Two different groups of people have a particular interest in alcohol testing. One is the group composed of both law enforcement officers and the nonprofit groups that want to end the inclination to drink and drive. The second group with an interest in alcohol testing is the group of drivers who would hope to design ways for evading the reach of the long arm of the law. They would like to find ways of passing the various alcohol tests, even after they have had more than a few drinks. As shown by the following article, that second group has run up against a real “roadblock.”The introduction of mobile detection devices has assured law
enforcement officers of a better way to perform alcohol testing. Older techniques, such as the nose to the finger routine, have thus become obsolete. It would have been great if the resulting increase in alcohol testing had somehow managed to dampen the desire of intoxicated individuals to get behind the wheel of a car.
Unfortunately, that has not taken place to the degree that authorities might have hoped. As a result, cities continue to set-up check points. Officers at those check points intend to catch drunken drivers, drivers who have but one goal: pass alcohol test. If asked, those stopped drivers must agree to the use of alcohol testing procedures.
At one time a large number of drivers refused to submit to a blood alcohol concentration test. For a while such refusals went uncontested. Then one driver objected to the alcohol test just a bit too loudly. His objection managed to reach the ears of the men and women sitting on the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled against the allegedly drunk driver. The Supreme Court declared that a refusal to submit to alcohol testing could be used as evidence—evidence that the reluctant driver wanted to hide his or her state of intoxication.
Following that decision, a number of states instituted tougher drunk driving penalties. Those drivers hit with the tougher penalties learned quickly the foolishness of trying to drive while intoxicated (DWI). Yet those who had escaped the harsher penalties continued to drive under the influence (DUI).
Recently, the media in some cities has sought to send a warning to uncaring drunk drivers. In May of 2007, for example, a local news station in Los Angeles ran a program about the penalties for a DUI. That program made clear what happens to drivers who must submit to alcohol testing, and who then fail that test.
That program showed an officer putting handcuffs on a drunk driver. That program reminded those who might want to drink and drive that a DUI can lead to loss of one’s access to four-wheeled transportation. By a strange coincidence, the local L.A. news had also included in the May reports information about a well-publicized alcohol testing.
That was mention of the past testing done on Paris Hilton. She had attempted a flagrant violation of her probation, a probation brought about by her poor performance on an earlier alcohol test. That violation had caused a judge to sentence Ms. Hilton to 45 days in the L.A. jail.
That high profile case demonstrated again the benefits that can come from a wider use of alcohol testing. It demonstrated how well-planned and aptly enforced alcohol tests can put everyone within reach of the long arm of the law.
enforcement officers of a better way to perform alcohol testing. Older techniques, such as the nose to the finger routine, have thus become obsolete. It would have been great if the resulting increase in alcohol testing had somehow managed to dampen the desire of intoxicated individuals to get behind the wheel of a car.
Unfortunately, that has not taken place to the degree that authorities might have hoped. As a result, cities continue to set-up check points. Officers at those check points intend to catch drunken drivers, drivers who have but one goal: pass alcohol test. If asked, those stopped drivers must agree to the use of alcohol testing procedures.
At one time a large number of drivers refused to submit to a blood alcohol concentration test. For a while such refusals went uncontested. Then one driver objected to the alcohol test just a bit too loudly. His objection managed to reach the ears of the men and women sitting on the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled against the allegedly drunk driver. The Supreme Court declared that a refusal to submit to alcohol testing could be used as evidence—evidence that the reluctant driver wanted to hide his or her state of intoxication.
Following that decision, a number of states instituted tougher drunk driving penalties. Those drivers hit with the tougher penalties learned quickly the foolishness of trying to drive while intoxicated (DWI). Yet those who had escaped the harsher penalties continued to drive under the influence (DUI).
Recently, the media in some cities has sought to send a warning to uncaring drunk drivers. In May of 2007, for example, a local news station in Los Angeles ran a program about the penalties for a DUI. That program made clear what happens to drivers who must submit to alcohol testing, and who then fail that test.
That program showed an officer putting handcuffs on a drunk driver. That program reminded those who might want to drink and drive that a DUI can lead to loss of one’s access to four-wheeled transportation. By a strange coincidence, the local L.A. news had also included in the May reports information about a well-publicized alcohol testing.
That was mention of the past testing done on Paris Hilton. She had attempted a flagrant violation of her probation, a probation brought about by her poor performance on an earlier alcohol test. That violation had caused a judge to sentence Ms. Hilton to 45 days in the L.A. jail.
That high profile case demonstrated again the benefits that can come from a wider use of alcohol testing. It demonstrated how well-planned and aptly enforced alcohol tests can put everyone within reach of the long arm of the law.
