How would you like to be found guilty of driving under the influence even if there is no proof that you were in fact driving under the influence. Perhaps you were under the influence at some point in the past few days...or perhaps weeks. Perhaps you were under the influence in a time and place where it was legal for you to be in that condition.
Then you get pulled over days...or perhaps weeks....later while you are quite sober. And based on residual chemicals in your blood stream due to past events, you end up convicted of a DUI.
And the courts endorse this conviction due to the twisted idea that actually conducting an accurate test for whether or not you are under the influence would "unduly restrict law enforcement."
That's right. Our right to a trial based on fact is less important that the convenience of law enforcement.
1 comment:
Man! You got it right. This is insane. I can't imagine this could ever hold up in higher courts, but having to take it there is absurd.
The more i read about Arizona, the more i feel like it makes SC look librul.
Post a Comment