الوسائل الحديثة في إثبات جريمة قيادة المركبة تحت تأثير الكحول وفقاً للنظام القانوني في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية جهاز التنفس نموذجا / Recent Means of Proving the Crime of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol According to the Legal System in the United States of America Breathalyzer Example

نوع المستند : المقالة الأصلية

المؤلف

أكاديمية سعد العبدالله للعلوم الأمنية دولة الكويت

المستخلص

لاشك أن من أبرز الأسباب المؤدية لحوادث المركبات هو تناول الكحوليات أثناء القيادة من قبل سائقي المركبات في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية، ومن خلال الوسائل التي تم استخدامها في السابق اتضح أنه لابد من استحداث وسائل جديدة وذلك لإثبات هذه الجريمة من خلال رجال الشرطة والجزاء المترتب على اقتراف هذه الجريمة، وهو ما يوضح أهمية دراستنا الحالية من خلال استخدام جهاز التنفس.
وتتمثل مشكلة الدراسة في مدى فعالية استخدام جهاز التنفس من قبل أجهزة الشرطة للتعرف على حالة قائدي المركبات وتعاطيهم الكحول أثناء قيادة المركبة خاصة أن التحليلات التي تستخدم وسائل أخرى للتعرف على تناول الكحوليات لسائقي المركبات قد لا تؤدي لنتائج دقيقة في توضيح تناول الكحول نتيجة وجود العديد من العقاقير الدوائية التي قد تؤدي إلى فشل هذه الاختبارات أو عدم قدرتها على الوصول لإثبات جنائي فعّال في هذا الجانب.
وقد هدفت الدراسة إلى التعرف على جريمة قيادة المركبة تحت تأثير الكحول في التشريع الأمريكي وتوضيح دور التشريعات الأمريكية في تناولها جريمة تعاطي الكحول أثناء قيادة المركبة مع تحديد دور جهاز التنفس لإثبات تعاطي الكحول أثناء قيادة المركبة.
 
يمكن تحديد أبرز نتائج الدراسة على النحو التالي:
أولا: جهاز التنفس أو استشعار نسبة الكحول في الدم يُعد أحد الوسائل الحديثة التي يتم تطبيقها في التشريع الأمريكي لمعرفة مدى تناول الكحول أثناء قيادة المركبة في الولايات المختلفة.
ثانيا: تشمل عقوبات تهمة القيادة تحت تأثير الكحول في التشريع الأمريكي عقوبات جزائية نتيجة الجرائم التي يتم ارتكابها عقب تناول الكحول أثناء قيادة المركبة.
ثالثا: : إن تطبيق الوسائل الحديثة في التعرف على حالة السُكر أثناء قيادة المركبة تُعد أكثر فعالية من غيرها من الوسائل التقليدية نتيجة دقة جهاز التنفس في كشف نسبة الكحول في الدم.
 
There is no doubt that one of the most prominent causes leading to vehicle accidents is the consumption of alcohol while driving by vehicle drivers in the United States of America, and through the methods that were used in the past, it became clear that new methods must be developed in order to prove this crime through police officers and the penalty resulting from committing this crime. Crime, which explains the importance of our current study through the use of a breathalyzer.
The problem of the study is the effectiveness of the use of the breathalyzer by police agencies to identify the condition of vehicle drivers and their consumption of alcohol while driving the vehicle, especially since analyzes that use other means to identify the alcohol consumption of vehicle drivers may not lead to accurate results in clarifying alcohol consumption due to the presence of many drugs. Drugs that may lead to the failure of these tests or their inability to provide effective criminal proof in this regard.
The study aimed to identify the crime of vehicle driving under the influence of alcohol in American legislation and clarify the role of American legislation in dealing with the crime of consuming alcohol while driving a vehicle, while determining the role of the breathalyzer to prove alcohol consumption while vehicle driving
The most prominent results of the study can be identified as follows:
First: The breathalyzer device or blood alcohol sensor is one of the modern methods that is applied in American legislation to determine the extent of alcohol consumption while driving a vehicle in different states.
Second: The penalties for driving under the influence of alcohol in American legislation include criminal penalties as a result of crimes committed after consuming alcohol while driving a vehicle.
Third: The application of modern methods to identify the state of intoxication while driving a vehicle is considered more effective than other traditional methods due to the accuracy of the breathalyzer in detecting the percentage of alcohol in the blood.

الكلمات الرئيسية

الموضوعات الرئيسية

المراجع

  1. Lang A. Alcohol: teenage drinking. In: Synder S, series ed. Encyclopedia of psychoactive drugs, 2nd ed. Volume 3:. New York, NY, Chelsea House, 1992.
  2. Drinking and Driving: a road safety manual for decision-makers and practitioners. Geneva, Global Road Safety Partnership, 2007.
  3. Bonte W. [Associated substances in alcoholic drinks. Work techniques in medical and natural scientific criminalistics] (1987).
  4. Wehner H-D. [Fitness to drive] (2007). In: Madea B. (edit.) [Practice of forensic medicine], 2nd edition.Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.
  5. World Health Organization. Global status report on road safety 2015
  6. Wehner H-D. [Fitness to drive] (2007). In: Madea B. (edit.) [Practice of forensic medicine], 2nd edition.Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.
  7. MASON (Stephen) / Seng (Daniel): Electronic Evidence, fourth edition published by the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies for the SAS Humanities Digital Library, School of Advanced Study, University of London, 2017
  8. Lang A. Alcohol: teenage drinking. In: Synder S, series ed. Encyclopedia of psychoactive drugs, 2nd ed. Volume 3:. New York, NY, Chelsea House, 1992.
  9. Bonte W. [Associated substances in alcoholic drinks. Work techniques in medical and natural scientific criminalistics] (1987)
  10. Supreme Court of the United states, Carpenter v. United States, certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the sixth circuit, no. 16 – 402. argued November 29, 2017 — decided June 22, 2018
  11. History of DUI Laws, LIQUORLAWS.NET, http://liquorlaws.net/duilaws.html , Accessed in 15 August 2023
  12. Drinking and Driving: A Threat to Everyone, CDC VITAL SIGNS,

http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/drinkinganddriving/?scid=vitalsigns-092-bb Accessed in 15 August 2023

  1. Florida Statute 782.071, 2021,

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.071.html Accessed in 16 August 2023

  1. California Criminal Jury Instructions ,1981. (CALCRIM) 520. First or Second Degree Murder With Malice Aforethought (Pen. Code, § 187
  2. Health and Safety Code 11836.10 HS — Requirement that DUI school be with a licensed provider
  3. Mulvany, L., 2008. Family Remembers Struggle Getting Law Passed, Marshfield Mariner (Oct. 28, 2008). N.Y. PENAL LAW § 125.10 . McKinney 2015.
  4. "DUI Under 21 Laws by State". FindLaw. Thomson Reuters
  5. Larson, Aaron (26 May 2016). "Drunk Driving Terminology". ExpertLaw.com.
  6. McGovern, Thomas F.; White, William L. (2003). Alcohol Problems in the United States: Twenty Years of Treatment Perspective. Routledge.
  7. "American Indians are Violent Crime Victims at Double the Rate of General Population". United States Bureau of Justice Statistics. February 19, 1999.
  8. Fortin, Jacey (7 April 2017). "Does Uber Really Prevent Drunken Driving? It Depends on the Study".
  9. "Transitioning to Multiple Imputation – A New Method to Impute Missing Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) values in FARS". NHTSA. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. January 2002.
  10. An Act Defining Motor Vehicles and Providing for the Registration of Same, 1906 N.J. Laws ch. 113, §§ 19, 35, p. 177, 186
  11. Hansen, Benjamin (April 2015). "Punishment and Deterrence: Evidence from Drunk Driving". American Economic Review. 104 (4)
  12. Rotuno-Johnson, Michelle (5 April 2017). "New Ohio law designed to stop repeat drunk drivers goes into effect". NBC4i.com. WCMH-TV Columbus.
  13. Baker SP, Li G, Fowler C, Dannenberg AL. Injuries to Bicyclists: A National Perspective. Baltimore, Md: The Johns Hopkins Injury Prevention Center; 1993.
  14. "Oregon Department of Transportation : SR-22 Information : Oregon Driver & Motor Vehicle Services : State of Oregon". Oregon.gov. on April 8, 2008.
  15. "MADD Report: 2.3 Million Drunk Drivers Stopped by Interlocks". Guardianinterlock.com. Guardian Interlock (20-Mar-2017).
  16. gobel@dot.gov (2019-07-19). "DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) Resources". NHTSA.
  17. "DUI: The $10,000 Toast". Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities. State of Georgia. 29 December 2009
  18. Chad Haldeman-Englert & Wanda Taylor, Ethanol (Blood), ROCHESTER MED.
  19. : HEALTH ENCYCLOPEDIA,

https://www.urmc.rochester.edulencyclopedia/con

  1. aspx?contenttypeid=167&contentid=ethanol-blood [https://perma.unl.edu/P
  2. 2GU-BGVV] (last visited Oct. 1, 2018).
  3. Drunk Driving, NAT'L HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., https://www.nhtsa.gov/
  4. risky-driving/drunk-driving [https://perma.unl.edu/7EP7-T5B6].
  5. Jennifer Le, Drug Metabolism, MERCK MANUAL, http://www.merckmanuals.com/
  6. professional/clinical-pharmacology/pharmacokinetics/drug-metabolism [https://
  7. unl.edu/9V3A-W7B5] (last updated Nov. 2017
  8. Toxicology Tests & Reports, COM (Sept. 3, 2014),

https://www.drugs.com/article/toxicology-tests.html [https://perma.unl.edu/6YAR-952S]. accessed in 28 September 2023

  1. Adey Hill, How Does a Breathalyzer Work?, FORBES (Oct. 13, 2016),

https://www forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/10/13/how-does-a-breathalyzer-test-work/#2fed77bf1558 [https://perma.unl.edu/EQ46-5ZMN]. Accessed in 25 September 2023

  1. Drinking and Driving: a road safety manual for decision-makers and practitioners. Geneva, Global Road Safety Partnership, 2007.
  2. Compare Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 770, with Birchfield, 136 S. Ct. at 2174. 62. Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 757
  3. Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016); Missouri v. McNeely, 596
  4. S. 141 (2013); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966
  5. Geoffrey C. HAZARD: Criminal justice system , Encycl. of Crime and Justice.Vol.2 ,1983 , p.457.
  6. The need to protect officer safety and to prevent the destruction or concealment of evidence ” .CHIMEL V. CALIFORNIA: United States Supreme Court, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 23 L. Ed. 2d 685 (1969), p.2.
  7. Supreme Court of the United States, Riley v. California certiorari to the court of appeal of California, fourth appellate district, division one, No. 13 – 132. Argued April 29, 2014 — Decided June 25, 2014, p.3.
  8. California Court of Appeal. No. D059840 (Cal. App., Feb. 8, 2013), App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 13–132, pp. 1a–23a. .
  9. Court’s decision in People v. Diaz, 51 Cal. 4th 84, 244 P. 3d 501 (2011) .
  10. California Supreme Court denied Riley’s petition for review, App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 13–132, at 24a ; David J. Robinson: The U.S. Supreme Court Says ‘No’ to Cell-Phone Searches Incident to Arrest, Illinois Bar Journal, The Magazine of Illinois Lawyers, September 2014 , Volume 102 , Number 9, Page 438 .
  11. California Criminal Jury Instructions ,1981. (CALCRIM) 520. First or Second Degree Murder With Malice Aforethought (Pen. Code, § 187)
  12. https://arabic.rt.com/news/ accessed in 1 October 2023
  13. According to EudoNews Report > Please refer to:
  14. https://arabic.euronews.com/next/2023/01/11/us-study-one-year-of-road-crashes-cost-society-340-billion accessed in 14 September 2023
  15. https://ewikiar.top/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States accessed in 19 September 2023
  16. World Health Organization. Global status report on road safety 2015.
  17. World Health Organization. Global status report on road safety 2013: supporting a decade of action. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.

ملفات

شارك

إرسال الاستشهاد إلى

الإحصائيات