Texans, their cars, and beer

Last I heard, there was no such law in Texas.

Isn't this along the same lines as taking houses or other property that has been involved in drug-related crime? Some courts have seen such seizure laws as a sort of Double Jeopardy and there have been numerous complaints of abuse (such as police seizing property but never filing charges against the suspects or police seizing property that is barely connected to the crime).

And there is the potential punishment to family members who could have their ability to earn a living taken away because a member of the family makes the bad mistake of drinking and driving. And taking a car away may not be anymore effective in combating drunk drivers. Taking away a car doesn't mean that they cannot drive again. They could have other cars, they could rent a car, they could borrow a car, etc. Seems to me that the best way to keep drunk drivers off the streets is to put them in jail. If drunk driving is that serious a crime, then putting the offenders in jail will stop those offenders from driving drunk at least for a while.

Of course, a person can murder someone in cold blood around here and not get jail time, so I doubt we'll be rounding up drunk drivers anytime soon, either.

------------------

 

There are other methods of controlling drunk driving. - Trade the offenders to Portland

Seriously though, I'm not sure jail time is the answer, but rather stricter controls. In Australia, they employ a couple of measures that have been very effective:-

1. Random Breath Tests. The police can stop you for no reason at all and make you "blow in the bag". You can refuse, but then you must go down to the station and submit to a blood test. First offense is 3 months license suspension. Second is 12 months, 3rd and you have lost it for life. If you are caught driving witout a license, then you have jail time in your future.

2. "The booze bus" This is the same as above, but they set up road blocks, block exits and blanket test everyone that drive past. If you test positive, you're put int a bus, which, when full, takes all the offenders down to the lockup. You have to leave yor car on the side of the road.

3. Speed traps - not strictly related to drunk driving, but effective none the less. Basically, a private contractor, not even police, sets up a speed gun and camera on a tripod in a strategic location, and photographs every car who drives past faster then the speed limit. The owner of the car is responsible for proving if someone else was driving their car, otherwise they wear the fine & loss of points. The crazy thing is, police publish a list of where these traps will be ech day, and people still get caught hand over fist. Let me tell you - theres nothing quite like that hollow feeling when you speeding along and you see a "flash".



------------------
Current Rocket's Salary & Contract Info

 

There are some places in the U.S. that have unmanned photo radar that sends out tickets to violators, but they don't have it in Texas as far as I know.

Suspended licenses and even sobriety checkpoints are used in Texas, too. The suspended license thing doesn't seem to bother a lot of people. I have seen quite a few news reports where they follow people leaving a hearing where their license was suspended or revoked and watch them get into their cars and drive away. I had a friend who had his license revoked after his first DWI, but he continued to drive (and got three more DWIs, including one where he wrapped his truck around a telephone pole, while driving on his revoked license). Last I heard, he never had to serve any jail time for his offenses.

The thing is, the third DWI is supposed to be a felony. In any other felony, you're very likely to get jail time, but drunk drivers are far less likely to actually have to do time (or they're allowed to server their time on weekends only). So, in many ways, I would simply like to see them ennforce the laws they have. If a person is getting their third DWI, I think we can safely assume they are a repeat offender and it may be more prudent to put them in jail where they cannot hurt anyone.

Considering the high number of drunk driving-related fatalities in the U.S., it is clear that what we are doing now isn't working. So, we need to come up with something better. I'm just not ready to start taking cars or other property away from people because of the civil liberties issues.

------------------

 

Didn't Australia start out as a prison colony for Great Britain?

In the USA we have something called the bill of rights and certain freedoms that would be violated by using those tactics. Speed traps are one thing but randomly stopping people would not be appropiate.

I agree that drunk-driving is a problem but stiffer laws and enforcement of those laws would be a better deterent.



------------------
Houston Rockets Forever!!
In Rudy We Trust

 

Man..it's refreshing to see people not trade in their liberties in some knee-jerk reaction!! Good for you!

The problem with seizure laws is that the authorities may seize your property with just a preponderance of the evidence...but then they decide whether or not you're guilty based on the more stringent reasonable doubt standard. I read something in the Chronicle the other day about this changing, but when I took Criminal Procedure in law school, this was a really heated subject.

I worry about my children living in a nation where the Bill of Rights are stripped down in an effort to provide "security."

------------------

 

I love this part:

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution generally forbids police from taking action against a driver unless they have a reasonable suspicion that the driver has done something wrong.

They obviously didn't tell the police officers in my hometown about this. I can't tell you how many times I've been pulled over for no reason at all or on the flimsiest of excuses back in my hometown (Amarillo). It happened more often when I was a teenager, but it has happened more recently, too like the cop who pulled me over because he wondered why I would drive through my neighborhood at night and where I had been that early at that hour. And the officer who pulled me over and performed a complete search of the vehicle without permission or probable cause simply because he thought my window tinting looked a little dark even though my windows weren't tinted at all. Or the officer who pulled me over simply because I was pulling out of the parking lot of a bar. I guess it doesn't pay to be the designated driver.

------------------

 

Now you're making me laugh Dennis, and not about the Penal Colony jibe. How exactly are your rights infringed upon by using those tactics? If you are not speeding, you have nothing to worry about, and the "Random breath tests" are exactly that - they are only breath tests - nothing else - they can't shake you down or search your car if they stop you for breath testing.

As for your suggestion of simply applying stiffer penalties, its well docmented that it just doesn't work. In Australia, they tried doubling all the traffic penalties overnight, and there was negligible reduction in offences. I'm not sure about over here, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the argument against the most severe of penalties - the death penalty - is that it has done little to reduce crime. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of VERY tough penalties, but I don't think you should discount alternative tactics.

Finally, I'm sincerely hoping that your comment "In the USA we have something called the Bill Of Rights..." was in no way implying that Australia lacks such Rights. That would be ill informed and inappropriate.

------------------
Current Rocket's Salary & Contract Info

 

They actually experimented with this in Texas for a while, and gave it up because it was unenforcable. Any case that went to trial failed under the "innocent until proven guilty" standard. It was pretty easy to suggest that the registered owner of a car doesn't always drive it.

They also ran into problems with people not having the opportunity to come up with an adequite defense when they received the notice a month after the fact. (Do you remember how fast you were driving on July 20 at 5:27pm? Where you were driving? Who was in the car with you as a witness?)

They are suggesting using a similar system for tailpipe testing -- using a remotely operated laser to detect high pollution from cars. I think this has more of a chance of working, since the crime can be tied to the vehicle. (i.e. owning a vehicle with substandard emissions.)

------------------
Stay Cool...

[This message has been edited by dc sports (edited August 23, 2000).]

 

If someone was driving my car on July 20th, I can easily say it wasn't me, but I only know that because my car was in the shop on July 20th (and remains in the shop to this day. Damn German cars.) But I agree with you that most people wouldn't know for any given date.

There was an article in one of the car magazines about a year ago about a fella who got one of those photo radar tickets in the mail. He knew that it couldn't have actually been him, so he went to fight it. As it turned out, his license plate number was the same as a Congressman's license plate number. The difference being that the Congressman had government plates while the guy who got the ticket had regular state plates. The way the law was written and enforced, though, he had no legal way to fight a ticket that was mistakenly mailed to the wrong person. His only legal way to fight was to say that he wasn't driving the car when it was caught speeding on photo radar. The law assumed that the photo radar didn't allow people to make a mistake as to the car itself and didn't account for a clerical error like that one (where the person entering in the license plate data puts in the numbers correctly but doesn't account for the plate being of a different jurisdiction.

According to the article, it took a good long while to sort out.

------------------

 

I could care less about what rights they have down under since I do not live there. I live in United States and my rights are protected under the Constitution. What happens in other countries is of little consequence.

A police officer must have a reason to pull me over and not just to random breath test me. Thats what the 4th ammendment says(however some dim-witted cops still have a problem following that).

Stiffer penalties would be removing a persons driver lincense, mandatory jail time, stiffer fines and increased jail time for repeat offenders. I do not want the government to infringe on my rights just because some weak-willed person does not know when to stop drinking. This is not some European Nanny state that has the government protect us from ourselves.


------------------
Houston Rockets Forever!!
In Rudy We Trust

 

Why should the cops have to just settle for randomly stopping people to see if they've been drinking?

Why can't they just grab people as they're walking down the street and search them for drugs?

Why can't cops just barge into people's houses to see if there's any illegal drugs?

In some places, sodomy is still illegal. Why can't the cops just follow any guy with a swishy walk home and burst into his bedroom to make sure he's not having gay sex?

Why can't the police just stop, search, and interrogate every black person in America any time they go out in public?

------------------
Is it ironic to say you've sworn off swearing?

 

mrpaige -- reasonable suspicion is a very low hurdle to reach for police officers.

Police can search your car visually by flashing a flashlight in there through the windows, without entering the car...they're looking for something in plain view. The idea is that if you don't have a privacy interest in anything you'd expose to plain view. However, the moment they open the door and start going through the glove box or the trunk, they have to have probable cause. That's a much higher standard. If it were a house, they'd have to demonstrate probable cause to a magistrate who would issue a warrant. But with a car, no warrant is necessary. The idea is that homes deserve more protection; cars are mobile and there's more of a chance of destruction or hiding evidence with them; and that the use of a car is a privilege anyway since they're subject to so much state regulation and you have to have a license to drive one. So essentially, you give up a lot of privacy rights when you go out in your car, just because of the nature of the car itself.

Any officer who pulls you over and searches your car without probable cause is an idiot. Any evidence he would have found to convict you of some crime would have been thrown out the window under the Exclusionary Rule. Obviously, I don't know the exact details of what happened to you or what happened that made that officer pull you over...but that sort of action wouldn't have stood in court. Nevertheless, it might have been a serious inconvience to you if you had been taken downtown and had to have a hearing to determine the sufficiency of that evidence...not to mention attorney's fees!!



------------------

 

You know, there's kind of an ironic twist to suspending someone's license for a DWI. Driving with a suspended licesnse is a misdemeanor -- they can't even impound your car just for that.

It's odd that they would expect a person who was just convicted of a felony to fear the very small risk of a traffic ticket.

------------------
Stay Cool...

 

Dennis2112:

"What happens in other countries is of little consequence. "
No offense here Dennis, but that comes accross to me as a very narrow minded comment. To think that you cannot benefit from another country's experience is... well I don't know how to phrase it without being rude, so I won't.

"A police officer must have a reason to pull me over and not just to random breath test me. Thats what the 4th ammendment says.."
Tell me what your real objection to being subjected to a random breath test is, and don't just hide behind the Constitution and and 4th ammendment. Have you ever been overseas? If so, you may have been subjected to a random luggage search on your way back through customs. Is this an infringement of your rights as well, and if so, why are the Customs Officials allowed to get away with it and Police aren't?


"This is not some European Nanny state that has the government protect us from ourselves."
No - i don't need to be protected from myself because I'm a responsible law abiding citizen - it's everyone else I want to be protected from. I pay tax so that the Government can, amongst other things, provide services, infrastructure, and public safety. If the minor inconvenience of stopping me for a random breath test may one day reduce the risk of some innocent person being killed by a drunk driver then I'm all for it. In a perfect world, cops would not abuse their power, but there wouldn't be any drunk drivers either.




------------------
Current Rocket's Salary & Contract Info

 

My guess was the reason that he tossed the car was to see if I had any eggs or other vandalism-related items in my car. It was Hell Week (Amarillo High vs. Tascosa High) and those sorts of things go on. I suspect that had I had eggs or the like in my vehicle, he simply would've taken them away rather than trying to make an arrest or anything. I really don't think he was looking for something he could arrest me on, but maybe he really was that stupid. And I'm not going to go and press a case that he was violating my civil rights by searching my car without permission or probable cause because it's just a pain for me (if he had found something illegal and I was arrested, then I would've pressed the illegal search issue, but I did not and never would have something illegal in my car).

The thing with living in smaller towns is that the police seem to have more of a God Complex. This doesn't go for all of them (I know many good officers in Amarillo), but there are quite a few who abuse their power, and that number seems to be greater in smaller towns. (At least in my experience, which may or may not be the norm.)

As for looking through the windows with the flashlight and all that, that's not really a search to me (or to the Supreme Court, I guess) because he's looking in plain sight.

I'm always shocked to watch these Cop shows on TV where the officer has some guy pulled over and the officer asks if he can search the car. Invariably, the car owner says yes and the cop finds something to arrest the guy for. Now, the cop may have had probable cause anyway or may have searched anyway, but at least if you don't give them permission, you have the chance of getting the court to view the search as illegal and get the evidence thrown out.



------------------

 

1st of all I meant that laws of another country have no bearing on what happens here. We have a Constitution that has kept the law just fine so far. I did not mean to degrade another country's laws but they mean nothing in accordance to our own laws. Quit parsing peoples words and calling them narrow-minded. If you believe that the laws in Australia are better , fine, but until they are voted into law here in this country, they do not mean squat.

As for my objection to random breath tests, IT IS AGAINST THE 4TH AMMENDMENT..period. If I am in another country than I will follow their laws just as I expect people who travel follow ours.

I do not believe that you should punish the whole because a part does not comply. If you have one bad apple , you should remove that bad apple not destroy the whole bushel. Punish the people who deserve it not the people who do not! This is not a perfect world, you said it yourself. Until it is , the government should not be given broad powers like that. We would become slaves to the government and stop being citizens.

------------------
Houston Rockets Forever!!
In Rudy We Trust


[This message has been edited by Dennis2112 (edited August 24, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Dennis2112 (edited August 24, 2000).]

 

Ok Dennis - I'll apologize for parsing your comments, but I do believe that, as stated, the comment appeared narrow minded, parsed or not. If you had said "Laws in other countries are of no consequence to laws in the USA" then we would have less of a misunderstanding. However, I think that the real point here is that, while another countries law's do not directly impact the ones here, you can still certainly learn from them.

As for my objection to random breath tests, IT IS AGAINST THE 4TH AMMENDMENT..period. If I am in another country than I will follow their laws just as I expect people who travel follow ours

I know it is against the 4th Ammedment, but how is it different from my Customs/baggage inspection example?

"I do not believe that you should punish the whole because a part does not comply. If you have one bad apple , you should remove that bad apple not destroy the whole bushel. Punish the people who deserve it not the people who do not! This is not a perfect world, you said it yourself. Until it is , the government should not be given broad powers like that. We would become slaves to the government and stop being citizens."

I agree with you on this one Dennis, and please believe that I strongly believe in strict penalities, I just don't see that allowing random breath testing is giving the government "broad powers". It is merely an alternative I suggested that has been effective elsewhere.

------------------
Current Rocket's Salary & Contract Info

[This message has been edited by davo (edited August 24, 2000).]