The more I study, defend and prosecute DWI cases, or most criminal cases for that matter, the more I realize that the accused unwittingly helps the police build a case against them. A case in point is a defendant that willing submits a urine specimen for testing.
In New Jersey, a driver suspected of being under the influence or drunk usually is asked to provide a sample of urine after the Alco-test or breathalyzer registers a low or zero blood alcohol level. The arresting officer is usually thinking that drugs, whether legal or illegal, are contributing to behavior that is suggestive of impairment.
Nine out of ten times, the accused usually says, "sure, you can test my urine". And so, that person is just giving the police another tool or-- more appropriately --a rope to hang them in court.
Unlike the Alco-test or breathalyzer, where a driver has given his or her consent ("implied consent"), an accused can just refuse. So, I am a bit baffled when I read a lab report for a particular defendant and it lists every illegal substance known to man. Of course, it is ignorance, maybe the drugs themselves or maybe even the police suggesting that it must be submitted.
Who knows, but one thing is certain: the law does not require anyone to submit urine, unlike breath samples.
Comments