Without due cause we are told that we will be able to be stopped by the police and have random breath tests for alcolhol. Do you think, as I do, that this is rather OTT and makes a presumption of guilt without reason ? What do you think this will do to the popularity of the police with the public as a whole ? Is this yet another Labour incentive that has not been properly thought through ?
2007-02-27 01:48:21 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
In my opinion, breathalyzer or sobriety testing without due cause is an unreasonable search and violates the Bill of Rights, Amendment IV.
I believe that "sobriety checkpoints," in which officers stop all vehicles for no more than a few seconds each to do no more than ask if the driver has been drinking and shine a flashlight into the vehicle from the outside to briefly search for indication of alcohol use, probably are borderline unconstitutional, but are not unreasonable.
2007-02-27 03:23:28 · answer #1 · answered by agave_1986 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In Ontario, Canada this is called the RIDE program. They are not random breath tests for alcohol though. The police set up a roadblock and stop and screen all drivers for alcohol consumption. If the smell of an alcoholic beverage is detected on the breath or if the person admits to drinking then a breath test may be administered.
Most people I speak with are positive about the ride program. People realize that drinking and driving is a real problem in our society and that they accept the inconvenience of being stopped for a few minutes. Many the people I do stop during these times tell me they are happy to see us out and about.
It is the least we can do to keep our roads safe.
2007-02-27 04:15:33 · answer #2 · answered by joeanonymous 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
British Police have the legal right to stop any driver already. Once the car is stopped, if they suspect the driver has alcohol in his system, (eg smell, slurred speech, demeanour, flushed face, indeed anything indeed which rouses suspicion, (or the driver committed a 'moving traffic offence'), they have a right to breath test him/her. Most Forces automatically breath test drivers at accidents, even if alcohol isnt apparent (because a moving traffic offence must have occurred for an accident to happen)
so, my question to you is this....random testing being introduced - whats the difference to now? Nothing - another pointless government press release to appear as if theyre doing something!
2007-02-27 13:59:19 · answer #3 · answered by skipper409 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Too many people think they can get away with it if they believe the police need a reason to stop them.I think many will be put off driving over the limit when they see a few prtosecutions come up from random testing.
2007-02-27 05:49:53 · answer #4 · answered by frankturk50 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Random breath testing! Your kidding?
You know what? Thats other dumb *** law if it is ture.
What, they should do is have all judges and district attorneys and all police officers give a automatic breath test before deciding ones outcome or before going on duty.
You might just be surprised how many of them are guilty of the very things they judge
us for. Then it might be a hole diffrent story. And why stop there? lets go all the way to having our politcans tested. This is about some dip sh.. who has way to much time on there hands and wants to make up some more dumb laws. Whats happening to this world? Next thing you know they will come into our home and arrest you for watching the news. Somebody needs to get a life.
2007-02-27 02:07:07 · answer #5 · answered by tommyhawk 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In Ohio, we call them OVI Checkpoints, and we pull vehicles over at random to check for impaired drivers...these checkpoints have to be in a well planned area, and it has to be announced through the media where and when the check will be...Once we start checking cars it is usually a random number, like every 7th car is stopped and the driver is told what is going on, and after a few minor routine questions, if he shows indication of impaired driving, field sobriety tests are performed.
2007-02-27 01:54:45 · answer #6 · answered by Scott & Arlene C 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I haven't heard about this. But I think they need to come up with a test for drivers smoking weed. There seems to be far more nuts on the road flying high than drunk.
2007-02-27 02:49:55 · answer #7 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
good idea as long as there's compensation for stopping an innocent person. Why should we be delayed with our journey if we haven't done anything wrong and besides it can be very embarrassing stopped by the police, compensation is in order for the innocent victim.
2007-02-27 03:18:08 · answer #8 · answered by cassidy 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.....
Drunks kill people daily.... real lives wasted, real people wasted, lives and livings wrecked, marriages split up, people in hospital beds totally dependant for the rest of thier lives .....All because you wanted a drink.
DONT KILL PEOPLE JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT A DRINK.
Dont drink and drive
2007-02-28 03:34:29 · answer #9 · answered by confused 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't drink and drive. We get tagged in the States all the time. I thought you guys could walk to your pubs?
2007-02-27 01:51:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋