The International Drinking and Driving Debate
The debate for January 2003:
Should persons who have been arrested for drunk driving have the right to consult with lawyers or attorneys before they blow into roadside screening devices ?
Should persons who have been arrested for drunk driving have the right to consult with lawyers or attorneys before they participate in physical tests?
Should persons who have been arrested for drunk driving have the right to consult with lawyers or attorneys before they provide breath samples at the police station?
Should persons who have been arrested for drunk driving have the right to consult with lawyers or attorneys before they provide blood samples?
What do you think? Is such a right important? What difference does it make if the person has to blow anyway?
Please note that the comments in this debate are not legal advice on what you should do. The law is different among the United States, Canada, and other jurisdictions. Please make sure you get proper advice from a local lawyer.
- City:
- Mississauga, ON
- Date:
- 25 Nov 2002
- Time:
- 14:22:16
Comments
In Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a person has the right to counsel of choice or duty counsel before providing a breath sample at the police station. We have a good system of 24 hour duty counsel available if a person doesn't know a lawyer. The person must be diligent, not simply delaying. However, a person does not have the right to refuse a proper roadside screening device demand pending a conversation with counsel. People in Ontario should abstain from any physical tests until they have spoken to a lawyer.
- City:
- nebraska
- Date:
- 10 Feb 2003
- Time:
- 05:35:04
Comments
This right is important. If you have to "blow" and fail, why should a blood test be necessary? If you refuse, its a separate charge, and this request is not procedure at every D.U.I. related stop. I think it's double jeopardy. They should be consistent with their decision whether to require blood tests, and yes a lawyer should be consulted first. They throw you in jail whether you submit or not. What happens to my rights when it comes to refusing an invasion of my bodily fluids, and then get a citation and jail time for it!
- City:
- Cleveland
- Date:
- 14 Mar 2003
- Time:
- 13:22:41
Comments
YES!!! With the laws being what they are and the stiff punishments put out and lets not forget most D.U.I's are very cost effective for are local courts meaning big bucks!!! Does this lead to entrapment most of the time YOU BET !!!
- City:
- Vacaville, CA
- Date:
- 18 Mar 2003
- Time:
- 00:04:38
Comments
This has become a crime blown way out of proportion to its seriousness. I am a DUI defense lawyer in CA and, although I am aware of the high risk of drunk driving and the harm it has caused, it would be wrong to ignore the equally true fact that most drunk drivers never cause harm to anyone. Usually making it home in Canada and in the US each night, probably in numbers reaching thousands, without ever causing harm to anyone. This is simply a form of reckless driving and should be treated as such.
- City:
- Garland, Texas
- Date:
- 13 Apr 2003
- Time:
- 13:35:37
Comments
NO citizen should be put in the position of having to prove they are innocent. They should not be placed into a position where they are unwittingly giving evidence against themselves, such as field tests, hidden video cameras, leading questions, confusing forms any any questioning without an attorney present.
The U.S. constitution has a forgotten clause( I call it forgotten because it sure doesn't seem to apply anymore) No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ..... or shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.