Isn't There A Law Regarding This?

[Alexx1401]

So, wrecking one's vehicle in a high speed roll-over accident after crossing the median and the opposing lane of traffic doesn't constitute probable cause?

Most of the time, assuming no one else was hurt, and the Officers arriving do not smell alcohol and or see empty containers in the vehicle, no.
As has been explained the LEO's can NOT just follow along to the hospital with a blood draw kit and tell the people there they want one. They have to get a warrant. Losing control of your vehicle does not make an automatic warrant. A LOT of people drive like morons and sooner or later they get in trouble. Either they get stopped and get wreck-less driving, which in this state, like most, is the same punishment as DUI, or they lose control of the vehicle at high speed. Then find out they are not nearly as talented a driver as they told themselves they were. Even if they are a good driver if they are going 20 or 30 over posted some other driver can cut them off while distracted and make them lose control. This happens daily and never makes the news. This one since no one else was hurt would not be anything and no one who did not see it would even know. If they went for a blood draw on every good wreck it would cost a HUGE amount of money and who wants to pay for this?
I mentioned a while ago and showed the still shots from video of the two clowns who passed my Wife on a winding hill. One rolled his vehicle a couple times. He luckily did not hit anyone else and he was alone. I have no doubt the LEO's did not seek a blood draw on him if he did not look, act, or smell impaired. He was just an idiot. I am sure that after they saw the video of what he did they did charge him with Wreck-less driving. They have proof. Now for Tiger they said they will look at the black box in his vehicle. If it shows he was driving at far enough over posted to be considered wreck-less in that state?? Who knows. Don't know how the law works on this. As to how easy it is to get the information in front of a Judge.

 

[Cavedweller]

Most of the time, assuming no one else was hurt, and the Officers arriving do not smell alcohol and or see empty containers in the vehicle, no.
As has been explained the LEO's can NOT just follow along to the hospital with a blood draw kit and tell the people there they want one. They have to get a warrant. Losing control of your vehicle does not make an automatic warrant. A LOT of people drive like morons and sooner or later they get in trouble. Either they get stopped and get wreck-less driving, which in this state, like most, is the same punishment as DUI, or they lose control of the vehicle at high speed. Then find out they are not nearly as talented a driver as they told themselves they were. Even if they are a good driver if they are going 20 or 30 over posted some other driver can cut them off while distracted and make them lose control. This happens daily and never makes the news. This one since no one else was hurt would not be anything and no one who did not see it would even know. If they went for a blood draw on every good wreck it would cost a HUGE amount of money and who wants to pay for this?
I mentioned a while ago and showed the still shots from video of the two clowns who passed my Wife on a winding hill. One rolled his vehicle a couple times. He luckily did not hit anyone else and he was alone. I have no doubt the LEO's did not seek a blood draw on him if he did not look, act, or smell impaired. He was just an idiot. I am sure that after they saw the video of what he did they did charge him with Wreck-less driving. They have proof. Now for Tiger they said they will look at the black box in his vehicle. If it shows he was driving at far enough over posted to be considered wreck-less in that state?? Who knows. Don't know how the law works on this. As to how easy it is to get the information in front of a Judge.

Did you mean reckless, as in acting or done with a lack of care or caution; careless or irresponsible. reck′less·ly adv. reck′less·ness n. or wreck-less, meaning there was no wreck?

 

[Flopsweat]

Did you mean reckless, as in acting or done with a lack of care or caution; careless or irresponsible. reck′less·ly adv. reck′less·ness n. or wreck-less, meaning there was no wreck?

Maybe he means that Tiger drives the way I post bubblegum on the Internet.

 

[Alexx1401]

Did you mean reckless, as in acting or done with a lack of care or caution; careless or irresponsible. reck′less·ly adv. reck′less·ness n. or wreck-less, meaning there was no wreck?

Every state has a threshold for when speeding becomes something worse. IIRC WA it's 20 or 30 over posted for one. Too lazy to look it up, sure it's on the web somewhere. If they clock you here going far enough over it's no longer just a speeding ticket. There are other things that are covered under this too. One daughter when young got it for racing. Fast, powerful car. She is at light, girl next to her challenges her, they take off from the light right past a Cop
She lost license for a while then had to get an SR22 for 3 years. It's the same thing if caught driving drunk in this state. Now since some seem to be over the top exercised about Tiger, just sure he got treated differently, I can't say for sure what the laws are on this in the state he was in. Every state has different ways of handling this.
So if they can prove he was going far enough over posted? Who knows how it works in his state. Contrary to what many seem to want to be true though it does not mean the Police get to go to the hospital and just tell them they want a blood draw. One constant in this across state's is did anyone else get hurt. If there are passengers in the vehicle or the vehicle hits other and does real harm? Then it's a lot different in how much trouble they are in.

 

[Cavedweller]

Every state has a threshold for when speeding becomes something worse. IIRC WA it's 20 or 30 over posted for one. Too lazy to look it up, sure it's on the web somewhere. If they clock you here going far enough over it's no longer just a speeding ticket. There are other things that are covered under this too. One daughter when young got it for racing. Fast, powerful car. She is at light, girl next to her challenges her, they take off from the light right past a Cop
She lost license for a while then had to get an SR22 for 3 years. It's the same thing if caught driving drunk in this state. Now since some seem to be over the top exercised about Tiger, just sure he got treated differently, I can't say for sure what the laws are on this in the state he was in. Every state has different ways of handling this.
So if they can prove he was going far enough over posted? Who knows how it works in his state. Contrary to what many seem to want to be true though it does not mean the Police get to go to the hospital and just tell them they want a blood draw. One constant in this across state's is did anyone else get hurt. If there are passengers in the vehicle or the vehicle hits other and does real harm? Then it's a lot different in how much trouble they are in.

I wasn't concerned with the legal aspects of your post. I was more interested in your repeated use of the term "wreck-less". It seems to me wreck-less driving is something most people would aspire to. Reckless driving, on the other hand, could get you a ticket. Don't let it bother you, I'm just being an azz. It's the grammar Nazi in me.

 

[Flopsweat]

I wasn't concerned with the legal aspects of your post. I was more interested in your repeated use of the term "wreck-less". It seems to me wreck-less driving is something most people would aspire to. Reckless driving, on the other hand, could get you a ticket. Don't let it bother you, I'm just being an azz. It's the grammar Nazi in me.

Sehr gut.

 

[Flopsweat]

UPDATE:

Tiger Woods’ crash was caused by excessive speed, LA sheriff says

Tiger Woods was going as fast as 87 mph in the California crash that nearly killed him — and smashed into a tree that sent him airborne at 75 mph, officials said Wednesday as they revealed more det…

nypost.com

 

[Alexx1401]

UPDATE:

Tiger Woods’ crash was caused by excessive speed, LA sheriff says

Tiger Woods was going as fast as 87 mph in the California crash that nearly killed him — and smashed into a tree that sent him airborne at 75 mph, officials said Wednesday as they revealed more det…

nypost.com

Just a little fast there huh?

 

[Flopsweat]

Just a little fast there huh?

Well, you know, 40 over in a 45 zone. Sounds like he was trying to drift a curve.