Just equip every car with an alcohol sensor. Interlocks are already a common gizmo. Hand sensors are available.
But, as has been explained, not all impaired driving involves alcohol ... and unless you set the per se limit to something really low such as, say, .02, you'd still have to deal with below per se level impairment. All that would do would be to let drug-impaired drivers go, and either create a very low alcohol per se level or excuse drivers impaired on alcohol at levels beneath .08. Not a good choice at all!
What the heck is a "sim-driving test?" You got a portable driving simulator in the back of your car? You know ho much those things cost! You can count the number of those devices available to law enforcement for training in all of CA on your hands and toes, and you wouldn't need most of your toes!
The way it is seems to work pretty well for the moment. Personally, I'd lower the per se alcohol level to at least .05, make it a misdemeanor to refuse the mandated test as well as a mandatory two year suspension, and change the law to allow for a custodial arrest of a driver caught driving on a license suspended for DUI and include some mandatory jail time for that offense. As it is, you get a ticket and your car towed ... you spend a few hundred dollars for another junker or sweet talk a friend, and you're driving within hours!
You are completely missing the point. I'm talking about the FST's, not the chemical tests. The latter is of course legal.
then toss up some support for that statement. On top of that, you need to pick a state as some of them treat FST/s differently. As I said before, in some states they simply provide PC to further the investigation and their purpose in court can only be that. In themselves, they are not proof of a crime.
And what would you do to replace the FSTs as part of an investigative tool to evaluate possibly impaired drivers? Let them go until they tag and kill someone? Mandate that they submit to roadside chemical rtests with instantaneous readings so as to avoid the song-and-dance of the FSTs? What?
ANY statement you make can be used against you at trial. The question is not whether the statement can be used, but whether a jury can be instructed or informed by a prosecutor that such a refusal is tantamount to an admission of guilt. I believe that in most instances it is required to stand on its own and the jury can make whatever conclusion it chooses to.
The police can certainly try to convince you to take the FSTs. Refusing to take the FSTs can and almost certainly would also be presented to the jury, but the defense would also use that to show that the prosecution lacks sufficient evidence or to try and argue that without the FSTs there was a lack of probable cause for the arrest (which would be an issue outside the jury as part of a suppression motion). Usually that's simply not the case as many times we have enough just watching the driver in the car or when he steps out of the car (or the one guy I had many years ago who proceeded to ignore me, turn and urinate on his tire, and fall over. At trial the defense made hay of my lack of FSTs on the guy ... until the DA asked me why I did not do FSTs on re-direct.
)I repeat - you're incorrect.
My question was specific: can a refusal of FST's be presented at trial against a defendant? I say take it to the SC.And what would you do to replace the FSTs as part of an investigative tool to evaluate possibly impaired drivers? Let them go until they tag and kill someone? Mandate that they submit to roadside chemical rtests with instantaneous readings so as to avoid the song-and-dance of the FSTs? What?
ANY statement you make can be used against you at trial. The question is not whether the statement can be used, but whether a jury can be instructed or informed by a prosecutor that such a refusal is tantamount to an admission of guilt. I believe that in most instances it is required to stand on its own and the jury can make whatever conclusion it chooses to.
To NOT allow the question in, or the response, would be to carving out a special exception solely for DUIs ... and would require editing a lot of videos when that question is asked - in the case of a refusal, asked repeatedly.
The police can certainly try to convince you to take the FSTs. Refusing to take the FSTs can and almost certainly would also be presented to the jury, but the defense would also use that to show that the prosecution lacks sufficient evidence or to try and argue that without the FSTs there was a lack of probable cause for the arrest (which would be an issue outside the jury as part of a suppression motion). Usually that's simply not the case as many times we have enough just watching the driver in the car or when he steps out of the car (or the one guy I had many years ago who proceeded to ignore me, turn and urinate on his tire, and fall over. At trial the defense made hay of my lack of FSTs on the guy ... until the DA asked me why I did not do FSTs on re-direct.
I repeat - you're incorrect.
. a real quick search suggests you cannot be mandated to take FST's in Washington.
The answer to the question is: Yes ... in most states. There may be some state that does not permit the refusal to be mentioned, but I am not aware of one.
How it seems is irrelevant. The law says that it can be introduced. We can introduce your refusal to consent to a search as well. And the defense can point out that you have that right, and that there is no perceived benefit to admitting to a search or to FSTs. (though, in a number of cases agreeing to either can be the best path to follow).
Because with DUI we can make the arrest before we have damage, injury or death. Impaired drivers are responsible for a disproportionate number of deaths and injuries. I don't know about you, but I want to do something about that. I've held DUI victim's in my arms as they took their last breath - one was 6 whose family was just wiped out and the suspect was okay and standing next to us screaming at the damage that was done to his car after he took them out head on and somehow survived. And I have more ...
Since alcohol is often a companion to drugs and when we have alcohol we don't tend to test for drugs, the percentage is relatively low. However, research shows that the number of people who test positive for drugs in their system in such arrests is rather significant though their impairment is not determined and cannot be measured by a positive drug test alone (without knowing the specific nature of the test and the cutoff level). But, in CA the percentage of drug DUI fatalities would be about 39% of the total fatalities ... not sure for injuries though it would seem to follow that a similar level would be represented. Note that CA does not use the federal standard when determining "alcohol involved" - we only refer to DUI fatalities and injuries when the party actually responsible for the collision is determined to be impaired on drugs or alcohol.
Oh F*, we all know that.. emphasis *all*.
What is your point then? Refusal is not evidence of guilt in any fashion.
Hey, Google turned up Salinas vs. Texas!
Again, beta, this thread is concerning washington state. Taking it elsewhere would be hijacking for your own purposes. If you wish to do that, maybe start your own thread. You know,'that forum rules and common courtesy thing.