Civil Liberties and drunk driving

Too many potential problems. What if you are the designated drive, don't drink but your buddies have and it picks up their alcohol. Or if someone spills a drink on you at a bar or you smell like liquor because you are a bartender.

 

Interesting concept.

I haven't read the article yet, and my initial thoughts/questions may be addressed there.

As I understand it, if the BAC limit is .08, one can still be charged if they blow a .06 or .07, for example, because the BAC limit is not the sole criterion for driving under the influence. As such, I imagine getting the green light by the device wouldn't necessarily be a legal defense. But how might it be considered if at all at trial? I get that law enforcement won't have access, but does that mean data can't be subpoenaed for trial? I can also imagine a situation where the device malfunctions and provides a false negative for a driver who's actually over the BAC limit. I wonder if a third party victim would have a cause of action or whether the device manufacturer might enjoy statutory immunity from being sued?

I'd like to think I'm not ever cutting it close enough to need this thing and that I wouldn't drive with even a .04, but I have no doubt it would do some good.

 

All kinds of scenarios where this could lead to really bad outcomes.
You've been told to evacuate due to a fire etc, maybe you or someone in the vehicle has had some alcohol. Car won't drive, you die in the fire. Unintended consequences all over the place. Yes, I get it drunk driving is bad but.....

 

No, nice in theory, but there are too many "what ifs" that would have to be addressed and owned up to. Who is going to own liability for failed tech and how will that work? Would it offer any sort of legal benefit (proof of innocence, or on the flip side, support for DUI)? Drunk driving deaths account for less than 30% of all driving fatalities. I would much rather see an effort to clean up the other 70%. People suck at driving.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Too many "what ifs."

What if I want to drive to the pond on my back 40 or have some beers riding around on a hunting lease?

And this part:

• This is entirely in-car tech. Neither the police nor anyone else has access to it.

I have my doubts.

 

Could be wrong, but I feel like I once read that in Florida at least, DUI laws apply if one is operating a vehicle on private property?

 

Hmmm. I would think that there would have to be some sort of distinction between private, but publicly-accessible property like a grocery store parking lot, and other private property, like privately-owned residential property or leased property that you have a right to be on. At least I would hope that's the way it goes.

 

I found the 1st DCA case I remember seeing awhile back. I don't practice criminal law by the way, but this seems as broad as possible, and I assume it's still good law? I'm sure others know better. Of course, practically, if you're out driving drunk on your back 40 acres, there would probably not be any interaction with police unless there was an accident or someone reported you.

Zink v. State, 448 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

By petition for writ of certiorari, Zink seeks review of the circuit court's order affirming the county court's denial of his motion to dismiss the charge against him. We deny the petition.

On December 20, 1983, Zink was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of section 316.193(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982). Immediately prior to his arrest, the arresting officer had observed Zink “spinning donuts” in the dirt of a construction site on private property owned by Alton Box Company. He had no *1197 possessory or proprietary interest in the property. Undisputedly, the property was not a public street, highway or thoroughfare. The arresting officer had been called to the scene by the construction foreman, who informed the officer that Zink had been harassing the construction workers by trying to run them over with his car. After administering field sobriety tests, the officer determined that Zink was driving while drunk.

Zink contends that the section 316.193(1)(a) prohibition against driving while under the influence of alcohol cannot be applied to him since his offense was committed on private property and not on a public highway. He recognizes that section 316.193(1)(a) makes it is unlawful for a person under the influence of alcohol, to the extent that his normal faculties are impaired, to drive or be in the actual physical control of any vehicle “within this state.” Zink argues, however, that the phrase “within this state,” when considered in pari materia with the remainder of chapter 316 (in which the terms “highways, streets, or thoroughfares of this state” are often used) and when considered in light of the preamble to chapter 316,1 should be given the strict interpretation of meaning “upon the streets and highways and elsewhere throughout the state where the public might have the right to travel.”

We decline to adopt Zink's strained interpretation of the clear terminology of section 316.193(1)(a). The phrase “within this state” is not ambiguous and very lucidly indicates the legislature's intent to encompass all lands in the state. As the circuit judge expressed in his order, it is not objectionable that the Florida Legislature has chosen to apply the statutory prohibition against driving while under the influence of alcohol more broadly throughout the state than certain other prohibitions contained in chapter 316. Since the circuit judge did not depart from the essential requirements of law in his decision, but instead reasonably and accurately construed the statutory language in question, the petition for certiorari is denied. See Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93 (Fla.1983).

 

Wow. While I absolutely agree with you that it's unlikely you will come in to contact on your own property and have reasonable suspicion, this law seems.. dumb. A quick Google search and a few law offices I glanced at all agreed that law is interpreted exactly as written.

 

In some locales chronic DUI offenders have to blow sober before their car will start so some version of this is being used now.

 

Interlock. I've known a couple people that had them installed. Not only do you have to blow to start the vehicle, it will prompt you to blow while driving as well.

 

Perfect self driving cars, problem solved.

 

How about a car that will not exceed the posted speed limit?

Save lives
Lowers gas mileage which causes less pollution
No need for speed traps which lets cops do other things

 

Figured

No more damn street racing or joy riding. Imagine an angry aggressive driver trying to catch you to run you off the road. It would be like a Tim Conway skit where he tries to run someone over with a jazzy scooter.

 

This one would have been great when COVID hit and everyone was using ethyl alcohol instead of isopropyl alcohol for hand sanitizer.

 

ACLU would have a field day