Who Will Look Out For Drunk Drivers' Interests?

imageDriving while intoxicated whether it is drugs or alcohol is a serious offense in the state of Arizona.  Many a lives have been ruined due to this broad based charge.  It seems that if an Officer of the Law even suspects you are under the influence of some mind altering chemical he has the right to subject you to not only an embarrassing road side sobriety test but also the commonly malfunctioning breathalyzer.The combinations of these “procedures” have cost many people not only their right to drive but also in some cases their freedom.  The Officers submitting individuals to these tests don’t seem to take into account some people have disabilities, which could hinder the roadside sobriety test.  Ailments such as clubfeet, Parkinson’s disease, and other such illnesses that affect the balance would cause a stone sober person from successfully passing the roadside test.  Other common illnesses would also cause a person some difficulty with this so-called “sobriety” test.  Illnesses such as an ear infection, which affect person equilibrium, could cause an Officer to believe the person to be intoxicated even if they weren’t.The laws are designed to protect the public from those who choose to drive while intoxicated.  The methods of determining intoxication seem to be lacking accuracy.  The Officers involved in these situations should be trained to take into account that not all it was it first appears to be.  There are extenuating factors that should be taken into consideration.I agree that driving under the influence is a very irresponsible and dangerous thing to do.  But shouldn’t it be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this crime is actually being committed before punishment is meted out?  The methods allowed by law don’t seem to prove any such thing.  With the inaccuracies and unreliability of such methods, shouldn’t there be more?  If Officers of the Law were to spend more time asking questions of the driver and spend less time focused on the prejudices aimed at drivers who drive while under the influence, maybe less innocent people would be forced to engage in defending themselves against this serious crime.It is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but it has been my experience in this matter not to be the case.  Once a person is charged with a DUI it becomes their duty to prove their innocence whether through expensive representation or the gathering of medical documents, either way it becomes time consuming and expensive.  Whether the funds are spent on legal counsel or physicians it will cost the accused financially.The Law Enforcement Officers involved with such matters should be less eager to get a conviction and more eager to protect and serve.  They may be under the assumption they are protecting when they get a “drunk driver” off the streets but who is there to protect the “drunk driver” when he’s not a “drunk driver”?
Be Sociable, Share!

Tags: driving under the influence (dui) in arizona, dui in arizona, arizona dui

Leave a Reply

Security Code:

 
About - Contact - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service