• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Drive a Car — Waive Your Constitutional Rights

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The Merg said:
In the case of driving, you are agreeing to certain conditions so that you can have the privilege to be licensed. One of those conditions is to submit to testing if arrested for DUI.
Click to expand...

The "conditions" can be changed at any time after receiving a license. Getting a license doesn't mean one agrees to whatever retard law they come up with tomorrow. Also, licenses are granted by a state. Agreeing to certain conditions so that you can have the privilege to be licensed in that state doesn't mean you agree to the conditions of the other 49.

Face it, too many cops believe they have the training to determine illegality by playing with your butthole. The idea that unconstitutional conditions can be acceptable in exchange for the "privilege" of the routine practice/necessity of driving is absurd.
 
EOM said:
The cops simply have a job to do, if you're going to make it hard on them by resisting, they'll make it hard on you. Just submit and comply and go on your way. Only the guilty would be against this.
Click to expand...

Lol. This is hilarious. Go research police civil asset forfeiture and see if you still feel this way.
 
Humpy said:
The "conditions" can be changed at any time after receiving a license. Getting a license doesn't mean one agrees to whatever retard law they come up with tomorrow. Also, licenses are granted by a state. Agreeing to certain conditions so that you can have the privilege to be licensed in that state doesn't mean you agree to the conditions of the other 49.

Face it, too many cops believe they have the training to determine illegality by playing with your butthole. The idea that unconstitutional conditions can be acceptable in exchange for the "privilege" of the routine practice/necessity of driving is absurd.
Click to expand...

Reference conditions... Actually it does. By requesting a license and being granted one, you agree to follow all the motor vehicle laws that are currently in place as well as any new ones that are introduced.

As for not agreeing to the conditions of the other 49, you certainly are agreeing with them if you want to drive there. Since each state issues its own license, it gives you the ability to only drive in your state. However, the states have agreed to reciprocate so that if you are licensed in one state, you are allowed to drive in another state as long you agree to abide by their laws.

For example, VA has strict laws when it comes to window tint. You cannot have less than 50% for the front windows and 35% for the rear windows. I believe Florida has no restriction. If you are from Florida and are driving through VA with window tint that is at 5%, you could receive a ticket for that.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say with the latter comment.

- Merg
 
EOM said:
The cops simply have a job to do, if you're going to make it hard on them by resisting, they'll make it hard on you. Just submit and comply and go on your way. Only the guilty would be against this.
Click to expand...


I just remembered. Isn't this the same justification for things liek the Patriot Act? 😵
 
thesmokingman said:
What's next after that? Anal probes? This future is coming too fast. 😵
Click to expand...

The future is here...

The anal probe happens out of direct view of the camera, but the audio leaves little doubt about what’s happening. Pontoon at one point says that one of the officers is grabbing his hemorrhoids. Medlin appears to reply, “I’ve had hemorrhoids, and they ain’t that hard.” At about 12:47:15 in the video, the audio actually suggests that two officers may have inserted fingers into Pontoon’s rectum, as one asks, “What are you talking about, right here?” The other replies, “Right straight up in there.”
Click to expand...
Roadside anal probes... maybe the cops are really aliens. D:
 
Can cops search shipping containers without a warrant?

I'm wondering how self driving cars will play in the courts. Seems like the interior of a self-driving car could be considered the same as the inside of a shipping container.
 
Darwin333 said:
Louisiana recently passed such a law. If you refuse a breathalyzer test they will literally hold you down on the side of the road and forcibly draw your blood using as much force as necessary to gain your compliance.... on the side of the road.

If you don't think that is wrong then I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...

Wow.......

I thought I lived in the land of the free...
 
Personally I think that you should be able to refuse a blood test/ breathalyser but if you do your licence should be suspended.

If this is after an RTA then it gets slightly more complicated.
 
I have no problem with them revoking your license if you refuse the breathalyzer but forcing a blood draw on the spot with no warrant is just too far.
 
Last edited:
Sunburn74 said:
Lol. This is hilarious. Go research police civil asset forfeiture and see if you still feel this way.
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with the practice. You want me to feel sorry for these clowns that break the law and then get caught? They're illegally earning hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling drugs to kids and black market military style assault rifles to gangs?!? lol go be a SJW somewhere else!

Don't want to do the time? Don't do the crime! Besides, without forfeiture you anarchist types always whine that taxes would go up to pay for the cost of the police force.
 
WhipperSnapper said:
It's not a Fifth Amendment issue. It's a Fourth Amendment search and seizure issue.
Click to expand...
Yes, this case is a fourth amendment case. I'm just much more curious about the impacts on the other amendments.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment
"In the landmark Miranda v. Arizona ruling, the United States Supreme Court extended the Fifth Amendment protections to encompass any situation outside of the courtroom that involves the curtailment of personal freedom. 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Therefore, any time that law enforcement takes a suspect into custody, law enforcement must make the suspect aware of all rights. Known as Miranda rights, these rights include the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and the right to have a government-appointed attorney if the suspect cannot afford one."

As it is now, you have the right to an attorney while being questioned, unless you were driving. Then you supposedly have no right to an attorney until after they have questioned your body. I am making the argument that sobriety testing is a form of questioning. You are in custody, they are asking you to do a lot of things that you wouldn't otherwise be doing. They are asking you to do them in order to get answers. If it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. That is questioning.

When it comes to the sixth amendment, these cases are often handled with the idea that you have previously signed away your rights and you lose things like your license without even a trial. Of course, that ignores your right to a trial as the 6th amendment says you have.
 
Last edited:
dawp said:
I have no problem with them revoking your license if you refuse the breathalyzer but forcing a blood draw on the spot with no warrant is just too far.
Click to expand...

How long before some stupid cop transmits hepatitis, maybe even HIV, to a driver after doing one of these forced blood draws?

Won't that be something?
 
EOM said:
I'm familiar with the practice. You want me to feel sorry for these clowns that break the law and then get caught? They're illegally earning hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling drugs to kids and black market military style assault rifles to gangs?!? lol go be a SJW somewhere else!

Don't want to do the time? Don't do the crime! Besides, without forfeiture you anarchist types always whine that taxes would go up to pay for the cost of the police force.
Click to expand...

Clearly, you aren't familiar with Asset Seizure and how it is actually applied in these states.

You do realize that plenty of people have their cars, watches, anything of value taken away form them on the spot, without being involved in any crime, simply for driving on the wrong road at the wrong time?

You realize that is what is happening, right? If such realities don't anger you, then get the fuck over to North Korea where your kind of shit belongs.


oh god...I missed your "SJW!" charge. I see we are dealing with a fucking idiot, here.
 
The Merg said:
Reference conditions... Actually it does. By requesting a license and being granted one, you agree to follow all the motor vehicle laws that are currently in place as well as any new ones that are introduced.
Click to expand...

Motor vehicle laws? I thought this was about cops conducting illegal searches and finger blasting suspects?
 
EOM said:
I'm familiar with the practice. You want me to feel sorry for these clowns that break the law and then get caught? They're illegally earning hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling drugs to kids and black market military style assault rifles to gangs?!? lol go be a SJW somewhere else!

Don't want to do the time? Don't do the crime! Besides, without forfeiture you anarchist types always whine that taxes would go up to pay for the cost of the police force.
Click to expand...

:colbert:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
 
Kwatt said:
This is why a someone under 18 can get a DL. At 18 you don't have to have one. And people would not get them. When you turn 18 and get or keep your DL you enter a contract with the state.

Kinda like the "Terms of Service" updates where it states if you continue using the service after this date you are agreeing to the new terms.

A 16 year old can not enter a contract without parental or legal guardian approval. And most 16 year olds wants to drive. Keep it after your 18th and you are bound to the state by contract.

Also, why the DL age will never be raised to 18 or more. Get the hooks in early and they are in for life.

Driving before age 18 is a privilege driving after 18 is a right. Unless of course you enter a contract to keep a DL.
Click to expand...

You're confusing the way the states are treating and presenting things with the ideal way that they should be. No one suggested that it shouldn't be regulated because of the potential danger to other people, just that the mindset needs to change from its being regarded as a special privilege to its being a regular freedom. (I hate to use the word right because no one has an obligation to provide anyone else with a vehicle.)
 
I think we need to put this into perspective. This isn't about the right to completely refuse a drug test. It is about the cops getting a warrant before administering a drug test. Most states get a quick warrant.
 
EOM said:
The cops simply have a job to do, if you're going to make it hard on them by resisting, they'll make it hard on you. Just submit and comply and go on your way. Only the guilty would be against this.
Click to expand...

So if the cops show up to toss your house without a warrant you are supposed to just submit and comply?
 
WhipperSnapper said:
You're confusing the way the states are treating and presenting things with the ideal way that they should be. No one suggested that it shouldn't be regulated because of the potential danger to other people, just that the mindset needs to change from its being regarded as a special privilege to its being a regular freedom. (I hate to use the word right because no one has an obligation to provide anyone else with a vehicle.)
Click to expand...

I am not confusing anything. You have the right per SCOTUS to travel on public roads in your vehicle for non-commercial use.

Just because you have the right to. Does not mean a vehicle is provided. No more than "the right to keep and bear arms" means the gov. has to provide you with a firearm.

And it certainly does not mean there are no restrictions. The state has the authority to set speed limits and other regulations. And the right does not allow you to endanger others. And if you can't drive in a safe manner without endangering others you can lose that right. Just like a person convicted of armed robbery or assault loses the right "to keep and bear arms".

I do think that some people are confused that a right per the Constitution means that a person can exercise that right without regard to how it affects others and that is not true.

SCOTUS has ruled many times that you do not have to have a DL.

SCOTUS has not ruled that you can do whatever the hell you want on public roads.


.
 
Last edited:
EOM said:
I'm familiar with the practice. You want me to feel sorry for these clowns that break the law and then get caught? They're illegally earning hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling drugs to kids and black market military style assault rifles to gangs?!? lol go be a SJW somewhere else!

Don't want to do the time? Don't do the crime! Besides, without forfeiture you anarchist types always whine that taxes would go up to pay for the cost of the police force.
Click to expand...

1st class troll job. Son, I am impress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top