wrightme
Regular Member
You forgot to cite the actual statute that references 'implied consent.' So, the case you claim for dui is false.jesus christ. if you are so ******* childish that you need a cite for every single clear legal principle, i will give you one
that sets aside the fallacious notion that the OP brought up that if a police power is not statutorily authorized it does not exist.
http://www.dui-usa.drinkdriving.org/dui_dwi_information.php
"If a police officer suspects a driver is intoxicated after a traffic stop he can request that person to perform what is known as a field sobriety test. A lot of people are unaware that in the majority of states these tests are completely voluntary and a driver is well within their rights to politely refuse to take a field sobriety test if they are over the age of 21 and are not on parole. While partaking in field sobriety tests is voluntary, it is worth noting that refusing to do so can go towards making a case for probable cause for a drunk driving arrest. "
note also that in some states, (including mine) refusing to take a breath test after arrest CAN be used against you in court. (it couldn't in hawaii, it can in WA). iow, the jury is made aware of that and CAN consider it in helping to determine guilt
In WA, we adhere to aguilar spineli
in brief, probable cause is what an officer can consider as to whether the totality of the circs establish or not - PC
LOTS of stuff we can consider in the field is NOT admissible in trial. an obvious example is hearsay that does not fall under a hearsay exception. hearsay may be LESS reliable but it is still something we can and do consider in establishing PC.
let me give you one example. marital privilege. lots of stuff a spouse could claim about a husband can be excluded in trial due to marital privilege. that doesn't mean a cop can't consider them for PC if made known to him
the "street" is not a court of law. different rules apply. they apply to evidence, they apply to conduct, etc.
let ME just ask one question. do you SERIOUSLY not believe that probable cause has a different evidentiary standard than court admissibility?
OR
do you know what i am saying is true but you just want me to provide a cite for everything you don't like ?
OR
do you not know either way, thus you want a cite before you consider it as true?
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308
(1) Any person who operates a motor vehicle within this state is deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.506, to a test or tests of his or her breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcohol concentration or presence of any drug in his or her breath or blood if arrested for any offense where, at the time of the arrest, the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person had been driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or was in violation of RCW 46.61.503. Neither consent nor this section precludes a police officer from obtaining a search warrant for a person's breath or blood.