Conference back40::soapbox

    Only in Massachusetts. Civil rights? Nah.

    The result, of course, is that it will become a crime to
    be an inebriated passenger. Except for anyone named
    Kennedy, that is.

    -b

    
    	If you're not driving, I don't think it matters, does it?
    

    
    whats their point??? Is it a crime in MA to be a drunk passenger??

    
    how about RUI??

	i'm surprised they're not going for the brass ring and
	making it OUI_.  why just alcohol?

    Funny how Mass is into this sort of poop vs trying to correct the
    welfare problems, and the bloody issues around divorce, child support,
    and no visitation rights.

    I wonder if the same group of people will object to this as they did
    with Prop 187.  Remeber all of those folks who said that is was wrong
    to report on ILLEGAL aliens.  I really wonder if those vaunted
    healthcare workers will take to the streets to protest this action?
    

    > If a blood test is medically necessary, it becomes part of a person's
    > medical records, which (by law) is confidential under ALL
    > circumstances, And it should remain this way!!

    Not that I disagree with you in principle, but medical records
    are far from confidential. The get subpoenaed all the time.
    Just ask anyone who's ever had to take a rapist to court...

    -b

	I think they should do that for any DRIVER that is pulled out of a car.
We need to get these people off of the road. 



Glen

re: .10

Not without probable cause.

Bob

    To some judges, being in an accident IS probable cause.

re: .12

Yep.  And I won't state my opinion of those judges.

Bob

    I know that murders that aren't solved in the first 6 hours generally
    go unsolved.  I don't think that necessarily applies to other matters.
    
    People who have just been in an accident are not reliable witnesses. 
    They're in shock.  Their sense of time is shot, and their memories are
    unreliable.  I suppose the police are afraid that if you give them any
    time, they'll make up a story, but then, they could have been doing
    that on the ambulance ride.
    
    As for the medical personnel, maybe they were afraid the police would
    eject them from the ER if they didn't cooperate....

    In this state, signing a drivers license application is signing away
    your right to deny BAC testing in event of an accident.  If you refuse
    consent to BAC testing the state will suspend your license for six
    months.
    
    And they've recently put teeth into the suspension law; vehicles
    operated by people with suspended licenses can be impounded for thirty
    days.  Over 1000 vehicles have been impounded since this provision came
    into effect 1 January 1995.
    
    DougO

    .15
    
    You appear to have missed an important part of what has been said.  At
    present, there is NOTHING in the bill to be considered that limits the
    BAC reporting requirement to the driver of the vehicle at fault, if
    fault can be determined.  Given that it has been medically demonstrated
    that some people are still well under control with BACs in excess of
    the statutory limit, the use of such testing on someone not ostensibly
    responsible for an accident is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to
    the United States Constitution.

    
    RE14.
    
    It's 48 hours regarding a murder.

    Dick, I could say I was responding to .8, wherein the driver was very
    definately involved in the story.  But you're right, the larger context
    of the topic as regarding the BAC of the passengers being subject to
    legislative takings is not addressed by my citation of California law,
    which should thus be considered a rathole.  Sorry.
    
    DougO

    Re: .17
    
    I've gotten the six hour figure from a number of places.  Now, it might
    be that 48 hours is the second point of statistical significance, but 6
    hours is the first.

    
    re. 19
    
    I have never heard of the 6 hour figure, in all of my Law Enforcement
    classes, or law classes. Chels, where did you hear this figure from??
    
    Mark

    re.8
    
    I wonder how you would feel if your kid/wife was center punched 
    by a DUI and some other nitwit roadside lawyer interfered with 
    the various emergency professions.
    
    As a responding member of a fire department I can assure you that had
    you pulled this kind of crap on an accident scene you would be spending
    time in the back seat of a cruiser.
    
    

    Re: .20
    
    A couple of places, I don't recall exactly.  I thought it was
    interesting the first time I heard it, and then I heard it a couple of
    other times, so it seems reliable.

re .22:

>    A couple of places, I don't recall exactly.  I thought it was
>    interesting the first time I heard it, and then I heard it a couple of
>    other times, so it seems reliable.

This logic is why so many people believe things like Craig Shergold, 7
years old for many years, still wants to collect business cards, the
water drains the other way in bathtubs in the Southern hemisphere etc. etc.

Not questioning whether murders unsolved in the first 6 hours usually
go unsolved, just the logic _why_ you believe it.

    
    	Speaking of Craig, I saw another notice at a restaurant the
    	other night.  He's STILL looking to get a bunch of postcards.
    
    	8^)
    

    Re: .23
    
    >This logic is why so many people believe things like Craig Shergold
    
    I did _not_ get any email about it....
    
    You know, the only reason I know that Reading has a soccer team is
    because I've seen it mentioned a few times.  By your logic, I shouldn't
    be believing it.

re .23

Er, bathtubs _do_ drain the other way in the Southern Hemisphere; it's a
law of physics.

/john

    Coriolis, I love Coriolis. 
    
    ...Tom

RE: 422.26 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"

> Coriolis effect

> Er, bathtubs _do_ drain the other way in the Southern Hemisphere; it's a
> law of physics.

Er,  "/john who is always right" is wrong.

Bathtubs are rather too small for this to be significant.  

"Coriolis effect" is caused by the difference in velocity between points at
different distances from the axis of rotation.  For the student:  Calculate 
the velocity difference between the end of a bathtub and the drain.  Assume
a two meter long tub 45 north (or south).  

Phil

So you are claiming then that the shape of the bathtub is going to have more
effect on the direction in which the whilrpool rotates, and that the same
bathtub will drain the same way in either hemisphere?

Can you demonstrate it?

/john

RE: 422.29 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"

> So you are claiming then that the shape of the bathtub is going to have
> more effect on the direction in which the whilrpool rotates,  and that 
> the same bathtub will drain the same way in either hemisphere?

With a symmetrical bathtub,  thermal and assorted other very tiny forces 
and effects will dominate any but the most careful experiment.  

Please do the math.


A very non symmetrical bathtub will rotate the same way in either
hemisphere,  and this is fairly easy to demonstrate.

ASCII_ART drawing

+================================+
|                       |        |
|                       |====    |
|                                |
|                       |==== *  |
|                       |        |
|                       |        |
|                       |        |
+================================+

* is the drain.  This will rotate clockwise.  


Phil

    
    Martinluv.  Which way does your bathtub drain, clockwise or
    anticlockwise?  This appears to be a matter of great import.

I had an uncle who was clockwise.

Aunt Bea and Uncle Gene, aka Ankle Bean.

/john

    so why is clockwise clockwise instead of the other way around

    .33
    
    Because mechanical (analog) clocks have been made, from their earliest
    years, to rotate their hands in such a manner that when the hands are
    passing through the upper half of their rotational circle their tips
    move to the right as viewed by an observer standing where he or she can
    read the symbols on the clock's face.

    
    
    Cuz' then it would be counterclockwise.  :*)
    

    Re: .36
    
    >I'm interested in knowing if the patient has a right to refuse the
    >test.
    
    From what I've seen on "Law & Order" (which is a: fictional, and b: set
    in New York), the individual has a right to refuse to give a blood
    sample.  The district attorney may then petition the court for
    permission to take one.  These cases tend to involve placing someone at
    the scene of a crime.  In matters involving intoxication, a petition is
    not effective, since it would take too long to get the petition heard.
    
    In accidents, police have probable cause for testing the driver, though
    not the passengers (unless someone indicates that the passenger's
    interference caused the accident, I would guess).

    .38
    
    > In accidents, police have probable cause for testing the driver...
    
    Car A is cruising at 55 MPH on a two-lane highway with a posted speed
    limit of 55 MPH.  Car B is traveling at 70 MPH in the opposite
    direction and suddenly veers across the center line, striking Car A
    head-on and killing the driver of car B, the car that crossed the line. 
    The new Massachusetts law requires the hospital to report the BAC of
    the driver of Car A, who did NOTHING wrong.  Probable cause?  It is to
    laugh.

    Re: .39
    
    >The new Massachusetts law requires the hospital to report the BAC of
    >the driver of Car A, who did NOTHING wrong.
    
    Anytime a crime happens, people are investigated, including people who
    have done NOTHING wrong.  It's not like police arrive at a crime scene
    to find a big neon sign flashing "So-and-so did it."
    
    It is only by investigating that the police can determine that someone
    did, in fact, do NOTHING wrong.

    
    
    And how does a BAC test determine this?

    
    	It "determines" nothing, actually, but does a good job of remov-
    	ing quite a bit of the "reasonable doubt".
    

    
      Unless the police can show probable cause, the evidence is not
     admissible - this has been pretty well decided for a long time
     now in the USA, and any good defense lawyer or judge knows it.
     See OJ trial, for example.  Is being in a major accident "probable
     cause" ?  I bet it is.  Can they randomly stop motorists and test
     their blood ?  Yes, they can, but they can't use the evidence,
     since obviously if the selection is random, probable cause is absent.
    
      bb

    
    	If the police department could convince a judge that a certain
    	section of roadway is notorious for "playing host" to drivers
    	OUI [however they do that ... proof by whatever means], can it
    	be said that they have "probable cause" to test randomly?
    

    re.34
    
    Actually it comed from the sundial being invented in the northern
    hemisphere...the shadow rotates ----> thataway where if the sundial had
    been invented in the southern hemisphere the shadow woulda rotated
    <------thisaway

    Re: .41
    
    >And how does a BAC test determine this?
    
    A BAC test determines if you were driving under the influence, which is
    a crime, or not, which is not.

    re ~.33 etc...
    
    filled the tub with warm water, hopped in with a book and an ale.
    hopped out as i was becoming crinkly.
    pulled the plug and the water disapeared in an anti clockwise "funnel"
    dried off, filled the sink, washed the dishes, pulled the plug. again
    the water escaped in an anti clockwise direction.
    same again with handbasin which is vaguely triangular
    
    entropy is such a wonderful thing 8*)

    
    
    We had a Kenedyesque situation here in Maryland a few months ago.  An
    aid to new Governor Wayne Curry hit a woman and then split.  THe woman
    was killed.  The guy show up at the police station several hours later
    and still has a fairly high BAC.  Of course he says that he drank
    afterwards.  A sad situation all around.
    
    
    Mike
    

    
    re: Note 422.48 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA
    
    I did not know I was obliged to prove my innocence.
    
    The burden of proof is on the police.  Just because I'm in an accident
    they have not right to check my blood or anything else.  If my
    car, which was traveling east is found in the westbound lane, then
    perhaps they should check.  But if there is no evidence I committed
    any infraction, then they have no right to take a blood sample. 
    Part of the point of Miranda is 'that you have a right to remain 
    silent' - is silence really any different that keeping my blood to
    myself?
    
    al     
    
    
    

    Re: .51
    
    >I did not know I was obliged to prove my innocence.
    
    If the police are investigating a crime, and they ask you where you
    were between such-and-such times on such-and-such day, are you going to 
    tell them?  Or will you say, "Hey, I don't have to prove my innocence
    to you guys"?
    
    >The burden of proof is on the police.
    
    You're thinking of the prosecution.

    
    	People of the "butt out!!" mentality would no doubt jump the
    	fence if they are the victims of a crime and want the alleged
    	suspect investigated.
    

    Mark,
    
    I've re-read your .8 a number of times and I still have to wonder
    why you or your friend were so concerned about a BAC test being
    administered in light of the severity of the crash as you described
    it.
    
    My neighbor is an EMS and I asked him about this.  He said police
    actually *interfering* with EMS or ER personnel providing emergency
    treatment is NOT common here at all.  He said he knows BAC tests
    are administered  especially if there is the slightest chance that
    the patient might need surgery or the injury would call for the admin-
    istration of narcotic type pain killers.  Both scenarios would be
    very risky for the patient if the blood alcohol level is high or if
    the patient already has some other drug in their system; this holds
    true for any passengers in the cars.
    
    He says you can count on the police coming to the hospital, especially
    if they find booze or empty containers in the vehicle; but he said
    he's never witnessed police actually delaying/preventing treatment
    being provided by emergency personnel.
    
    

    .53
    
    Even if the alleged suspect is the driver of the Car A that I described
    in .39?  Good thing you didn't bet on it, because you'd be paying out
    handsomely about now.

    
    	If driver A and driver B are the only witnesses to the accident,
    	and driver B is not around any more to give his side, are you
    	going to just take A's word for it that it was B's fault?
    
    	Especially if you're related to driver B?
    

    re: 422.52 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA
    
    >If the police are investigating a crime, and they ask you where you
    >were between such-and-such times on such-and-such day, are you going to
    >tell them?  Or will you say, "Hey, I don't have to prove my innocence
    >to you guys"?
    
    I might, but the point is I'm under no obligation to tell them.
    
    >You're thinking of the prosecution.
    
    No, the police are limited on what they can do. They can only act on
    probable cause.  If my car is not out of it's lane, and there is no
    evidence to suggest I committed a crime, then they have no probable
    cause.  Being in an accident is not (in my mind) the same as being
    a suspect in a crime.  
    
    The antithesis of this is that the police find a find a fingerprint
    on a murder weapon, then just go out and fingerprint everyone 
    till they find the match.   
    
    This whole issue strikes me as another case of the basic issue which 
    seems to be dividing most people into 2 camps.
    
    o Folks that want government to champion "good" causes regardless of
      cost. (In this case lets get drunks off the roads) 
    
    o Those that think that is not the purpose of government.
    
    Problem is who decides what "good" is.
    
    
    

    
    	RE: .57
    
>    probable cause.  If my car is not out of it's lane, and there is no
>    evidence to suggest I committed a crime, then they have no probable
>    cause.  Being in an accident is not (in my mind) the same as being
    
    
    	Physics does funny things to moving objects.  I bet it could
    	even return a vehicle to its original lane after the vehicle in
    	question had done a couple flips in both lanes ... or maybe
    	knock a vehicle out of its original lane and into the other lane.
    

    
    But there are ways to tell how the accident happened.  When we (and old
    flame and I) were on the shoulder of the road and hit by a car doing
    75, the guy driving the other car insisted that we pulled out in front
    of him.  Looking at the accident scene, the officer showed me where the
    skidmarks started (no, not in anyone underwear) and the spot where his
    care bottomed out on the road (went under my van a little bit).  That'
    was right before they wisked me off to the horspistol to get 20some
    stitches in the ole noggin.  I didn't even know I was bleeding.
    
    
    Mike

    Re: .57
    
    >I'm under no obligation to tell them.
    
    Then they're under no obligation to rule you out as a suspect.
    
    >Being in an accident is not (in my mind) the same as being
    >a suspect in a crime.
    
    The possibility that a crime was committed is there; the police need to
    ascertain whether a crime was committed or not.
    
    >The antithesis of this is that the police find a find a fingerprint
    >on a murder weapon, then just go out and fingerprint everyone 
    >till they find the match.
    
    No, that's not a good analogy.  If they fingerprinted everyone that had
    been in the room where the gun was found, that would be more in line
    with the accident situation.

    
    re: Note 422.60
    
    >No, that's not a good analogy.  If they fingerprinted everyone that had
    >been in the room where the gun was found, that would be more in line
    >with the accident situation.
     
    Not really.  I assume the gun was used in a crime.  But an accident 
    does not mean there was a crime.   I agree if someone sees me veer
    into the oncoming lane, or some other evidence gives the police
    probable cause, fine, that's a different issue.  But if there is
    nothing to suggest this, then I have a problem with that.  If for
    example I get a blow out in a tire, and hit a tree, and they want blood
    for OUI purposes, I want no part of that.  Why should I ?  The scenario
    I described, isn't even a crime.  I don't mind talking to the police
    and explaining what happened,  but unless there is evidence of drinking
    then I think they are going to far (by the way , I don't drink).
    
    It's a case of misguided generalization.  - Since there is a higher
    probablity of drivers being OUI in an accident, we test them -
    
    That's like saying since people of a particular ethnic background
    are convicted of more crimes, we should ask them to be fingerprinted
    to see if they were involved in a crime.
    
    If people really want to reduce drunk drivers, just start parking 
    state police cruisers in parking lots of bar.
    

    Re: .61
    
    >But an accident does not mean there was a crime. 
    
    Yes, we've already gone over this.  An accident is reason to suspect a
    crime might have been committed.  If you find a dead body, you suspect
    a crime.  The person might have died of natural causes, but you still
    have to investigate.

    
    I think what bothers me, is that this is another "feel good law"
    which in the end will accomplish nothing, yet leans towards widening
    the concept of probable cause.
    
    If the issue is getting drunk drivers off the road, then make laws that
    will make that happen.  We have plenty of drunks getting caught, bu
    they wind up back on the road, with or without licenses.  This law may
    increase the number of convictions, but what good does that do, other
    than to make folks feel good.
    
    Want to reduce drunk driving fatalities? Put drunk drivers in jail for
    1 year on the first offense.  Catch someone driving with suspended
    license, 5 years.   Etc Etc. Not so much for punishment, as
    much for protecting society, since that's the goal anyway.
    
    Draconian, yes.  But if the goal is to reduce drunk driving fatalities,
    then do what works, and let's not fill the books with relatively useless
    laws, particularly laws that nibble at the edges of our freedoms.
    (In this case, freedom from undue search and siezure (my BLOOD!)) 
    
    al
    
    
    

    
    I'm with Chelsea here (shocked look).  The accident would normally
    be good enough as probable cause.
    
      bb

    
    	RE: .63
    
    	A suspended license is not always the result of an OUI ... 3
    	speeding tickets in a year [in Mass] yields the same results.
    
    	So you can't pass a "generic" law on suspended licenses.
    
    	And FWIW, what WOULD be a legitimate reason for asking someone
    	to submit to a BAC test?  I bet every reason you come up with
    	can be countered with a legitimate explanation that doesn't
    	involve an illegal activity.
    

    
    re: 422.66
    
    I was thinking of licenses suspended for OUI.
    
    There's several good reasons for BAC - 
    o Any hard evidence, such as bottles/tins in the vehicle
    o Witnesses to vehicular behavior indicting OUI
    o Police observation of drunken behavior
    o Peculiar position of your car, (in the oncoming lane)
    o Smell of alcohol on the driver
    
    There are plenty of legitimate reasons, no reason to be indescriminate.
    
    Let me ask a question - if you found walking in an area where a theft had 
    just occurred, would you object to being fingerprinted for now other
    reason than just being there? 
    
    
     
         
    

    What about the issues mentioned by my neighbor the EMS?  You can
    bet your sweet cheeks that if ER personnel administered a painkiller
    that "killed" a patient once it combined with a high blood alcohol
    level, that patient's family would probably sue every doctor involved
    in treating the patient.
    
    After I had surgery I was taking Percocet, then Vicodin for a 
    couple of weeks.  Each prescription had that sticker "do not drink
    alcohol while taking this drug etc".  A friend brought in dinner one
    night with a bottle of wine.  I had one glass of pinot noir HOURS
    after I had taken a regular dose of meds.  Thank goodness I let my 
    friend do in the bottle of wine because that one glass knocked me
    on my butt!!
    
    I can imagine what general anesthesia would do to someone whose
    blood alcohol might be 2 or 3 x a level considered legal!
    

    
    >o Any hard evidence, such as bottles/tins in the vehicle
    
    	Empties being returned to the store.
    
    >o Witnesses to vehicular behavior indicting OUI
    
    	Front-end alignment problem with the vehicle.
    
    >o Police observation of drunken behavior
    
    	Learning disability
    
    >o Peculiar position of your car, (in the oncoming lane)
   
    	Air bubble in power steering system
    
    >o Smell of alcohol on the driver
    
    	Some drunk dumped a beer on him at a wedding
    
    
    >Let me ask a question - if you found walking in an area where a theft had 
    >just occurred, would you object to being fingerprinted for now other
    >reason than just being there? 
    
    
    	I'm sorry to disappoint you, but no ... I wouldn't object.  Well,
    	let me re-phrase ... I wouldn't object if I was innocent.
    

    
    re: 422.69 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY
    
    >>Let me ask a question - if you found walking in an area where a theft had
    >>just occurred, would you object to being fingerprinted for now other
    >>reason than just being there?
          
    
    >I'm sorry to disappoint you, but no ... I wouldn't object. Well,
    >let me re-phrase ... I wouldn't object if I was innocent.
    
    I would object, strongly.  Just as I object to the use of roadblocks
    and any other indescriminate use of power.
    
    But that's what makes it a horesrace.
    
    As to the other issues, I was pointing out things that MIGHT justify 
    a BAC test.  Not that I agreed with it.  I had a friend in New Mexico
    who had a speech problem.  One Friday night on the way home from work
    he got arrested for OUI, handcuffed, the whole bit.  Poor guy, hadn't
    done a thing.  Couldn't speak well enough to help himself much.
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    	RE: Justifying a BAC test
    
    	Well, like I said ... any "reason" for pulling someone over can
    	be explained as a non-OUI reason.  And if the person can tell
    	the cop that, does that mean that the cop shouldn't be able to
    	investigate?
    

    .69
    
    In what part of the globe do folks return empty booze bottles to
    get a refund on deposits?
    
    

    
    	I had a couple dozen beer bottles in my car 2 weeks ago ... I
    	think they'd been in my cellar for 2+ years, and I found them
    	while I was cleaning up.
    
    	So yes, it does happen ... although I'd agree not too often.
    

    
       > In what part of the globe do folks return empty booze bottles to
       > get a refund on deposits?
        
    well, south australia for one.
    

    Last summer they were begging us to return beer bottles (for a refund)
    because there was a shortage of them.
    
    joan

    
    My car is currently pretty full of empty beer bottles and cans.  And
    the ones that aren't returnable* get taken to the recycling area at the
    dump, which is someplace I don't get to too often.
    
    
    
    
    *including all other glass bottles, such as wine and liquor