East News
Viewing comments for:
New Hampshire Police Chief-Lawmaker Wants Tougher Drunk Driving Law
East News • November 3, 2008
A New Hampshire state lawmaker who also works as a police chief wants to make it illegal for suspected drunken drivers to refuse to take breath tests.
Dalton Police Chief John Tholl, a Republican, ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
| Subject | Posted By | Posted On |
|---|---|---|
| RE: RE: D.W.I | lastbat | Nov 4, 2008, 10:29 pm |
| RE: D.W.I | Bill Dikant | Nov 4, 2008, 1:20 pm |
| Thanks Bill | MH | Nov 4, 2008, 11:55 am |
| RE: RE: LOL | MADD HATER | Nov 4, 2008, 11:49 am |
| "hater" vs. "hatter" | joe | Nov 3, 2008, 2:37 pm |
| RE: D.W.I | matt | Nov 3, 2008, 2:30 pm |
| D.W.I | Bill Dikant | Nov 3, 2008, 1:28 pm |
| RE: RE: LOL | Bill Dikant | Nov 3, 2008, 1:16 pm |
| RE: LOL | lastbat | Nov 3, 2008, 12:00 pm |
| LOL | MADD HATER | Nov 3, 2008, 11:24 am |
| Back to article | ||
Subject: RE: LOL
Your 5th Amendment argument is shaky. Preservation of evidence has been known in a quite a few areas to take precedence over self-incrimination. I can see the argument before the Supreme Court coming down to the e-mail preservation analogy. Making breath-test refusal illegal in order to preserve evidence is akin to making document destruction illegal for the same purpose. The breath-test could incriminate the suspect and the documents that were not destroyed could incriminate the suspect, but the rule of law and the search for facts take precedent in these cases. I don't see any court upholding the requirement of a warrant to pull a breath-test upon stopping a driver for reasonable suspicion of driving while intoxicated. The precedents are vast and deep in favor of the law proposed.