New drunk driving laws for 2014

[Rooskibar03]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/18/colorado-plans-to-toughen-drunk-driving-laws-in-2014/


Colorado’s drunk driving laws will become stricter on Jan. 1, when people who refuse to take roadside sobriety tests will be treated as “persistent drunk drivers,” whether they are drunk or not.


While motorists have the right to refuse a blood test or breathalyzer, doing so creates an automatic presumption of drunkenness under current law and carries all the penalties associated with it. The “persistent” label carries with it more onerous penalties.

So I'm pulled over at a roadside stop and because I've done nothing wrong I don't consent to search I'm now labeled a criminal and given the same sentence as someone who has been proven guilty?

What the hell is happening to our state?

[Great-Kazoo]

Smell like pot, the standards are different.

[Ranger353]

Smell like pot, the standards are different.

You know, there's a lot of truth to that statement. I am afraid that the Kalifornia Refugees have decided to again try to make their new home a "Utopia" with BS laws. It's just a matter of time now before Colorado becomes the same crime infested, victim pool state as the lefty west coast.

[RCCrawler]

How long before it:

PD: We think you robbed that liquor store, we need to search your house.
Me: You aren't searching my house I've never even been in that liquor store.
PD: I'll accept your denial of a search as your admission of guilt, you're going to jail.

[Rooskibar03]

How long before it:

PD: We think you robbed that liquor store, we need to search your house.
Me: You aren't searching my house I've never even been in that liquor store.
PD: I'll accept your denial of a search as your admission of guilt, you're going to jail.

Not that far. Texas just ruled search warrants may be based on prediction of the commission of future crimes.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/18/search-warrants-may-now-be-based-on-predictions-of-the-commission-of-future-crimes/

[JohnnyDrama]

I've wondered about being asked to provide a DNA sample to be ruled out as a suspect.

[ChuckNorris]

"You have the right . . . . . ."

Yeah - sure you do.

[brianakell]

"You have the right . . . . . ."

Yeah - sure you do.

its that refusing? You never said a word...
And the other side says "what do you have t worry about unless you did do something wrong" What ever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty? I dont drink and drive, and do not condone others doing it, but laws are laws, and this is rediculous.

[Bailey Guns]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/18/colorado-plans-to-toughen-drunk-driving-laws-in-2014/



So I'm pulled over at a roadside stop and because I've done nothing wrong I don't consent to search I'm now labeled a criminal and given the same sentence as someone who has been proven guilty?

What the hell is happening to our state?

I'm assuming you mean a DUI checkpoint? First of all, the entire stop if you haven't been drinking and there's no evidence you've been drinking will probably take about 30 seconds to 1 minute. That's been my experience, anyway. Something else that's common is the officer smells alcohol in the car and asks you to submit to some maneuvers. An officer is well within his/her rights to do that if he smells the odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the car...even if, for example, you're the DD for the group of intoxicated people. He/she will probably do a few tests like a PBT or HGN and send you on your way as it will be obvious you weren't the one drinking. The only time you'll be asked to be "searched", which would be a chemical test of your blood or breath, is when the officer has developed probable cause to arrest you based on observed evidence. If you've been stopped as a result of a traffic violation or other DUI indicators, you have done something wrong and if you refuse to take the test if you're arrested you're still going to lose you license for a year.

And that's been the law since I started in LE in the late 80s. So, you have a few options: don't drink then drive or don't get a driver's license and don't drive. The express consent law has required drivers to consent to a chemical test of their blood or breath when a police officer has a reasonable belief the driver is under the influence of alcohol or some other substance. Once the officer develops probable cause to arrest and makes the arrest the penalty for a first offense of refusing a chemical test is already 12 months so I'm not seeing a big change in punishment, except for the label "persistent drunk driver".

You can refuse roadside sobriety maneuvers all you want without a lot of consequence with the exception the officer may go ahead and arrest you based on whatever evidence he/she has (driving violation, odor of alcoholic beverage, etc...). You can also refuse to a test if the officer arrests you...but the consequences are a lot tougher. But you also agreed to take that chemical test when you operated your motor vehicle in the State of Colorado in the event you are arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence.

I have no sympathy for drunk drivers and that's the one thing I never gave anyone a break on...except for maybe taking them home or to detox after processing them instead of jail. I personally have arrested over 850 people for DUI. I lost one DoR hearing (because I arrested another DUI on the way to the hearing and the hearing officer wouldn't reschedule) and I lost once at trial.

You can flame me all you want but I don't know of too many cops who are randomly gonna stop you, get you out of the car, ask you to take a blood/breath test when it's obvious you haven't been drinking, and throw you in jail when you refuse the test.

[KLR650]

You know, there's a lot of truth to that statement. I am afraid that the Kalifornia Refugees have decided to again try to make their new home a "Utopia" with BS laws. It's just a matter of time now before Colorado becomes the same crime infested, victim pool state as the lefty west coast.


Now now. some of us left that repressive regime for a better life, like my ancestors leaving europe. The real problem is no one in politics is really pro liberty. not dems not republicans.

[Irving]

You can flame me all you want but I don't know of too many cops who are randomly gonna stop you, get you out of the car, ask you to take a blood/breath test when it's obvious you haven't been drinking, and throw you in jail when you refuse the test.

Well there was Lisa Steed, but she has since been retired. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/lisa-steed-utah-state-trooper-fake-dui-arrests_n_2740623.html

I think the ire is of the state giving a false label to people who don't follow the "rules." It's just like being labeled as a sex offender for urinating in public.

[Bailey Guns]

I understand your sex offender registration reference and I agree. But this is about the express consent law which has always required drivers to submit to chemical testing of their breath or blood if they drive a motor vehicle in the State of Colorado. If you get arrested for DUI you are required to submit to a test. If you refuse there are consequences.

BTW...in general it's been my experience that most cops despise making DUI arrests because it's a PITA. Many, many people who are probably legally impaired are let go during stops by officers who aren't truly experienced at recognizing the signs of impairment. The guy that's bouncing his car from guardrail to guardrail on opposite sides of the road is easy to spot. It's takes a skilled officer to recognize most people who are right at that .05 BAC level. I would say most of those people are never arrested.

Another thing to consider is lawyers are responsible for a DUI being so difficult to beat in court. They've pretty much used up every technicality in the book so as long as an officer does his job according to the law (which has constantly been revised due to clever attorneys) winning the DUI case is pretty easy. There are pretty much standard things an officer must do and then document during the stop, arrest and processing/handling of evidence and subsequently testify to in court. It the officer does those things...it's gonna be bad for the defendant.

[Irving]

It's bad for the defendant even when the officer doesn't do those things. DUI seems to be just as hard to beat socially, as it is legally.

[Bailey Guns]

Yeah...you're quite right. It put's people in a bad situation all the way around.

[NFATrustGuy]

I see a bunch of posters in this thread confusing the breathalyzer implied consent rule and roadside sobriety tests and/or searches. The 2014 change to the law applies to refusing a breathalyzer, NOT to refusing roadside sobriety tests. Refusing a breathalyzer has always had severe consequences for as long as I can remember in Colorado.

There are a host of reasons why most DUI attorneys tell their clients to refuse roadside sobriety tests. The officer is gathering evidence that WILL be used against you if an arrest is made. There are a bunch of reasons why a person who isn't legally intoxicated or impaired could fail a roadside sobriety test.

Bailey Guns posted a bunch of very accurate information. I'd listen to what he's got to say on the topic.

For the record: personally, I really despise drunk drivers. It's one of the most selfish and irresponsible acts I can think of. Seems like when a drunk causes an accident, the other guy who's just driving along minding his business winds up in the hospital and the drunk's biggest problem is a hangover and a bent fender.

RWW