Tuesday, March 3, 2009

jindal takes on DUI

first, let me state that i do not advocate drunk driving. it is a risk to the driver and everyone else on the road. having said that, i do not think that trying to circumnavigate the constitution in order to deal with drunk driving is the answer. as it stands right now, you have the right to refuse to take a breathalizer(how the hell is that spelled anyway) test and though that refusal will cost you a suspension of your license, the penalty is still less severe than if found guilty of drunk driving. i realize there are many people out there that think, if you are sober, why would you refuse. in other words, this law only impacts you if you have done something wrong. i might disagree. these types of constitutional check points were written into our legal system as a means of protecting citizens. a lawyer on the news put it this way, it would be like the police showing up to search your house without a warrant and your refusal being seen as an admission of guilt. no, this is not the way to go. it should always be your constitutional right to refuse to take an alcohol test. besides, studies indicate that many officers ask drivers to blow twice which artificially elevates the alcohol percentage, thus pushing sober drivers over the limit. the breathalizer test is not as accurate as we would like to believe and that is yet another reason for us to keep our constitutional protections in place. if you are stopped for a DUI, it is always a safer bet to demand a blood test. blood test are far more accurate at determining the percentage of alcohol in the blood stream.
yes, drunk driving is a problem on american roads and i agree that something needs to be done but the erosion of constitutional guaruntees is the wrong way to go about it. i have some suggestions but i think i will save them for another blog.


Bigezbear said...

Blatantly unconstitutional! It's called the Fifth Amendment.

spoke the cat said...