B.S. Drug Test

[kc0iv]

But everybody who thinks this law is stupid is also correct, because no drug test can even remotely indicate whether or not you were stoned while you were driving, or even anytime recently. In fact, some drugs do not show up in a urine sample for several hours which means you can be high while driving/pissing and might still pass. Breathalyzer is the only reliable and fair test, unfortunately it only works for drinking.

Check out
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/oivd/homeuse...stcheck12.html

kc0iv

[kc0iv]

[quote="yeti"]

Notice why the court ruled the way they did.

It's clear it was a very narrow ruling and as such I don't see where it applies in the discussion.

I couldn't find the case of Kohl so I can see what the complete ruling was.

kc0iv

no they fit fairly well with the discussion! Just go back and read Mackman's original post and the first paragraph of mine. All I argue is the possession of a CDL should not automatically be probable cause. I showed 5 cases where courts ruled that being involved in an accident, with no other suspicion of having committed any other crime is not sufficient to prove probable cause. All I ever said was the simple act of holding a CDL, and being involved in an accident(or not), with no suspicion of having committed any other crime should also not be held to be probable cause.

Having a cdl you should be held to a higher standard, including while in your pov. Having a cdl while driving a cmv you should be held to a much higher standard, but not to the point of being forced to give up your constitutional rights. A cdl should not, in its self constitute probable cause.

That is why the ruled the way they did. (With the exception of one that I couldn't find.

Had the officer declare he/she thought that person appeared to be under the influence I feel the court would ruled otherwise. As has the courts rules in other examples.


kc0iv