General Cycling Discussion - Dirtbag Attorney

A lawyer in Springfield, MO is running a radio advert that says,

"If you get stopped for drunk driving... DO NOT submit to a roadside sobriety test. DO NOT submit to a breathelizer test. Call me immediately."

As a cyclist who has to share the road with motorists (drunk or not) this scares the chain grease out of me. I want all drunk drivers removed from the road permanantly! The last thing America needs is a dirtbag attorney who specializes in helping drunk drivers avoid punishment. If there is any justice in the universe this scumbag will get killed by a drunk driver (preferably one of his own customers).

On the basis that US law is basically common English law, if you refuse or are unable to give a breath sample, the police have the right to take you in and either get a blood test and/or urine test. I can't imagine the law in the USA is that different.

yeah, I thought that "right to an attorney" came after the arrest? besides, what are you going to tell the cop? Gee, officer, I'd rather not take the test, but there is a phone call I'd like to make If you can direct me to the nearest payphone??

The bad news is that suspects can decline the breath test.

The good news is that in most (all?) states, that will cost you your license and they can still do a "field sobriety test" (walk a straight line, stand heels together look up and touch your nose, etc.) and use that to convict you.

Now if the juries would just catch up.

Kevin S.

very simple you give an attitude to a police officer, your looking at the asphalt road at a very close proximity to your face and a knee at your neck and hand cups bihind you back, and this is probably what the police are going to be doing to you:crash: :crash: :crash: :crash: :roflmao: :fight:, by the time they true with you, you either need a chiropractor, to help align your bones

Get mad.
Join MADD.
Get active.
Save someone's life.

I'm really surprised this thread didn't draw a bigger reaction. Doesn't it bother anyone that an attorney would specialize in helping drunk drivers beat the law?

Originally posted by cycletourist
I'm really surprised this thread didn't draw a bigger reaction. Doesn't it bother anyone that an attorney would specialize in helping drunk drivers beat the law?
I don't think it's that it doesn't bother anyone, it's just that it doesn't surprise anyone. More's the pity...

Originally posted by cycletourist
I'm really surprised this thread didn't draw a bigger reaction. Doesn't it bother anyone that an attorney would specialize in helping drunk drivers beat the law?
The title of the thread says it all. What more needs to be said?

First off I don't drink, much less drink and drive.

That attorney gives excellent advice. Although most states(perhaps all?) have laws on the book that your license will be revoked upon refusal of a breathalyzer and FST(field sobriety test), that means there is no real physical evidence against the alleged drunk. Can you say expunged record?

Of course the masses do not know any better and submit to a breathalyzer or FST, but, you can bet attorneys and politicians will never do so.

Remember that regardless of how much pressure MADD may put on legislators, the legislators still must follow the rule of law - or attempt to.

Of course we haven't even addressed the states that will arrest you and force you to submit to a blood test on suspicion. Can you say constitutional protections?

These revocation and forced submittal laws have yet to be tested to the Supreme Court and MADD prefers it that way I'm sure. Record expungement is the dirty little secret that keeps the revocation laws from being tested in a higher court.

Originally posted by cycletourist
I'm really surprised this thread didn't draw a bigger reaction. Doesn't it bother anyone that an attorney would specialize in helping drunk drivers beat the law?
No Lawers have no principles. They scare me more than drunk drivers. Driving drunk or using a cell phone only increases your chance of an accident by a factor of 4. Lawers are much more dangerous than that.:crash:
Joe

There are a number of problems with our criminal justice system. I think unethical lawyers balance the bad cops.

I don't know if this is the same thing or not, I found it in the lastest Bicycling magazine. www.bicyclelawyer.com :(

Originally posted by Rotifer
There are a number of problems with our criminal justice system. I think unethical lawyers balance the bad cops.

Wow!:( I don't buy that logic. Bad cops are bad maybe that means some folks won't get cought or do you mean some cops that manufacture evedance? Any way both are bad but I don't see them in opposite directions, at least not very often. But at least if a cop is caught what he is doing is illeagle. The lawyer is "just doing his job".
:crash:
Joe
:beer:

Let's see, how's that go - "The trouble with lawyers is that 99% of them make the other 1% look bad"


How about BADD? - "Bicyclist against drunk drivers"

My man, I'll have to attach that link to my will!

Here in Florida, a driver can stay seated in his car, close his window upon approach by an officer, slap his license up against the closed window and tell the officer he requests his lawyer. By the time the lawyer gets there, the alcohol blood level has a chance to settle down and the case begins to die. I'm hoping most drunks don't know this or they're too drunk to figure it out at the time. We had an accident out here around a year ago where a guy was walking on the sidewalk along the beach. A drunk driver ran him down. The side walk for God's sake. We do have our share down here and they are by far the biggest danger to cyclists and pedestrians alike. Then there was another drunk who ran down a woman and her infant child in the stroller as they walked along the Blue Heron Bridge. How terribly sad. That guy is thankfully behind bars for a long time.

Kathy

In California accepting a driver's license, which is a privilege not a right, means that you agree to submit to a blood alcohol test if asked. The BA can either be by breathalyzer or by a blood draw. If you refuse both, the police can do a forced blood draw. It's right there in the handbook you get when you apply for a license. Of course the drunk drivers conveniently forget that for the most part.

I hope I am not stepping on toes of members here that are Lawyers, but for us to have a better Earth, we should all get rid of Lawyers, they are pain in the butt, I hate them when they will try to make a fast buck, with out regards to their clients:crash: :crash: :crash: :crash: and anybody who want to know my personal reason inhating Lawyers and doctors, can email me and I will gladly answer them, I hate my Doctor, I hate my Lawyer, grrrrrrrrrrr:crash: :crash: :crash:

Originally posted by roadie gal
In California accepting a driver's license, which is a privilege not a right, means that you agree to submit to a blood alcohol test if asked. The BA can either be by breathalyzer or by a blood draw. If you refuse both, the police can do a forced blood draw. It's right there in the handbook you get when you apply for a license. Of course the drunk drivers conveniently forget that for the most part.

Ah the old privilege vs. rights card. Yes, that became the PC thing to say during the Clintonista years. Perhaps someday people will get over their PCness and learn to think for themselves, instead of repeating what their fascist masters have put into their pea-sized brains over the past eight years.

Actually, driving is neither a privilege or a right in reality. Given the lack of public transportation in most areas of the US, driving is more of a requirement for many people due to their physical limitations or economic conditions.

As I mentioned previously, the forced blood draw issue has yet to be challenged to the Supreme Court. It will be interesting when that happens.

I'm all for putting drunk drivers out of commission for good since I do not drink alcohol or take drugs, and wasted drivers on the road are a menace.

More important, however, I do not like to see the government force bodily fluids out of citizens at the whim of some half-wit cop who may or may not have an axe to grind. The slippery slope is being descended here.

Originally posted by martin

s.

snip

I'm all for putting drunk drivers out of commission for good since I do not drink alcohol or take drugs, and wasted drivers on the road are a menace.

More important, however, I do not like to see the government force bodily fluids out of citizens at the whim of some half-wit cop who may or may not have an axe to grind. The slippery slope is being descended here.

Great post Martin
Joe

I know I'll be seen as naive by some, and I expect some responses decrying Orwellian doom, but since I don't abuse contraband substances I feel no fear at the prospect of being asked to render samples of my bodily fluids.

I feel that drivers' licenses should be viewed as privileges rather than rights. Judging from observations I've made of the way certain of my fellow cyclists pilot their machines, riding a bike should be seen in the same light.

Basically I hate any behavior that suggests that the driver, rider, or in fact pedestrian feels he/she is entitled to the whole of the road and is heedless to the safety of others.

-Rob (...and then there are those mouth-breathers on the bus! Don't get me started!...)

"Ah the old privilege vs. rights card. Yes, that became the PC thing to say during the Clintonista years. Perhaps someday people will get over their PCness and learn to think for themselves, instead of repeating what their fascist masters have put into their pea-sized brains over the past eight years. "

I resent the implication that I can't think because I agree with that sentiment. What I do think is that sometimes (SOMETIMES, not all of the time) maintaining the protection of many is more important that the "rights" of the few. In this case, getting a driver's license is entering into a contract with the state. If you don't want to ever have your blood drawn (or take a breathalyzer) then don't get a license. Get a job where you can walk to work, or live in an area where you can take the bus, etc. There are ways around driving if you feel that strongly about it.

I work in an ER. I've seen the carnage caused by drunk drivers. Stopping the ones out there is worth stepping on a few toes as far as I'm concerned.

roadie gal,
just think that you are more mature than this guys out there, I know how you feel, and i am very sorry for the response that you got

I think drunk drivers should be banned from driving for at least 5 years after their 1st offence. That should send a strong message. Drunk drivers ruin lives, period.

Originally posted by Altwegg
I think drunk drivers should be banned from driving for at least 5 years after their 1st offence. <snip>
Ban them all you want......but they will still drive and drive drunk.

Originally posted by roadie gal


I resent the implication that I can't think because I agree with that sentiment. What I do think is that sometimes (SOMETIMES, not all of the time) maintaining the protection of many is more important that the "rights" of the few. In this case, getting a driver's license is entering into a contract with the state. If you don't want to ever have your blood drawn (or take a breathalyzer) then don't get a license. Get a job where you can walk to work, or live in an area where you can take the bus, etc. There are ways around driving if you feel that strongly about it.

I work in an ER. I've seen the carnage caused by drunk drivers. Stopping the ones out there is worth stepping on a few toes as far as I'm concerned.

You make some good points Roadie, but I think we should be able to discourage drunk drivers without stepping on our "rights". I'm sure, since you work in a n ER you have a much better feel for the problem than I do, but rights one lost are hard to recover. There is a lot of wisdom in Ben Franklin's words "He who would give up liberty for security deserves neither".

Joe

This happened since we started our thread. I live in a town of 30,000. Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens before lawyers and cops have the opportunity to get involved. I hate cars and the creeps that abuse them.

Mother, 2 children killed on U.S. 12
Jun 3 2002 12:00AM By Terry McConn of the Union-Bulletin

The woman's husband and another child were injured. A Walla Walla man has been charged with vehicular homicide.
Officials this morning continued searching for a Walla Walla man who has been charged with causing a head-on, triple-fatality collision on U.S. Highway 12 Saturday night.
Dead at the scene of the 11:40 p.m. crash were three members of a Stanwood, Wash., family, who were in the other vehicle, according to the Washington State Patrol.
Officials said Suzanne Johns, 38, and two of her children, Ty Johns, 7, and 20-month-old Ashley Johns, died at the scene from massive injuries.
Johns' husband and the children's father, Kip Johns, 42, suffered various injuries. A third child, Mike Johns, 13, also was hurt.
Kip and Mike Johns were taken by ambulance to St. Mary Medical Center where Kip Johns was in satisfactory condition this morning.
Mike Johns was discharged today.
Autopsies on the bodies of those killed were conducted this morning, according to Walla Walla County Deputy Coroner Ann Ames. The Johnses apparently were passing through the area after visiting relatives in Lewiston, Ames said.
State Patrol Lt. Jim Keightley of Yakima said all members of the Johns family were wearing safety restraints as their 1999 Plymouth Voyager van was heading west on the highway about 15 miles west of Walla Walla. The van, driven by Kip Johns, collided with an eastbound 1992 Chevrolet Caprice with at least two men inside, officials said. The Caprice allegedly crossed the center line into the westbound lane, according to authorities.
Jose Luis Garcia Mayorga, 24, of Walla Walla, who was allegedly driving the Caprice, fled the scene on foot, officials said. He was charged in Walla Walla County Superior Court Sunday with three counts of vehicular homicide, three counts of vehicular assault and two counts of hit-and-run. A warrant was issued for his arrest. Bail is set at $250,000.
A second occupant, Garcia Mayorga's brother, 19-year-old Ramon Garcia Mayorga of Walla Walla, suffered a broken leg. He was in good condition this morning at Walla Walla General Hospital. Officials said he was wearing a seat belt when the wreck occurred.
The Caprice reportedly is registered to Jose Garcia Mayorga.

``Numerous beer bottles, some still containing beer, were located inside the Chevrolet,'' according to a court document filed by the prosecution.

Jose Garcia Mayorga is described as 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighs about 180 pounds.

Anyone with information is asked to call the State Patrol at (509) 249-6303.

There is NO way to stop a determined drunk!

All of the laws in the world will not stop someone who drinks and drives if they so desire.

What is more useful are victim's rights laws. If a drunk slams into you, they need to pay the ultimate price both legally and financially. Many states have adopted these types of laws and that is a good thing. People need to be held accountable for their actions.

As JoePrim mentioned, rights lost are seldom regained.

For those who are advocating the civil liberty violations by government, remember that you are not immune to having your rights trampled on as well.

It is very easy to say who cares, it doesn't affect me because I don't drink and drive; let them force blood out of someone.

The day will come when something the government wants to force upon you will affect you and/or your family. When that happens, remember this thread. Don't support starting down the slippery slope.

Originally posted by roadie gal


Get a job where you can walk to work, or live in an area where you can take the bus, etc. There are ways around driving if you feel that strongly about it.



Nothing personal, but, you aren't thinking logically on this. As I mentioned in my previous post, the majority of the US lacks a public transportation system of any type. Also, many people are physically unable to take your advice and walk to/from work, or locate to an area where that is an option.

What you are advocating is fine for a metro area, but, unworkable elsewhere.

It is easy to say screw them, they screwed up. I for one am the first who thinks like that. Realistically that attitude doesn't work in the world we live in.

Originally posted by martin


Nothing personal, but, you aren't thinking logically on this. As I mentioned in my previous post, the majority of the US lacks a public transportation system of any type.
I disagree.

The majority of the U.S. population lives in metropolitan areas equipped with public transportation.

Some would discount any public transportation system simply because they don't want to walk a few blocks or sit next to someone different. This is not a logical choice, it is an emotional one.

Originally posted by LittleBigMan

I disagree.

The majority of the U.S. population lives in metropolitan areas equipped with public transportation.

Some would discount any public transportation system simply because they don't want to walk a few blocks or sit next to someone different. This is not a logical choice, it is an emotional one.

The majority of the US does live in what the Census Bureau considers metro areas. With the exception of large cities, many lack adequate public transportation, if it exists at all. Few cities have the coverage of a large metro area such as Washington DC, NYC, etc.

As I said before, many people are unable to even walk a few blocks due to their physical limitations.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_ts=41381023250

The above is a breakdown of population by "metro" areas by the US Census. I've been to several of those places and you would be hard pressed to find a bus, much less a train. There is a helluva difference between a population center of a million plus versus 80,000-100,000.

Driving in most if not all states is a privilege and the state is free to revoke that privilege as it sees fit, e.g. refusing a sobriety test. However the right to regulate a privilege does not trump an individuals right not to incriminate himself. Drunk driving is universally considered a felony and will result in the loss of money and or freedom upon conviction therefore the accused must have all constitutional rights afforded to them.

The idea that an abridgment of rights is OK b/c "I have nothing to hide" is a dangerous premise. Sooner or later someone will push a law intruding on something even the most devout MADD member considers out of bounds and the law will be justified b/c it "protects society" or is "good for children" or some such verbiage. The question then is who does our hypothetical MADD member look to for help?

Drunk drivers are a menace and I have no problems whatsoever with harsh treatment after conviction but before conviction they must be afforded the same presumption of innocence that all US citizens have. Rights are not conditional.

Originally posted by martin


Ah the old privilege vs. rights card. Yes, that became the PC thing to say during the Clintonista years. Perhaps someday people will get over their PCness and learn to think for themselves, instead of repeating what their fascist masters have put into their pea-sized brains over the past eight years. drink alcohol or take drugs, and wasted drivers on the road are a menace.

Oh, boy, another ignorant puppet spouting cheap insults and right-wing buzzwords without knowing what he's talking about. Where have I seen this before? (On about 700 other forums, that's where...go figure. Are you sure you're not all the same guy?)

I assume you're either under 25 years old or woefully ignorant, because people have been saying "Driving is a privilege, not a right" since long before anyone ever heard of Clinton or PC. They said it to me in driver's ed in the 80's. They said it to my dad in the 60's. The first person who ever said it was probably whatever politician first lobbied for drivers to be licensed. It would be nice if you would research your statements before simply repeating what your reactionary fanatic masters have planted into YOUR little pea brain. Better yet, learn to think for yourself.

Driving drunk seems to be considered a right where I live. I'm perfectly happy to see cops pulling over potential murderers, myself.

Originally posted by Inkwolf


Oh, boy, another ignorant puppet spouting cheap insults and right-wing buzzwords without knowing what he's talking about. Where have I seen this before? (On about 700 other forums, that's where...go figure. Are you sure you're not all the same guy?)

I assume you're either under 25 years old or woefully ignorant, because people have been saying "Driving is a privilege, not a right" since long before anyone ever heard of Clinton or PC. They said it to me in driver's ed in the 80's. They said it to my dad in the 60's. The first person who ever said it was probably whatever politician first lobbied for drivers to be licensed. It would be nice if you would research your statements before simply repeating what your reactionary fanatic masters have planted into YOUR little pea brain. Better yet, learn to think for yourself.

Driving drunk seems to be considered a right where I live. I'm perfectly happy to see cops pulling over potential murderers, myself.

At least have the intelligence when you quote someone to copy it correctly sweetums.

Hmmmm, did you fail reading comprehension in elementary school junior? My first statement was regarding the privilege vs. rights card. It made no mention of driving. The general attitude of your fascist buddies during the Klintonista years was that of reduced personal liberties and labeling them privileges, not rights. The concept of increased government at the expense of civil liberties was all too commonplace. Of course, the republicans aren't much better; their timetable is just extended out a bit longer than your little friends on the other side of the aisle.

Who stole your little red wagon cheesehead? The "privilege" vs. "rights" issue in the '70s during driver education courses wasn't a topic that I recall. Of course this was also prior to the MADDhatters and their escapades actually becoming a media circus.

Reactionary fanatic masters?:D Cheddarhead, I have none of those. The Dems and Reps have enough of those to go around for all of us.

Grow up and smell the bourbon ace. That is, if the MADD president isn't taking a snort and driving afterward. Who knows, maybe she wants another DUI.

Err...did you actually READ what I posted??? No point flaming someone whose brain is already short-circuiting and giving off sparks. Good luck to you, hope you survive being in your head. :P

Here's the difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE: Everybody has the SAME RIGHTs. Not everyone has the same PRIVILEGES.

Voting is a right. Driving is a privilege.

To drive, you first have to take government sponsored tests showing you know what you're doing. If you FAIL, you can't drive.

You don't need to take a test to vote. Everybody has the RIGHT to vote.

Drinking is legal. Being drunk is legal. You can vote when you're drunk. (Your favorite politicians are probably happy when you do.) It's your RIGHT to vote, whether you do it responsibly or not. You can't drive drunk, legally.

You can vote if you're blind. You can't drive if you're blind. What about the 'right' of blind people to drive? Don't say that's ridiculous--if it's a RIGHT, then a citizen has it, whether he can see or not, whether he has passed a driving test or not. Blind people and stupid people and drunken people have the SAME RIGHTS as everybody else. That's how a democratic system works.

If you can't afford to own a car, you can't drive. RIGHTS don't depend on your financial status. You don't need money to vote. You don't need money to excercise free speech. You don't need money to worship the religion of your choice. You don't even need (much) money to bear arms. How can you say something is a right, when it requires a major purchase to exercise that right? If it were a right, the government would have to supply cars to people who can't afford them. Otherwise, the rights of the poor are being violated.

My last word on the subject. Flame away if you like, Martin, I will ignore you.

Flame you? Not at all. You believe that a government sponsored test is indicative of a privilege and not a right.

Perhaps you forget the Jim Crow laws of the past. One of those was a test...to vote. Another one was a poll tax. Those were ruled unconstitutional.

As for money, or lack thereof, indicating a right vs. a privilege that is simply incorrect. You don't need money to drive. You don't need to own a vehicle to have a driver's license.

A government sponsored/sanctioned test means nothing with regards to a privilege vs. a right. That has been proven to the Supreme Court in the past. We will get there eventually over the driving "privilege"/"right" eventually.