 |
This has no personal relevance, it's just a general question.
I was just wondering why it's acceptable and absolutely legal to take statements from, say, a drunk driver and use those statements in court to convict that person... BUT if you were a witness in a court case and you showed up drunk, you'd probably not be heard at all, or your testimony would be put into question based on your intoxicated state?
Any answers are appreciated.
Can I also add, how can an intoxicated person legally consent to a search? It doesn't seem proper to me that that's allowed, as you wouldn't have the mental capacity to understand what you're doing.
Because the persons own testimony has more weight than that of a third party.
Besides.. the very fact of driving under the influence itself is a crime... and a drunk driver only solidifies the fact they committed a crime... besides the Blood Alcohol test, or Breatholizer.
More evidence is always better to assure a conviction. And yes they don't even have to see you actually operating the car to convict... in some states being in the vehicle and having possession of the keys is sufficient. (yes I've known people convicted in MD sleeping in a car, in a parking lot with the vehicle off, but the yeys in their pocket.)
Being retarded is a mental capacity issue they had no choice in... but being under the influence is something that party is responsible for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilingInside
The only capacity issue that might change that is Temporary insanity, besides the previously mentioned permanent one... the rest are temporary conditions caused by voluntary action.
OK, but still, shouldn't they wait until the subject is no longer intoxicated to question them and ask for consent for a search?Quote:
... the rest are temporary conditions caused by voluntary action.
I guess it seems exploitative to me, it seems like the police (and courts/lawyers) will use the person's intoxicated state for every advantage they can and at the same time would discount someone's intoxicated account or credibility if it was to their advantage.
I don't see how there's so much you can't do legally while intoxicated yet you can consent to a search.
Can you explain it more, I'm not trying to be an I'm just very curious about this and I really want to understand it.
Is this an issue that is ever really brought up, both in criminal cases and also as a movement to change laws? If so, can you help me find cases or examples? I'm not really sure what to look for.
Not sure what search you are talking about?
If you are talking about a search of the car if stopped for DUI, Since DUI is a crime, the car thus becomes a crime scene and really could be searched at the time of arrest without permission but it is normally asked just to clear a court challenge. Also, often the car is impounded, and we had to "inventory" everything in the car for proper safety of the items, we were not searching, but inventory the car and its items upon impounding. The issue will be intent, which could be challenged in court. But seldom is.
Searching a house, a officer would not know if the person at the door is drunk or not drunk, if there is no issue of that at the time.
Also seldom is what the DUI driver says, actually needed in court, unless their attorney wants to challenge the right to arrest to do a breath or blood test. What they say is not always as important as HOW they say it, slurred speech, and the such. The officer at the car is looking at eye movement, hand movements and speech patterns.
If the suspect refuses breath or blood tests, then what they say can be used to support the officers arrest, based on accepted DUI comparisons and accepted methods of detecting DUI drivers
No... because it proves they are in the condition they are charged with... if they are being taken in.. you don't have an option of saying no... the ploice have the right to check for weapons or contraband... this is as much for their own safety (the police) as it is the safety of others, and to prevent contraband from entering a lock up or holding area.
Its not exploitive... if you want to get plastered.. do it in your own home... do it in public then it's a public issue.
Commit a crime that ends up in you being transported in a police vehicle... you don't have a choice to refuse a search. Drunk. Stoned, insane or plain stupid, everyone gets it.
The police have the right to get stupid people to incriminate themselves... and even lie to them...
Your Miranda warning includes.. "you have the right to remain silent" if you flap your gums... you waved that right.
And its simple... the drunk being charged is the party that committed the crime, usually multiple crimes... Drunk, or high isn't an excuse to avoid responsibility and liability for their actions, nor should it be... its a voluntary condition.
Some poor sole with an IQ of 40 usually doesn't not have the mental capacity to understand the ramifications of their actions. I.E. knowing right from wrong. A drunk or high person is fully capable.. and CAUSED the situation that resulted in the crime in question. That makes them liable, civilly and criminally.
And nobody is going to be allowed take the stand in the courtroom while drunk or stoned... on any side of the argument.
But basically... you get pulled over by a cop while weaving, you spew off to the cop... YOU are responsible... if you swing on the cop, YOU are responsible... if you plow through a bus stop and kill 20 people standing there.. YOU are responsible.
If you have the clarity of thought to refuse a breath-O-lyzer they can drag you to the nearest medical facility and have bood drawn and tested that way... any you will have your drivers license revoked... Driving is a privilege... not a right.
When you get hauled into the police station for an interview... anything you say is recorded and used... drunk or stoned... your only right is to stay quiet and ask for your lawyer.
I personally have zero problem with drunks and people on drugs being searched being in public in such a condition is in itself a crime... any crime as such subjects you to arrest and booking... and well, I already went into that.
Show up for a schedualled court case drunk or high... you are facing contempt of court and likely public intoxication... and count on being booked on those charges... even as a witness.
See that's why I don't understand why statements can be taken from intoxicated people and used against them. It makes no sense to me. If you can't testify intoxicated, then you shouldn't be able to make (formal) statements to the police while intoxicated.Quote:
And nobody is going to be allowed take the stand in the courtroom while drunk or stoned... on any side of the argument.
Maybe using drunk driving was a bad example because it got things pointed in one direction... it could be ANY instance involving the police talking to an intoxicated person no matter what they're doing, or not doing, or what 'side' of the law they're currently under. I mean, technically the police could come to someone's home, they could be in there drunk, and that's no crime... say the police are looking for someone (not this person) and ask to search... how can they rightfully gain consent from this person who is clearly (legally) intoxicated to search his home? I don't see it as 'OK'. I see it as taking advantage of the person's mental state perhaps. I think maybe they'd take liberties during the search that they may not get away with a sober person (example, looking in a small cabinet or box when supposedly looking for a person, I don't think it's exactly legal to ask to search for one thing and look in places that that one thing couldn't possibly be) <----I may be wrong about that but I THOUGHT the police had to be reasonable about where they search depending on what they're looking for.
I also don't really understand what difference it makes if you caused the state of mind you're in or not. Yes, I completely understand and agree that you certainly should be held responsible for any actions while intoxicated BUT I don't see how it's any different making a statement to the police intoxicated vs testifying in court intoxicated. I think they should have to wait a set amount of time before questioning. I guess that's not likely or practical, it was just something I think about sometimes.
Thanks for the answers. If anyone wants to add answers, I'm very interested still, thanks!
Drunk driving is a crime... and the same can be extraplolted to assult, robbery, murder, rape... etc while under the influence of anything.
Intoxicated is a state that individual is responsible for being in... and because they are responsible for being in it.. there are responsible for what results from it.
Taking avantage of someone's mental capacity would be taking advantage of the people with learning disabilities that have no responsibility for their condition... and their condition isn't temporary.
You aren't taking advantage of people with normal cognitive facilities that by choice do things they know better than doing... like getting high or drunk.
A person of average intelligence that decides to use any substance to alter their mental state is NOT the same as someone that as a permanent state has the cognitive facilities of a small child.
There are not and should not be outs for people that engage in those behaviours.
I doubt you would appreciate it if some fool in a drunken rage abducts, rapes and then kills your daughter or wife... then tries to say... sorry, wasn't my fault, I was drunk... sorry, I should not be held accountible.
Because drunk or not if they admitted to it when caught... it should be admissible... the fact they were drunk is not an excuse to not be punished for what they did while drunk... nor should they be allowed the benefit to sober up and lawyer up... if they were truly smart, they would not have put themselves in the situation to begin with.
And the rights of the victims are not simply a nuisance for criminal lawyers... and the criminals that prey upon others.
They get their day in court, when they are sober... they don't deserve any extra rights sober people aren't due. Like sorry but give me a day or so to think up an excuse before you talk to me.
Again, the difference is a drunk person with a 180 IQ... is not and should not be treated like the poor sole born with an IQ of 40 that's sober and bever been able to tie their own shoes.
The rules of evidence, more-or-less applicable throughout the United States and (for all I know) other countries where the English Common Law prevails, provide that an admission against one's interest is admissible, for what it's worth, despite his or her believability. Not so otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilingInside
But also part is the "scared" nature of court, a person appearing drunk in court is not respecting the court and would or could be held in contempt and even put in jail just for appearing that way.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:00 PM. |