Who wants to NOT be a millionaire quiz!

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
It's called a field sobriety test and the reason is a tricky ear/eye interaction i learned about years ago in a class i wasn't paying attention to. The cop is looking for the smooth tracking of the eye and a bit of a wobble of the iris because the feedback to the brain from the balance receptors in the ear are thrown off by alcohol. I want to say nastigmus, or something like that. I know that can't be right, i wasn't paying attention. Probably hungover or stoned.

It's present in all sorts of other diseases and pathologies too, and other external stimuli. Not the most accurate determination of whether someone is sober or not.
Right. It's called a "gaze nystagmus" test. Sober or intoxicated, you can track something being moved in front of your eyes at a reasonable, moderate speed. When you're sober, your eyes track smoothly. When you're intoxicated, they will track in a jerky, start-stop-start-stop manner. When holding at maximum deviation, the eyes "bounce" (nystagmus) in intoxicated people but will hold steady in sober people. There are certain pathologies that can cause this, so the officers will do additional tests at roadside to confirm intoxication. Barring those pathologies, it's a reliable test because lack of smooth pursuit and nystagmus at maximum deviation do not occur after having only one or two drinks.

Your turn, Mothra.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Right. It's called a "gaze nystagmus" test. Sober or intoxicated, you can track something being moved in front of your eyes at a reasonable, moderate speed. When you're sober, your eyes track smoothly. When you're intoxicated, they will track in a jerky, start-stop-start-stop manner. When holding at maximum deviation, the eyes "bounce" (nystagmus) in intoxicated people but will hold steady in sober people. There are certain pathologies that can cause this, so the officers will do additional tests at roadside to confirm intoxication. Barring those pathologies, it's a reliable test because lack of smooth pursuit and nystagmus at maximum deviation do not occur after having only one or two drinks.

Your turn, Mothra.

Nystagmus! That's it. Oh, horrible memories.

So why don't you just use breathalysers over there, Seth? Seems it would save a tremendous amount of time and be markedly more reliable.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Question:

There is an Aboriginal man who was at first abducted by the invading forces under orders from George III to learn more about the "native fauna" when they arrived. He managed to escape but after a jolly old spearing or so (Governor Arthur Philip copped one to the shoulder), turned up again years later to facilitate those very bond buildings. Travelled back to O'l Blighty and all.

His hut stood where the Sydney Opera House now stands.

He wrote the first ever known text in Indigenous hand.

He has a very famous electorate named after him.

What is his name?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Nystagmus! That's it. Oh, horrible memories.

So why don't you just use breathalysers over there, Seth? Seems it would save a tremendous amount of time and be markedly more reliable.
Right. You're talking about the roadside breathalyzers. Some places are using them, like in Washington State. But most are not. The reason comes down to laws on search and seizure and the fact that every state has its own State Supreme Court and laws. And, to my knowledge, nobody has taken DUII laws up to the Supreme Court of the United States to rule on an issue in a long time. The U.S. Constitution says that " [No person]…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…". So every state has its own interpretation of what is a "defendant" and what is "compelling" and what "being a witness" means. Additionally, since all rights have certain limitations, public safety also weighs into the arguments. And, some states believe that a breath test may only be compelled after arrest, while others believe it can be given before the arrest - all subject to court decisions within that state, usually at the State Supreme Court level.

When I was working before I retired, I knew all of my state's laws and acceptable procedures to make a legal DUI arrest. If I were to have moved to a different state, I would have had to learn all of that state's laws and procedures.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Right. You're talking about the roadside breathalyzers. Some places are using them, like in Washington State. But most are not. The reason comes down to laws on search and seizure and the fact that every state has its own State Supreme Court and laws. And, to my knowledge, nobody has taken DUII laws up to the Supreme Court of the United States to rule on an issue in a long time. The U.S. Constitution says that " [No person]…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…". So every state has its own interpretation of what is a "defendant" and what is "compelling" and what "being a witness" means. Additionally, since all rights have certain limitations, public safety also weighs into the arguments. And, some states believe that a breath test may only be compelled after arrest, while others believe it can be given before the arrest - all subject to court decisions within that state, usually at the State Supreme Court level.

When I was working before I retired, I knew all of my state's laws and acceptable procedures to make a legal DUI arrest. If I were to have moved to a different state, I would have had to learn all of that state's laws and procedures.

Thanks for the informative answer. I suspected it was something about individual rights.

May i say, and i say it with the utmost respect, what an absolute shitshow. The way the law trickles down in your country leaves me utterly baffled. No wonder you're so litigious.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Thanks for the informative answer. I suspected it was something about individual rights.

May i say, and i say it with the utmost respect, what an absolute shitshow. The way the law trickles down in your country leaves me utterly baffled. No wonder you're so litigious.
Yeah, I know. The progression of appeal is municipal/county court - state Circuit Court of Appeals - State Supreme Court - Federal Circuit Court of Appeals - Supreme Court of the United States. And the Supreme Court can choose which cases it hears. So, if the Supreme Court agrees with the federal Circuit Court of Appeals, it just doesn't hear the case at all, and the decision of the lower court stands.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Over here, not ony do all of our cop cars carry breathalyser units and drug testing kits, we have random testings spring up about the place to test drivers in a set location. Can't go over 0.05 anywhere in the country.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Yeah, I know. The progression of appeal is municipal/county court - state Circuit Court of Appeals - State Supreme Court - Federal Circuit Court of Appeals - Supreme Court of the United States. And the Supreme Court can choose which cases it hears. So, if the Supreme Court agrees with the federal Circuit Court of Appeals, it just doesn't hear the case at all, and the decision of the lower court stands.

Sounds like a system designed to make some people very wealthy to me.

The more you dilute power, and all that.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Over here, not ony do all of our cop cars carry breathalyser units and drug testing kits, we have random testings spring up about the place to test drivers in a set location. Can't go over 0.05 anywhere in the country.
Random checkpoints were tried in the U.S. in the 90s, but they were found to be unconstitutional. In the U.S. there has to be some sort of reasonable suspicion of a crime being (or about to be) committed in order to make an involuntary stop. Merely driving down the road was deemed not to be enough reason to stop someone.

So 0.05 is okay? Or is 0.05 and above illegal? All of our states have 0.08 and above as the legal presumption for intoxication. Almost all the states have increased penalties for people who test over a certain higher amount. 0.15 gets a greater penalty than 0.08 as an example.

Most states use 0.04 and above as the impermissible level for drivers of commercial vehicles.
 

Aussie

Ima da Sheriff
Staff member
Question:

There is an Aboriginal man who was at first abducted by the invading forces under orders from George III to learn more about the "native fauna" when they arrived. He managed to escape but after a jolly old spearing or so (Governor Arthur Philip copped one to the shoulder), turned up again years later to facilitate those very bond buildings. Travelled back to O'l Blighty and all.

His hut stood where the Sydney Opera House now stands.

He wrote the first ever known text in Indigenous hand.

He has a very famous electorate named after him.

What is his name?
Bennelong
 

Aussie

Ima da Sheriff
Staff member
Random checkpoints were tried in the U.S. in the 90s, but they were found to be unconstitutional. In the U.S. there has to be some sort of reasonable suspicion of a crime being (or about to be) committed in order to make an involuntary stop. Merely driving down the road was deemed not to be enough reason to stop someone.

So 0.05 is okay? Or is 0.05 and above illegal? All of our states have 0.08 and above as the legal presumption for intoxication. Almost all the states have increased penalties for people who test over a certain higher amount. 0.15 gets a greater penalty than 0.08 as an example.

Most states use 0.04 and above as the impermissible level for drivers of commercial vehicles.
Here, you are stuffed at 0.05.
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho
Staff member
I meant to write Bennelong but read the stuff up above.

If you use the road, a public place, you need to abide by the rules of the road. Random breath tests save lives!
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
I meant to write Bennelong but read the stuff up above.

If you use the road, a public place, you need to abide by the rules of the road. Random breath tests save lives!
I'm sure they do. I'm a huge believer in our civil liberties in the U.S., but no one forces anyone to drive. It's a choice, and yes, it's in a public space. The danger of drunk drivers cannot be disputed by anyone on either the left or right or libertarian. I do not believe our civil liberties and freedoms were intended to enable people to kill us and our loved ones. I happen to think that if you accept a driver's license, you should also accept the right of the police to stop you and check to make sure you're safe to drive at a random checkpoint.

But the courts have decided that our civil liberties outweigh this argument, and that's what we go with.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Right. You're talking about the roadside breathalyzers. Some places are using them, like in Washington State. But most are not. The reason comes down to laws on search and seizure and the fact that every state has its own State Supreme Court and laws. And, to my knowledge, nobody has taken DUII laws up to the Supreme Court of the United States to rule on an issue in a long time. The U.S. Constitution says that " [No person]…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…". So every state has its own interpretation of what is a "defendant" and what is "compelling" and what "being a witness" means. Additionally, since all rights have certain limitations, public safety also weighs into the arguments. And, some states believe that a breath test may only be compelled after arrest, while others believe it can be given before the arrest - all subject to court decisions within that state, usually at the State Supreme Court level.

When I was working before I retired, I knew all of my state's laws and acceptable procedures to make a legal DUI arrest. If I were to have moved to a different state, I would have had to learn all of that state's laws and procedures.
ahh ..... so thats why you are behind the rest of the developed world. Interesting:hiding
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
ahh ..... so thats why you are behind the rest of the developed world. Interesting:hiding
Yeah, it's that 10th Amendment in the Constitution that says that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state.

Ratified in 1791, it's still a revolutionary concept. 🇺🇸
 

Aussie

Ima da Sheriff
Staff member
Benelong.. Aussie got it.

Didn't he.?
Yes.....I did get it, but Mothra has not confirmed. Anyway.....to press on.

There are two days left of Trump's 'reign' as POTUS. Who will he pardon before he is not longer POTUS?
 
Top