TOYOTA CREATING ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM
Toyota Motor Corp. is developing a fail-safe system for cars that detects drunken drivers and automatically shuts the vehicle down if sensors pick up signs of excessive alcohol consumption, a news report said Wednesday.

Cars fitted with the detection system will not start if sweat sensors in the driving wheel detect high levels of alcohol in the driver's bloodstream, according to a report carried by the mass-circulation daily, Asahi Shimbun.

The system could also kick in if the sensors detect abnormal steering, or if a special camera shows that the driver's pupils are not in focus. The car is then slowed to a halt, the report said.

at what point does audi step up and make those I,Robot cars that drive themselves? i mean, really, i've been waiting for Logan's Run to become prophetic for so long now.

quote:

---

"Cars fitted with the detection system will not start if sweat sensors in the driving wheel detect high levels of alcohol in the driver's bloodstream"

---

Hmmm ... I think I might start investing in Isotoner stock ...

Driving gloves for sale

I'm seeing a new crime...

It's a bit hazy, but I think it is called something like, "DWG" or Driving With Gloves. Should fit nicely with the new FTB (Failure to Blow) crime.

Will the officer have to see the gloves to have PC for a stop? What if they're skin-colored? And what of the nefarious use of Ray Bans to counter the pupil-reading technology? Of course, as Newell alluded to, I'm too old for my opinion to matter in this Logan's Run world. I'm sure the sandmen will be coming for me anytime now.

On the plus side, I suppose this could be taken to mean that if a Toyota slows and pulls to the side of the road, it's probable cause per se.

What parent wouldn't want one of these on their 16+ yr old child's vehicle?

Scott has a red crystal.

David painted his crystal red with some nail polish and a few drops of his genetically superior brother's blood that was removed without verbal consent under JB's new laws.

JB's 'baby step' theory was stolen from 'What about Bob?'.

Drew only writes like an overblown hippie lefty pinko communist, he didn't mean it entirely. Though moonbat hyperbole often gets you there, he'd rather take the light rail.

Shannon is a hand model.

Moonbat Hyperbole should be a song title.

Do Wop.

My heart and prayers are with our law enforcement, more especially with the family of Officer Freeto and the Ft. Worth PD.

quote:

---

"Cars fitted with the detection system will not start if sweat sensors in the driving wheel detect high levels of alcohol in the driver's bloodstream"

---

Soooo... The bottle of Purell I carry in my glove box - that would be a hell of a defense?
Along with the package of Big Red chewing gum and the Listerine strips, make sure you have Purell as well in your pre-bar hopping and avoiding dwi kit.

I'm diabetic and I just used Purell? I was holding a beer for my friend and someone bumped into me and it spilled on my hands (and clothes). It goes on and on and on

Hold up just a minute. I think kyeary's comments and question were glossed over without the proper amount of attention. I have been considering the same issues for some time now.

It seems that we all agree that a defendant's ability to basically conceal and destroy the evidence of the alcohol content of his breath is a significant problem in dwi prosecutions. Now, we all also seem to know that an officer can obtain a search warrant an force the taking of a blood specimen. That was certainly a welcome new tool provided by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Beeman. However, we all also know that this tool has practical problems. These range from officers who simply refuse to get warrants to the fact that, particularly in rural counties, it is not easy to find a judge and drive a suspect 60 miles to the nearest hospital before the suspect sobers up.

With all of that being said, kyeary's question deserves an answer. Could we simply draw blood without a warrant. If you look at Beeman, the Court of Criminal Appeals made it clear that a blood draw is a search under the 4th Amendment. However, it is not any different than any other search and receives no greater protection. Furthermore, the Court expressly held that the implied consent laws cited by JB provide no greater protection than the 4th Amendment. Therefore, if a warrantless blood draw meets the 4th Amendment standard of "reasonableness," it seems permissible. Of course a warrantless search is presumed unreasonable unless is falls within an exception to the warrant requirement. However, there are a number of exceptions including the "exigent circumstances" exception that was mentioned by kyeary. Then consider the following from the Court of Criminal Appeals in Aliff v. State, 627 S.W.2d 166, "Similarly the warrantless taking of a blood sample despite the lack of an arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment. First, as with the scraping of a fingernail, the taking of a blood sample is very unintrusive. Indeed the taking of blood is 'routine in our everyday life.' Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 77 S. Ct. 408, 1 L. Ed. 2d 448 (1957). Second, alcohol in blood is quickly consumed and the evidence would be lost forever." The court then concluded that the exigencies of the situation which justified the warrantless search and that the taking of the blood sample was not an unreasonable search and seizure.
Also consider the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. where the Court wrote, "The officer in the present case, however, might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened "the destruction of evidence," Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367. We are told that the percentage of alcohol in the blood begins to diminish shortly after drinking stops, as the body functions to eliminate it from the system. Particularly in a case such as this, where time had to be taken to bring the accused to a hospital and to investigate the scene of the accident, there was no time to seek out a magistrate and secure a warrant. Given these special facts, we conclude that the attempt to secure evidence of blood-alcohol content in this case was an appropriate incident to petitioner's arrest."

The point of this discussion is that although we constantly complain that we need more tools to fight dwi cases and to force the defendant to give breath specimens, we may already have all we need under the 4th Amendment. If we can establish that a warrantless blood draw in a dwi case is reasonable under the "exigent circumstances" exception to the 4th Amendment warrant requirement, we will be in a much better position to effectively fight drunk driving.

l

The 4th Amendment is the minimum protection provided to a defendant to prevent an illegal search or seizure. Texas has chosen to expand that protection, for reasons that escape me, beyond the 4th Amendment for drunk drivers.

So, the CCA has interpreted the Transportation Code to require a voluntary consent (even though implied consent was obtained at the issuance of a driver's license), except for drunk drivers who maim or kill. For drivers who maim or kill, legislators apparently believe that the 4th Amendment's warrantless search under exigent circumstances is sufficient.

For all others, if voluntary consent is not obtained, then officers are deemed to have violated the Transportation Code. That kicks in another state statute, the exclusionary rule of article 38.23, CCP, requiring suppression of the evidence. Ain't it all grand?

Now, the CCA could have (and still could) say that the Transportation Code statement that officers shall take blood or breath in cases of maiming or killing does not prevent a warrantless search for regular DWI cases, but I wouldn't look for that to happen any time soon. It seems that day of reasonable construction has come and gone.

No, what we need to do is get the Legislature to add new exceptions to the Transportation Code. The easiest place to start is to get an exception for felony DWI arrests. Who could be against a mandatory blood draw on the third or following DWI arrest?

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Newell:
at what point does audi step up and make those I,Robot cars that drive themselves? i mean, really, i've been waiting for Logan's Run to become prophetic for so long now.

---

David,someone needs to crown you the King of knowledge of popular culture. I figure you were, what, 5 or 6 years old when Logan's Run was released in 1976? I was in my teens, and remember going to see it at the theater, and you were just a wee laddie then.

I know you are a musical guru when it comes to obscure random band information, and have always been impressed with your knowledge of musical history for acts spawned before your birth or when you were a child.

But the questions are, why and how did you glean such knowledge?