that basically how traffic tickets work in general? As far as I understand it, you have the option of rejecting the ticket as long as you're willing to be arrested for the offense instead.

ams6110 11y ago
Not really. The ticket is just documentation of the officer's charge that you violated whatever law. You can sign it or not, tear it up, you'll still be on the docket at the local courthouse at some date in the near future, and if you don't show up you'll get a bench warrant for failure to appear.
- taneq 11y ago
  So basically a traffic infringement notice is a standardized plea-bargain?