Here DesertRat this one is just for you:


Georgia?s Implied Consent Law Struck Down
A new Georgia law that required any motorists involved in serious accidents to submit to drug testing or automatically lose their driver's license for a year has been struck down by the state Supreme Court.

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled Monday that the state's implied consent statue "authorizes a search and seizure without probable cause" and therefore violates the state and federal constitution.

Under the provision the court struck down, any motorist involved in a auto mishap in which serious injury or death occurred was presumed to have given prior consent to a chemical test to determine the presence or alcohol or other drugs. The flaw, the court said, is that the statute compels chemical testing regardless of whether there is any independent reason to believe they are impaired.

The ruling sent local prosecutors scrambling to determine how many current DUI cases may be affected. Law enforcement officials said the ruling would force them to return to the practice of asking motorists for consent to blood tests in cases where injury has occurred.

More: Alcohol-Related Impairment | More About Drunk Driving
Tuesday October 7, 2003 | comments (0)

 

Very good, dig far enough and you'll surely find something of marginal usefulness. For starters, th Georgia impled consent laws were not over turned, not permanently anyway.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...rt-upholds.php

Furthermore, the new ruling merely requires a "probable cause" to initiate the "impled consent" rule in the case of an accident. Any one with any experience (1st hand or otherwise) with law enforcement knows that probable cause is a no brainer. In the world of traffic law, probable cause is generally a slam dunk for the officer. For all it's worth, I expect this law to be tested again in the high courts. It would not be too difficult for a prosecuting attorney to make the case that a major accident brought about by poor driving constitutes proabale cause. I expect the prosecutors will try that, and ultimatley the state supreme court will have to revisit the issue.

 

there have been cases struck down, all do involve accidents causing injury or death:

n6 In McDuff v. State, the Supreme Court of Mississippi was asked to determine the constitutionality of a state statute which provided that ?any driver involved in an automobile accident from which a fatality occurs shall have his blood drawn and tested for the presence of alcohol or drugs, regardless of whether probable cause exits to believe that the driver was under the influence of alcohol or drugs.? Id. at 852. The Court determined that the statute was null and void under both the Fourth Amendment and the Mississippi Constitution because it mandated search and seizure absent probable cause or consent. Id. at 853.

In Blank v. State, the Court of Appeals of Alaska considered a state statute which allowed a police officer to administer chemical tests of bodily substances ?if the person is involved in a motor vehicle accident that causes death or serious physical injury to another person,? ?without any individualized suspicion that the driver was impaired, whether by alcohol or drugs, or even any evidence that the driver or operator caused the accident.? Id. at 366. The Court concluded that the statute permitted unreasonable intrusions contrary to both the Fourth Amendment and the Alaska Constitution. Id. at 368.

The Supreme Court of Illinois in King v. Ryan, examined the constitutionality of a state statute which implied consent for chemical testing of bodily substances if there was probable cause to believe that the person ??was the driver at fault, in whole or in part, for a motor vehicle accident which resulted in the death or personal injury of any person.?? Id. at 157-158. The Court recognized that the probable cause element of the statute related only to the driver?s fault for the accident and did not require any grounds to suspect that the driver was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Id. at 158. Consequently, the Court determined that the statute violated both the Fourth Amendment and the Illinois Constitution.

Commonwealth v. Kohl involved a challenge to the Pennsylvania implied consent statute. The statute authorized chemical testing if the police officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving, operating, or in actual physical control of the movement of the motor vehicle, which was ?involved in an accident in which the operator or passenger of any vehicle involved or a pedestrian required treatment at a medical facility or was killed.? Id. at 313. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania concluded that the statute authorized unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Pennsylvania Constitution. [*13]

 

Which, as wrong as it may be, or as infuriated as it may make you, means very little. You go to court, the cop lies and says "I thought I smelled alcohol on his breath" and probable cause is established. No traffic court judge is going to disagree, neither will most juries (who have a tendenciy to be slanted against drunk drivers.) That doesn't make it right, just real.

 

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

 

We need a Lawyer turned truck driver on this forum :P

 

[quote="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.

 

Actually you can beat a dead horse all you want. It won't amount to anything more than beating a dead horse.

My Florida issued CDL-A has, under where my signature appears the following statement:

Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law.

A post accident UA is required by the FMCSR's which are backed by law, and are enforceable. No UA, no license. Simple as that. Pee or don't. No pee, no license. No trick to that.

Frankly...if I am ever involved in an accident...I want to be tested for one simple reason: To prove that I am not operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs. By doing so... I am taking most of a dirtbag lawyers argument against me in court away from him...especially if his client was at fault. Refusal to do the UA would be like saying I'm at fault.

Deal with it or ride a bicycle.

 

I'm canadian, and drug tests up here are almost completely illegal. But I drive to US so I have to take all the US drug tests, including post accident of course.

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.

I dont want any drug users on the road; however, piss tests can't make any connection between drugs and driving... but nobody has found a better method, and its not like that law is gonna change. Anyway, anybody who drives any vehicle should be well aware of dui testing, its not like it was thought of yesterday. In canada you get charged if you refuse the breathalyzer, I would assume its the same in USA with post accident drug testing, but i dont know that for sure.

Ps. I think its silly that US is so worried about people using drugs like pot on their free time at home (can show up for 20-30+ days in a urine test), yet the legal limit on alcohol while driving is NOT zero, even in a truck. :roll:

 

I think its silly that US is so worried about people using drugs like pot on their free time at home (can show up for 20-30+ days in a urine test), yet the legal limit on alcohol while driving is NOT zero, even in a truck.

And many in the U.S think that Smoking Pot iin Canada is Silly.
Also-Better get your Facts straight-There IS a ZERO policy with Alcohol and Driving Truck.