• Karmanopoly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Mother Against Drunk Driving decided all of it.

    Nobody can defend drunk driving, but the fact you give up your rights during a stop should make you angry.

    If you get charged with any other crime you are allowed to talk to a lawyer except in drunk driving. You are tried and convicted on the side of the road and the evidence they use to convict you (your breath) isn’t preserved… it just blows away in the wind.

    Nobody should be drunk driving but we still need to change the way we handle suspected drunk driver’s

    • Hiro8811@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I’m pretty sure that if they find a person drunk they have to take that person to a hospital to get a blood test and accurately gauge the alcohol percentage, the test also stands as proof.

      • Karmanopoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        If you were accused of murdering and taken to the hospital for a blood test with a lawyer present people would lose their minds

        But suspected drunk drivers it happens all the time without a lawyer present

        • healthetank@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 hours ago

          How many other crimes are directly defined with a time-sensitive impairment?

          If they allowed you to both call a lawyer and wait for them to arrive you could arrange for your lawyer to be a) 2+hrs away, b)alseep or c)any other time delaying tactic.

          I agree I don’t like the status quo, but if you have a reasonable alternative that still allows them to catch people who are drunk driving, I’m all ears.