Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bbs!ddsw1!zane
From: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: DUI and Privacy Laws - was Re: Lotus Marketplace
Message-ID: <1990Dec01.045544.24803@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 1 Dec 90 04:55:44 GMT
References: <5010@rsiatl.UUCP> <1990Nov20.181212.28545@looking.on.ca> <5020@rsiatl.UUCP> <_447078@xds13.ferranti.com>
Reply-To: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL
Lines: 27


>In article <5020@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
>> Why would you say that.  This is no different than if you get stopped
>> for DUI, blow the box and it comes up tilt.  You set the stage
>> by drinking and driving, an act that is condemned by law. Once set,
>> It's then up to you to prove you were not drunk.

	An interesting notion I have been considering recently regarding
Breathalyzer.  I think that some people have decided that Breathalyzer was
in violation of the 5th amendment.  But the PD wanted it still to be used
so a law was passed saying that if you got a driver's license, you are
giving the state permission to breathalyze you.
	However, I had thought that decision under duress would not be 
very feasible.  In my High School (Yes, I am still in High School, I am a
little tyke of 15) it is required to take Driver's Ed.  So therefore in
order to pass you must get one of those permits which state (as on the
lisence) the breathalyzer agreement.  Yet wouldn't it be called
duress if they would fail you for not signing it? (Making one unable to
drive in the class, failing you)



-- 
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM