Drive a Car — Waive Your Constitutional Rights

[The Merg]

Motor vehicle laws? I thought this was about cops conducting illegal searches and finger blasting suspects?

Wrong thread there Humpy...

- Merg

 

[dawp]

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.

plus it isn't the cops doing the test, it's usually a medical professional doing it.

 

[The Merg]

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.

I'd still like to see this law where the cops supposedly hold you down on the side of the road and forcibly draw blood from you.

You are absolutely allowed to refuse a breath or blood test, but by doing so, you will lose your license. If you refuse and the police still want the blood test done (maybe they suspect you of driving under the influence of drugs), it is only going to be after a search warrant.

Oh, and even in the case where blood is drawn, the police are not the ones that draw the blood. It is done by someone qualified to do so.

- Merg

 

[Humpy]

Wrong thread there Humpy...

- Merg

Son of a bitch!

Regardless, I'm still totally right about whatever it is that I posted about. 🙂

 

[Subyman]

I'd still like to see this law where the cops supposedly hold you down on the side of the road and forcibly draw blood from you.

You are absolutely allowed to refuse a breath or blood test, but by doing so, you will lose your license. If you refuse and the police still want the blood test done (maybe they suspect you of driving under the influence of drugs), it is only going to be after a search warrant.

Oh, and even in the case where blood is drawn, the police are not the ones that draw the blood. It is done by someone qualified to do so.

- Merg

This case is not about losing your license. This is about getting criminal penalties for refusing and is only applicable in 13 states.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

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.

Your stupidity knows no bounds.... I seriously hope your genetics don't get passed on.

Illegal search and seizure, that is what this is. If you disagree with this in anyway, you're an idiot. They can phone someone up and have a warrant in probably < 5 minutes if needed, but they damn sure better have a warrant if they are going to demand to draw something from you.

 

[EOM]

Your stupidity knows no bounds.... I seriously hope your genetics don't get passed on.

Illegal search and seizure, that is what this is. If you disagree with this in anyway, you're an idiot. They can phone someone up and have a warrant in probably < 5 minutes if needed, but they damn sure better have a warrant if they are going to demand to draw something from you.

Too late! Offspring abound!

How is it illegal if the law says they can do it? Kind of an oxymoron don't you think? Your mindset reminds me of those anarchists that are "live and let live".... until someone runs over a kid! Because that's what you are encouraging to happen! The fact is people make bad decisions, it's the governments job to make sure those bad decisions don't adversely affect everyone else!

How selfish can you be? How can you be against that? "If you disagree with this in anyway(sic), you're an idiot."

 

[realibrad]

Too late! Offspring abound!

How is it illegal if the law says they can do it? Kind of an oxymoron don't you think? Your mindset reminds me of those anarchists that are "live and let live".... until someone runs over a kid! Because that's what you are encouraging to happen! The fact is people make bad decisions, it's the governments job to make sure those bad decisions don't adversely affect everyone else!

How selfish can you be? How can you be against that? "If you disagree with this in anyway(sic), you're an idiot."

I would imagine that it would be unconstitutional? I believe that is what you call an illegal law no?

 

[Genx87]

I would imagine that it would be unconstitutional? I believe that is what you call an illegal law no?

He didnt think that one through. Govt make illegal laws all the time.

 

[waggy]

Too late! Offspring abound!

How is it illegal if the law says they can do it? Kind of an oxymoron don't you think? Your mindset reminds me of those anarchists that are "live and let live".... until someone runs over a kid! Because that's what you are encouraging to happen! The fact is people make bad decisions, it's the governments job to make sure those bad decisions don't adversely affect everyone else!

How selfish can you be? How can you be against that? "If you disagree with this in anyway(sic), you're an idiot."

lol

/facepalm

 

[Subyman]

I would imagine that it would be unconstitutional? I believe that is what you call an illegal law no?

Lol :thumbsup:

 

[The Merg]

This case is not about losing your license. This is about getting criminal penalties for refusing and is only applicable in 13 states.

Just as an FYI, here is a link to an article about the U.S. Supreme Court hearing on the case...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ng_case_looks_good_for_the_drunk_drivers.html

This is how I understand this case...

If you are arrested for DUI, you are generally required to submit to breath and/or blood tests for analysis. If you refuse, you are subject to civil and/or criminal penalties. In most jurisdictions, if you refuse to comply to the breath and/or blood test and if the police want to have a blood test performed, they will obtain a warrant and have your blood drawn.

In these the cases in front of SCOTUS, the state is trying to perform blood draws after a subject refuses without having a warrant. The argument is that in rural areas, it would be too much of a hardship to get a warrant considering the the time considerations. I agree with SCOTUS on this that it seems to be a bogus argument.

I don't think SCOTUS has any issue with criminal penalties for refusing breath/blood tests after a refusal, but rather that tests are performed without a warrant after a refusal. I also don't think this is about arresting someone just for refusal. For all purposes that wouldn't happen. If you are refusing, it is AFTER you have been arrested for DUI.

I also don't think there is any law out there where it allows the police to hold people on the side of the road and do blood draws absent a warrant.

- Merg

 

[cubby1223]

this will be interesting to see how it plays out. I do agree with the Law Firm that just because i drive does not give the state the right to search me without a warrant.

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/robert-j-olson/drive-car-waive-your-constitutional-rights

Oh silly you, haven't figured out how this new world works yet. If you don't agree with something that is happening, you don't fight it based on government philosophy. You find some angle proving this affects minority groups one percent more than whites, and the liberals in power will deem the practice racist and cut off funding to states.

Minority oppression is the quickest path to achieving what we want 😛

 

[Dude111]

Those poor poor cops...

The cops are VERY SCARY in this country now!!

 

[EOM]

The cops are VERY SCARY in this country now!!

What rock do you sleep under at night? The number of incidents of violence against cops is skyrocketing. You're completely ignorant if you haven't heard of the war on cops. It's one of the most dangerous jobs you can have.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

What rock do you sleep under at night? The number of incidents of violence against cops is skyrocketing. You're completely ignorant if you haven't heard of the war on cops. It's one of the most dangerous jobs you can have.

Murders of cops have plummeted. It's not even top 10 for most dangerous jobs. There is no war on cops that exists outside the fearful minds of cops.

 

[waggy]

What rock do you sleep under at night? The number of incidents of violence against cops is skyrocketing. You're completely ignorant if you haven't heard of the war on cops. It's one of the most dangerous jobs you can have.

skyrocketing. Last i read it's been a very light year for police deaths.

and no it's not one of the most dangerous jobs. most charts have it like at 10 some higher then 15th.

There are many far more dangerous jobs.

 

[zinfamous]

What rock do you sleep under at night? The number of incidents of violence against cops is skyrocketing. You're completely ignorant if you haven't heard of the war on cops. It's one of the most dangerous jobs you can have.

I have bolded the only accurate and sensible comment that you have posted in this thread.

The rest exists along some spectrum of simple naivete and outright ignorance.

 

[zinfamous]

skyrocketing. Last i read it's been a very light year for police deaths.

and no it's not one of the most dangerous jobs. most charts have it like at 10 some higher then 15th.

There are many far more dangerous jobs.

Dude--how many possible jobs are there? Don't you think top 10 or even 15 out of, I dunno....1000+ possible jobs sounds pretty effing dangerous?

😀

 

[Thebobo]

Makes my blood boil

How police took $53,000 from a Christian band, an orphanage and a church

Link

 

[OutHouse]

Australian 1983 commercial on random breath test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW4zqWNJ3Ts

 

[Jhhnn]

The whole headset behind driving while intoxicated laws is pretty twisted, forced blood tests even more so.

The penalty for refusal and for driving while intoxicated are the same, therefore a forced test is pointless. License revocation is automatic. Even when it's just your word against the officer's you lose in court & face the same fines & court ordered probation & counseling.

In the case of vehicular homicide it's an attempt to force an erroneous conclusion, that intoxication itself indicates the defendant to be guilty of the greater crime. Given the extremely low levels of intoxication allowed by law that may not be true at all. Besides that, refusal will prejudice the court as much as a concrete lab result.

Authoritarians don't necessarily think straight at all. They just love authority.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

The whole headset behind driving while intoxicated laws is pretty twisted, forced blood tests even more so.

The penalty for refusal and for driving while intoxicated are the same, therefore a forced test is pointless. License revocation is automatic. Even when it's just your word against the officer's you lose in court & face the same fines & court ordered probation & counseling.

In the case of vehicular homicide it's an attempt to force an erroneous conclusion, that intoxication itself indicates the defendant to be guilty of the greater crime. Given the extremely low levels of intoxication allowed by law that may not be true at all. Besides that, refusal will prejudice the court as much as a concrete lab result.

Authoritarians don't necessarily think straight at all. They just love authority.

I know of only one case where a defendant fought this, and won. His BAC was pretty low, and it was determined that no one could really have avoided the accident. A golf cart with no lights, or reflectors pulled in front of him at night on a curvy mountain road. The fact is though, ANY measurable amount of alcohol automatically makes you at fault for an accident. Something similar happened to my BIL with no alcohol involved. He was found to be 40% at fault, because the road was his daily commute, and therefore could not be paying total attention. His *share* of the medical bills for the kid he clipped riding a small unlit dirt bike on a dark mountain road was nearly one hundred thousand dollars.

 

[Subyman]

Just as an FYI, here is a link to an article about the U.S. Supreme Court hearing on the case...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ng_case_looks_good_for_the_drunk_drivers.html

This is how I understand this case...

If you are arrested for DUI, you are generally required to submit to breath and/or blood tests for analysis. If you refuse, you are subject to civil and/or criminal penalties. In most jurisdictions, if you refuse to comply to the breath and/or blood test and if the police want to have a blood test performed, they will obtain a warrant and have your blood drawn.

In these the cases in front of SCOTUS, the state is trying to perform blood draws after a subject refuses without having a warrant. The argument is that in rural areas, it would be too much of a hardship to get a warrant considering the the time considerations. I agree with SCOTUS on this that it seems to be a bogus argument.

I don't think SCOTUS has any issue with criminal penalties for refusing breath/blood tests after a refusal, but rather that tests are performed without a warrant after a refusal. I also don't think this is about arresting someone just for refusal. For all purposes that wouldn't happen. If you are refusing, it is AFTER you have been arrested for DUI.

I also don't think there is any law out there where it allows the police to hold people on the side of the road and do blood draws absent a warrant.

- Merg

That is not how I heard it broken down on NPR. The main issue is criminal penalties for demanding your constitutional rights. Getting a warrant cures this. No one is ever "forced" to give a drug test without a judge.

 

[The Merg]

I know of only one case where a defendant fought this, and won. His BAC was pretty low, and it was determined that no one could really have avoided the accident. A golf cart with no lights, or reflectors pulled in front of him at night on a curvy mountain road. The fact is though, ANY measurable amount of alcohol automatically makes you at fault for an accident. Something similar happened to my BIL with no alcohol involved. He was found to be 40% at fault, because the road was his daily commute, and therefore could not be paying total attention. His *share* of the medical bills for the kid he clipped riding a small unlit dirt bike on a dark mountain road was nearly one hundred thousand dollars.

Or it could be like NJ, where if you are rear-ended while properly stopped at a red light, you would be found to be 5% at fault. You know if you weren't there, you wouldn't have been rear-ended.

- Merg