SENATE BILL: Repeal of the You Can't Beat a DUI ... Act (rejected)

[bgwah]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Napoleon

[bgwah]

For reference: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/You_Can%27t_Beat_a_DUI_..._Act

Why do you want to repeal that, Napoleon?

[Napoleon]

For reference: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/You_Can%27t_Beat_a_DUI_..._Act

Why do you want to repeal that, Napoleon?

I believe field tests are a superior method of finding intoxication levels than breath tests known to be inaccurate. We should have video recorded field sobriety tests as higher priority than chemical tests.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Just a thought... people who are over-tired display almost all the same symptoms of people who are under the influence... in fact, being without sleep, has the same effect on motor skills as being over the legal limit... (0.05-0.08).

Field sobriety tests are not rock solid indications.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

What exactly are we talking about. Repealing the repeal or some drunk stuff?

I'm confused.

[Napoleon]

Just a thought... people who are over-tired display almost all the same symptoms of people who are under the influence... in fact, being without sleep, has the same effect on motor skills as being over the legal limit... (0.05-0.08).

Field sobriety tests are not rock solid indications.

Which is why those individuals would choose to use a chemical test to prove their innocence.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

As I've discussed regarding the title of this bill before, it has no relation to the other bill of the same name. It should be changed to something more accurate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, has the sponsor come up with a suitable replacement title for this bill, at this juncture?

[bgwah]

I'd like to offer an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you accept as friendly, Napoleon?

[Napoleon]

I'd like to offer an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you accept as friendly, Napoleon?

Yes

[Badger]

For reference: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/You_Can%27t_Beat_a_DUI_..._Act

Why do you want to repeal that, Napoleon?

I believe field tests are a superior method of finding intoxication levels than breath tests known to be inaccurate. We should have video recorded field sobriety tests as higher priority than chemical tests.

<Opens the crypt door......IT.....IS.......ALIVE!!!!>

Hello all. I was checking the thread on the Cabinet Flexibility Act to decide how to vote (Aye, FTR) and discovered this thread.

Napoleon, I think you are a credit to the forum and Atlasia; always have, and I don't get this "bully" meme thrown at you from time to time. But here, my friend, you are simply wrong. Not merely sharing a different opinion, but factually 2 + 2 = 5 incorrect. And if this is the strongest reason in favor of repealing the Act, I'm afraid that is strong grounds to defeat the pending repeal.

A VERY thumbnail version of the science: A majority of people begin to display "appreciable impairment" (the legal standard for "under the influence" in most jurisdictions) at an .04 BAC.  By the time a .06 BAC is reached, the percentage of persons appreciably impaired is quite substantial. Still, even here there are a reasonable percentage of persons who are not impaired at that point, and thus a strong argument for making a per se DUI offense at such levels, even if it covers all but the far end of the tolerance bell curve.

However, even the most hardcore alcoholic with a naturally strong constitution (rolled an 18 at birth--bonus points for the first one to cite the reference, though in this geeky crowd of ours that isn't exactly obscure ) will "to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" be appreciably impaired at a .08 BAC. Despite what paid hacks for the defense bar state (and whose views aren't even shared privately by the vast majority of the defense bar), "breathalyzers" (under various names) are reliable and scientifically accurate.

While field tests are a useful tool for an officer to determine impairment on the road for an arrest decision, they are not foolproof. I hasten to add that the margin of error almost inevitably goes in favor of the drunks. I.E. The ratio of persons arrested after failing field sobriety tests (and a sizable % of people pass those tests and aren't arrested, btw, even though they've been drinking) and test under the legal limit is quite low, whereas persons being arrested after only nominally failing the tests and subsequently being found on a BAC test to be MUCH farther over the limit than readily perceived by their outward appearance is a regular occurrence. The explanation is simple: many DUI arrestees (particularly multiple offenders) are persistent alcohol abusers and are used to "coping" in public while heavily intoxicated. Thus they can often "pull it together" well enough to do much better on field tests than someone as impaired as they are should perform; this of course doesn't make them any less of a danger on the roads when dealing with reaction time, divided attention skills, etc. which are fundamentally necessary to drive.

The issue goes then to proof. Juries will all too often excuse a driver who "doesn't look too bad" on videotaped field sobriety tests. This results in the golden rule of "don't blow" for arrestees. The result is instead of relying on a scientifically reliable, trustworthy and quantifiable measure of impairment, enforcement is left to a case-by-case patchwork depending on how well someone at (e.g.) twice the legal limit can hold it together on camera, how articulate and charming the arresting officer is to juries, and fundamentally rewards evasion of what is by far the best measure of actual impairment. I'd further note such a system punishes those who cooperate and provide a breath test as such results are almost always over the legal limit (but, hey, they chose to drink too much then get behind the wheel), while rewarding those who evade revealing the exact level of their impairment by refusing chemical testing. This is also relevent to DUI statutes (like most in Atlasia, IIRC) which justifiably impose greater punishments for particularly high BAC levels (e.g. over .17 BAC). No field sobriety test will ever measure that or, consequently, punish the offender appropriately.

I'll note that such laws making it an offense to refuse chemical testing after a lawful DUI arrest already applies in real life for drivers of commercial vehicles. I realize that there are particular dangers in operating a multi-ton commercial vehicle impaired, but as the ratio of non-commercial DUI arrests to Commercial vehicle DUIs is litterally over 10,000 to 1, and we all know a drunk behind the wheel of a pickup truck, Hummer, or Honda Civic can easily kill those unlucky enough to be in their path, the societal interest in requiring those lawfully arrested of DUI to, you know, follow the law and submit to chemical testing, is manifest.

FSTs are useful tools, and presently sometimes all the prosecution has in many cases to prove a drunk driver's guilt, but they simply don't begin to compare to the trustworthy scientific reliability of breathalyzers and other quantifiable chemical testing methods. The simple and common sense change in the law this body unanimously enacted last year changed the hodgepodge adjudication of DUI offenses into a system that requires accountability for everyone lawfully arrested of such crimes. I respectfully ask this chamber to defeat this measure (or better yet for the rational and well-meaning sponsor to consider withdrawing it ).

[Bacon King]

I'd like to offer an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you accept as friendly, Napoleon?

Yes

This amendment has been accepted as friendly. Senators have 24 hours to object (sorry I missed this!)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

First homely gives us the Crazy Pol back, and now Nappy lures the were-badger out of his chamber of rest. Next thing you know, fuzzy will given Marokai Blue an opportunity to return to the Senate. Oh wait....

[bgwah]

The amendment has passed.

[Marokai Backbeat]

First homely gives us the Crazy Pol back, and now Nappy lures the were-badger out of his chamber of rest. Next thing you know, fuzzy will given Marokai Blue an opportunity to return to the Senate. Oh wait....

Oh hush, you love me here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

First homely gives us the Crazy Pol back, and now Nappy lures the were-badger out of his chamber of rest. Next thing you know, fuzzy will given Marokai Blue an opportunity to return to the Senate. Oh wait....

Oh hush, you love me here.

I also like the presence of Kal and the sudden appearence of badger.

It's like a 2010 redux. Somehow I get the feeling that a 2010 redux isn't your cup of tea.

[bgwah]

I am bringing this to a final vote. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nay

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Abstain, cuz I don't understand what the f**k are you talking about

[bgwah]

nay

[Badger]

First homely gives us the Crazy Pol back, and now Nappy lures the were-badger out of his chamber of rest. Next thing you know, fuzzy will given Marokai Blue an opportunity to return to the Senate. Oh wait....

Oh hush, you love me here.

I also like the presence of Kal and the sudden appearence of badger.

It's like a 2010 redux. Somehow I get the feeling that a 2010 redux isn't your cup of tea.

As long as a certain Staten Island poster doesn't also show up to harsh our mellow.

[Mopsus]

Nay

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nay

[bgwah]

The bill has been rejected 0-5-1, with 3 non-voting abstentions.