Everything about enforcing driving stoned has changed. The stuff stays in your system too long to have a convenient test like alcohol does. So now you effectively have no way to prove whether or not someone was breaking that law.
The law is to prevent dangerous driving. It doesn't matter if you have a sip of beer or a 6 pack, if it impairs you, that's against the law. HOWEVER, once your BAC reaches 0.08, that is proof enough of being impaired. Lower than 0.08, then they must show that you are impaired. And if you fail the sobriety field tests, you are impaired.
My point is, if you can't tell if someone is impaired, even after field tests, then maybe they aren't impaired. Regardless of what you suspect they may or may not have eaten. If they are impaired, the field tests will show and you can arrest them.
I see no point in making this easier for law enforcement. I don't think we need more specific laws, that just opens up new questions and loopholes.
1) It provides a definitive test which would later stand in court (if needed). 2) Gives you more time to "sober up" if you actually have been drinking.
At the time, I remember thinking it was good information. In hindsight, it's rather funny to think it came from the High School teachers who were teaching Driver's Ed.
Going back to the Michigan laws, Implied Consent does apply there today. However, the implied consent of chemical testing only appears to apply if you've been arrested. You can, however, still be fined for declining the field sobriety test while not under arrest.
I wonder why they don't go back to doing a sobriety test for detecting intoxication though. It worked ok before breathalyzers, if you can pass the test than presumably you are ok to drive.
1 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073804... 2 - http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/48/3/608.short
The evidence of the stuff stays in your system much longer than the impairment. There is also the issue of "tolerance" and or how the amount of substance present in urine or blood relates to the supposed impairment.
>So now you effectively have no way to prove whether or not someone was breaking that law.
But you can still perform an objective test to determine if someone is currently impaired. They need to design and validate a motor skills and reaction time test. I'm not sure why anyone cares more about why someone is impaired than they do about whether someone is impaired.
I agree that the "why" isn't that important (or at all), but what is the alternative?
It could hypothetically be as simple as a video game driving test. It could be some other abstract measurement of reaction time.
I don't understand the question. A driving skills / reaction time test, is an alternative.
It's easy to target people who are engaging in unnecessary actions at the expense of driving capability. Drinking, using drugs, and texting fall under this category. People are much less accepting of punishments for things seemingly outside of personal control. Imagine the embarrassment for law makers when some mothers' advocacy group attacks them for banning all new mothers from driving (except those rare exceptions who function well on <4 hours of sleep.) Or the backlash for hardworking people getting arrested regularly because their multiple jobs keep them from getting an amount of sleep that makes driving permissible.
Basically, we either accept an invasive test, or we can't enforce the law. Which is 100% different than what it was before.
http://www.larryformanlaw.com/blog/can-the-police-take-my-bl...
Pre-legalization, the police had no way to discern if a driver was high.
Post-legalization the police still have no way to discern if a driver is high.
The only difference is pre-legalization, they could arrest you for having some bud in your pocket. Now that can't do that.
Nope! The only relevant crime is possession, and "in your bloodstream" doesn't count.