[kube-system]

The problem is that low-quality evidence causes both type 1 and type 2 errors.

Not only does it cause significant problems for people who are unjustly jailed and charged for crimes they didn't commit -- but it also lets drunk drivers off the hook when the flimsy evidence fails to convict. These aren't hypotheticals, both are very common.

Police in the US simply need to be equipped with roadside chemical tests for substances. They exist, they just simply don't use them.

Here's is an example of what other countries do:

https://adf.org.au/insights/roadside-drug-testing/

> The officer takes a sample of your saliva by placing an absorbent collector in the mouth or on the tongue. The sample is then analysed at the roadside. If the test is positive, it must be confirmed by laboratory testing before charges can be laid.

Doesn't that sound like a better solution than: "The officer makes you stand on one leg and say the alphabet backwards, if they don't like they way you did it, you are charged with DUI"?

> I'm sure you can construct a hypothetical case where a person with a speech impairment, an inner ear deformaty and who's eyes shake when moving left and right gets arrested for DUI because they appear impaired but they weren't pulled over for those reasons.

The more common, and even more scary issue, is that sometimes people undergoing medical emergencies are arrested for DUI and sent to jail instead of a hospital. Which is again another situation that would be avoided entirely by roadside testing. This is such a common issue for diabetics that police normally do train to recognize the difference, but since they are not medical professionals and don't have adequate equipment, they still often confuse the two.

Watch this dashcam video: https://www.wsmv.com/2025/10/02/retired-deputy-arrested-dui-...

[parineum]

> Police in the US simply need to be equipped with roadside chemical tests for substances. They exist, they just simply don't use them.

I feel like you're not getting my point.

> Doesn't that sound like a better solution than: "The officer makes you stand on one leg and say the alphabet backwards, if they don't like they way you did it, you are charged with DUI"?

No, it doesn't. DUI isn't a law that lists a bunch of chemicals that are illegal to drive while using. The purpose of the tests is to prove you shouldn't be driving, not what drugs you're on.

You could be over-tired and get a DUI and I think that's justified.

[kube-system]

Are you sure about that? Maybe your locale is different, but the DUI/OVI statute in the part of the US where I live is for influence of "alcohol or drugs" specifically. And it absolutely does have a list of what qualifies... and that list basically includes all drugs and alcohol.

Part of the criminal element of DUI is someone's choice to alter their body intentionally. I don't think many would think it would justly apply to natural processes like sleepiness or medical emergencies. That's not to say there shouldn't be penalties for failure to operate a vehicle safely, but those situations are clearly very different than DUI.

[parineum]

What I said there was confusing. I was saying that _I_ was fine with an over-tired person being charged with a DUI as I feel it's just as dangerous and just as elective. It is not the law here. That was unclear, sorry.

The relevant section of the law here is:

(f) It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any drug to drive a vehicle.

> And it absolutely does have a list of what qualifies... and that list basically includes all drugs and alcohol.

Does it state that the list is the exhaustive list? I have a hard time believing that someone could be pulled over, obviously inebriated but get off because they were actually on some new synthetic marijuana that wasn't on that list.

[kube-system]

I disagree with that, because the penalties for DUI aren't merely because it is dangerous, but primarily because of the negligent intent related to the act.

And most laws in the US work this way (e.g. they are not strict liability). We often treat people differently based on why a thing happened because doing a bad thing for a bad reason is worse than doing the same thing for any other reason. For example, the penalty for killing a person might range from "absolutely nothing" to "life in prison or death" depending on why it happened.

> Does it state that the list is the exhaustive list? I have a hard time believing that someone could be pulled over, obviously inebriated but get off because they were actually on some new synthetic marijuana that wasn't on that list.

They thought of this -- the list itself includes any "chemical" that is "mind altering", as well as specific drugs.

What it doesn't include is any reason that isn't drugs or alcohol related.