It's not that I think it's OK to drink and drive

[asimplechord]

But this strikes me as an invasion of privacy and coming perilously close to a warrantless seizure.

I don't really know any details about it, just what I saw on the news last night. Apparently the judge/DA/whatever who signed the paperwork justified it by saying that the fine print in the driver's license contract includes an agreement for testing by the police. (Which, OK, I'm not a lawyer, so how do you enforce that if it's a relatively new addition and the driver signed the paperwork years ago? Isn't that invasive, pushing the boundaries of contractual obligations?)

Um... if they can do that to anyone they pull over, what else can they test for, look for, or investigate? Where do we draw the line?

Comments

[asimplechord.livejournal.com]

So maybe they are using the fact that the driver was pulled over at all as the probable cause? I dunno. Irks me, either way.

[lilyeyes.livejournal.com]

Not here - you have to DO something (or have a light out at least) to get pulled over! Then you have to fail the field sobriety tests and THEN fail the roadside blow-in-the-little-machine test,

[lilyeyes.livejournal.com]

sheesh - lj!!

Then you can pick a type of test to do at the jail - force blood draws only for a felony.

They must do things different in Texas...

[asimplechord.livejournal.com]

It's Texas. It's a completely different world here, I think.

[lilyeyes.livejournal.com]

*snorts* - You are SO right!!! Just need keep your head down in that state!