Galveston County "no refusal" week

[WildBill]

I would also add that "no refusal" makes a mockery of the warrant requirement. If an agency truly has judges "on call" to approve any and every warrant request they receive, and this is the clear message, then the 4th Amendment is being violated.
I feel about this issue much like the forfeiture laws. They originated solely as a way to target major drug suppliers, but now they are used without any significant oversight and as a revenue generator. Chas.

In the beginning these laws have had the support of the public. Politicians, congress and the media have done a terrific job of making the public afraid of the bogeyman d'jour. Whether it is the drunk driver, the drug dealer, wife-beater or the terrorist, it is only when average law-abiding citizens are targeted that people start to question the wisdom and constitutionality of these laws.

[ELB]

... For example, 1 in ever 4 contacts police make, they are dealing with a legally intoxicated (I sat legally becuase they probably walk, talk, act normal). of those only about 1 in 20 or 30 get arrested for DUI.

That's interesting. I would like to see how those figures were arrived at (and do they relate only to alcohol intoxication, or do they include illegal drugs, prescription drugs?). It suggests that a) whatever standard was used as "legally intoxicated" was set way too low... or b) police officers are failing to arrest drivers who are "legally intoxicated, or c) cops recognize that the legally intoxicated standard is not particularly legitimate and are instead arresting on other indicators (e.g. weaving or other poor driving, etc) which is not incongruent with a).

[WildBill]

... For example, 1 in ever 4 contacts police make, they are dealing with a legally intoxicated (I sat legally becuase they probably walk, talk, act normal). of those only about 1 in 20 or 30 get arrested for DUI.

Assuming these are correct numbers, I would bet that the number refers to total contacts, rather than contacts from vehicle stops. I can see 1:20 to 1:30 getting arrested for PI, but I would think the arrest numbers resulting from vehicle stops is much higher. I would think that an LEO would not arrest an intoxicated pedestrian as often as an automobile driver. Of course, I have no proof. I just like to guess.

[Originalist]

Not real sure where the numbers were derived from, I can go back to my books and CD and check, just not from the Hospital. As for what ELB was saying -- In order to be arrested there has to be probable cause, which for DUI is Vehicle in motion observations, driver contact observations and Test performance. You must connect all the dots for DUI stops. Without the "signs" (i.e. odor, eyes, swerving, falling down) the officer does not have the PC to move on to the next step. The only real exception is if the officer doesnt see the vehicle in motion (accident, parked on side of road passed out, etc.) So for those "career drunks" and those who sip on those odorless drinks sometimes it is hard to detect the things and without probable cause to suspect DUI, where could the officer go? Don't we start stretching just what a cop can do and when? How would you like it everytime you were pulled over a cop stuck a breathalyzer in your face?

The legal standard for intoxication is loss of normal mental/physical capacities OR a BrAC (breath alcohol concentration) and BAC (blood alcohol concentration) of 0.08 or higher. So one is based solely on observations of the officer and interpretation of those observations through judicial review (D.A., Judges and Juries) and the other is based on the "per se" rule (meaning "in and of itself") It is a presumptive level (If your BrAC or BAC is above this level you are presumed "Intoxicated").

[Kevinf2349]

Never mind a "No refusal" week ...how about a "Shall issue" week ? A week where they concentrate on clearing the CHL backlog?

Nah, it will never happen...they are too busy 'encouraging' people to waive (or rather have snatched away) their constitutional rights to actually follow the law themselves.

What next, a "no refusal to stop and search looking for firearms"? or a "no refusal to stop and search period"?

While I agree that drink driving is a total abomination and should be severly punished I see this as potentially the thin end of an very scary wedge.

[Liberty]

Not real sure where the numbers were derived from, I can go back to my books and CD and check, just not from the Hospital. As for what ELB was saying -- In order to be arrested there has to be probable cause, which for DUI is Vehicle in motion observations, driver contact observations and Test performance. You must connect all the dots for DUI stops. Without the "signs" (i.e. odor, eyes, swerving, falling down) the officer does not have the PC to move on to the next step. The only real exception is if the officer doesnt see the vehicle in motion (accident, parked on side of road passed out, etc.) So for those "career drunks" and those who sip on those odorless drinks sometimes it is hard to detect the things and without probable cause to suspect DUI, where could the officer go? Don't we start stretching just what a cop can do and when? How would you like it everytime you were pulled over a cop stuck a breathalyzer in your face?

The legal standard for intoxication is loss of normal mental/physical capacities OR a BrAC (breath alcohol concentration) and BAC (blood alcohol concentration) of 0.08 or higher. So one is based solely on observations of the officer and interpretation of those observations through judicial review (D.A., Judges and Juries) and the other is based on the "per se" rule (meaning "in and of itself") It is a presumptive level (If your BrAC or BAC is above this level you are presumed "Intoxicated").

I remember hearing these figures in the late 70s. but I believe there is a lot less drinking going on these days while driving.

[Rex B]

I feel about this issue much like the forfeiture laws. They originated solely as a way to target major drug suppliers, but now they are used without any significant oversight and as a revenue generator. All the good intentions in the world matter not when the end result is further erosion of constitutional protections.

The abuse of the forfeiture laws is one of the most alarming issues for me in recent decades.
While it was dialed back a bit a few years back, it still gives too much opportunity for the government to take property without due process.
I recall the single mother in the Northwest (Seattle?) some years back who suspected her son was doing drugs. She requested police search the boys room, where they found marijuana. Then the police started forfeiture proceedings against the mother's house!
I also recall a case where some friends of my sister were shaken down by a cop in Tarrant county. This couple were basic paycheck-to-paycheck people, who had just cashed both their checks so had several hundred dollars. They were stopped, police probably smelled pot and searched the car, found a stash. The cop ended up taking their cash (and the pot of course) and letting them off with a verbal warning.

[jbirds1210]

I remember hearing these figures in the late 70s. but I believe there is a lot less drinking going on these days while driving.

That very well may be true, but I would bet the number of people driving while intoxicated is just as high. Prescription pills are often not considered, but trust me....they are a big problem.

The NHTSA handbook states three reasons arrest to violation ratios are so low:

1. DWI violators vastly outnumber police officers. It is not possible to arrest every drinking driver each time they commit DWI.

2. Some officers are not highly skilled at DWI detection. They fail to recognize and arrest many DWI violators.

2. Some officers are not motivated to detect and arrest DWI violators.

[seamusTX]

How does anyone know how many unapprehended drunk drivers there are? It's like trying to figure out how many people pick their nose when no one is looking.

When the police set up a checkpoint and stop every single vehicle on the road, they find maybe 5% are intoxicated. That's often on a Saturday night or holiday weekend when there is more drunk driving than usual (as shown by the rate of collisions).

- Jim

[jbirds1210]

How does anyone know how many unapprehended drunk drivers there are? It's like trying to figure out how many people pick their nose when no one is looking.

While I agree that we would never know exactly how many people picked their nose, would it be unreasonable to say that just about everyone has or will do it?

The stats are crude at best, but people driving while intoxicated is a widespread problem.

[seamusTX]

I agree that drunk driving is a significant problem. I just don't like to see undocumented factoids.

- Jim

[gregthehand]

I guess I want to way in on this. I really hate this new system of having a judge ready to issue a warrant when someone refuses the breath test. They did this recently on Lake Conroe where I used to work in LE and while I know there is a lot of drunk boaters on that lake I don't like having a judge at the dock just waiting to sign a warrant. I totally agree with what Charles said and in the interest of not beating a dead horse won't go into how I feel because it's the same way. I also know in the police academy they taught us that someone can only be made to give blood if they got into a wreck of some kind and alcohol was suspected and someone was injured. I really hope someone fights these tests tooth and nail and wins. Being convicted under any offense in Chapter 49 generally leads to so many extra penalties. For instance when I was in charge of drivers at my company if one of them went out Saturday night and made a bad decision I had to fire them as soon as they got convicted. So they get convicted of a class B misdemeanor and lose their lively hood?

Also as far as those 1 in 4 statistics I think it's actually for every 4 drunk drivers an officer encounters they will actually make an arrest 25% of the time. These numbers were figured out back when they were developing the standardized field sobriety tests back in the 1970s. I've given the test multiple times and I think while it serves as good indicator as to if the person is intoxicated. The HGN test in my opinion says more. Also the breathalyzer is not a magical machine that is always right. Lots of things can throw it off and a good defense attorney will bring those up in court.

I will also say that a good majority of the time when people refuse the road side tests and the breathalyzer they are not convicted. In fact going back to the Academy and when working with FTOs their feeling was that if someone was smart enough to deny either and not talk much then just to arrest them for public intoxication. They still get the expensive car tow and the night in jail but they get to skip the expensive lawyer fees getting the charges dismissed. Think about, it all the arresting officer has is the way they were driving before the incident. Now if they were going the wrong way down Beltway 8 with their trunk on fire then that a pretty good case still. But if he based it on the standard weaving, erratic speed, and then finally they didn't stop completely at a red light on a right hand turn (I used that once!) their case is not good at all. Now some will say they know they are drunk and why else would they refuse? Well it's not what you know it's what you can prove. Why have to wait for the trial to come up and then have to go wait to testify and all that? Just to be told that the DA is dropping charges for lack of evidence and you can go home now and enjoy the rest of your time off that you are supposed to be sleeping since you work the night shift.

Of course I don't support drunk driving but this is just my experience that I thought I would share.

[seamusTX]

Honestly, how hard is it to get an officer on the highway somewhere when the cars can only go 1 direction?

It can be plenty difficult if you in an unincorporated area where only DPS and county sheriff deputies have jurisdiction. They sometimes have a 30-minute response even to real emergencies like robberies and shootings.

Even in some small cities, it's possible for every patrol car to be tied up with a situation where the officer can't leave -- injury collisions, arrests, and so forth.

- Jim

[Fangs]

Not that I plan on ever putting this to the test... but since we're on the topic and I know a couple friends who might benefit from this discussion...

What if, when pulled over for possible DWI, the suspect hands the officer his license, insurance, and a card that reads, "I would like to invoke my right to silence as guaranteed by the 5th amendment"?

Then responding with a card that reads, "No, thank you," if asked to step out of the vehicle for a field sobriety test?

Seems far fetched, but also like a good way to not incriminate him/herself.

Any thoughts?