• 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

OutHouse

OutHouse

Lifer
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

In recent years, the legislatures of some states have criminalized a driver’s choice to assert his constitutional right not to be subject to an unlawful search and seizure. These legislatures have enacted laws which make it a crime for a driver to refuse to consent to searches and seizures via breathalyzer and blood chemical tests after being placed under arrest after a routine traffic stop.
Click to expand...
 
How does this play with the 5th and 6th amendment with regards to the right to an attorney? The question is when does that right start? Consider the Miranda rights--the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning.

Is a breathalyzer or blood test a form of questioning? Are you truly silent if information is being gathered from your body? If the answer to either of those is yes, then the laws that say the police can perform those tasks before you see an attorney are unconstitutional.

I find those much more interesting questions than the 4th amendment attack on these laws. I just don't know enough about constitutional law to know the answers.

The common answer that you waive your right to an attorney since driving is a privilege just doesn't sit well with me. True constitutional rights shouldn't be something easy to waive, it should be a deliberate choice, something you opt out of not automatically opt into waiving rights.
 
Last edited:
Why would anyone question the cops ability to do this?! Why make it harder for them to do their jobs?!
 
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.
 
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...


What's next after that? Anal probes? This future is coming too fast. 😵
 
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...

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.
 
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...
Uh no.....this is crossing the line. Implied consent resulting in license suspension if you refuse is one thing. Forceably obtaining a blood sample without a court order is to far.
 
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...


Just liek the innocent guy that got anal probed on the side of the road?
 
When you drive you wield a deadly weapon. When you take a driver's exam for a license you learn what the law is, It is against the law to drive with a blood alcohol level above a certain percent and mandatory that you submit to testing. Don't like it, don't drive. These laws wouldn't exist if drunks didn't kill thousands of members of people's families. These families have little sympathy with folk who want to hide the fact they are drunk and want to drive on.
 
Moonbeam said:
When you drive you wield a deadly weapon. When you take a driver's exam for a license you learn what the law is, It is against the law to drive with a blood alcohol level above a certain percent and mandatory that you submit to testing. Don't like it, don't drive. These laws wouldn't exist if drunks didn't kill thousands of members of people's families. These families have little sympathy with folk who want to hide the fact they are drunk and want to drive on.
Click to expand...

Thousands of people are killed in homes every year. If you don't have any dead bodies laying around your house, then you won't object to the cops randomly coming in and checking to make sure everything is okay.
 
Having a license to drive is considered a privilege and not a right in U.S. As part of agreeing to be licensed, you agree to certain concessions. One of those is that if you are stopped and suspected of driving under the influence (and arrested for DUI), you shall submit to a breath test and/or blood test (dependent on specifics for each state). There's no ifs or buts about it. That is part of the agreement with being able to drive. If you refuse to submit, you will lose your privilege to drive.

Now as for holding someone down on the ground on the side of the road and forcing them to give up a blood sample, I don't think there is any law that says to do that. If there is, I'd like to read it.

- Merg
 
The Merg said:
Having a license to drive is considered a privilege and not a right in U.S. As part of agreeing to be licensed, you agree to certain concessions. One of those is that if you are stopped and suspected of driving under the influence (and arrested for DUI), you shall submit to a breath test and/or blood test (dependent on specifics for each state). There's no ifs or buts about it. That is part of the agreement with being able to drive. If you refuse to submit, you will lose your privilege to drive.
Click to expand...

Just because someone engages in certain activities that are deemed privileges/non-essentials in no way implies that he should give up his constitutional freedoms. That's the same kind of logic that says that since usps mail and electronic mail is privilege and not explicitly protected constitutional right, you should give up your right to privacy and let government inspect your communications without warrant. No. Just no.
 
Don't be a prick and pick your battles more carefully. Take the breathalyzer test and go on with your life. Do you want drunks driving all over the streets?
 
hal2kilo said:
First, there is no right to drive.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court disagrees...as long as it for personal not business travel on public roads.

After the lase case (1986?) the court stated they would not hear any more cases on the subject.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm


CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.


CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
Click to expand...


.
 
I'm supporting the criminal Defendants in this one. You shouldn't have to "sign your Constitutional rights away" in order to drive. It just opens the door to a huge slippery slope where pretty soon, the Bill of Rights becomes unenforceable.

"Do you live in this state? By living in this state you have agreed to waive all of your Constitutional rights."

"Do you own a home in this state? By owning property here you have agreed to waive all of your Constitutional rights."

Etc. It's just such a dangerous, slippery slope that's being contemplated. Engaging basic economic activities and freedoms shouldn't require you to sign your Constitutional rights away.
 
Last edited:
The Merg said:
Having a license to drive is considered a privilege and not a right in U.S.
Click to expand...

This mindset is completely flawed. It's more appropriate for North Korea or the Soviet Union. Freedom of movement should not be a "privilege". What's to keep the government from declaring other regular everyday activities to be "privileges"?

I'm not saying that driving shouldn't be regulated, just that the mindset that it is a "privilege" is a Soviet-styled approach.
 
hal2kilo said:
First, there is no right to drive.
Click to expand...

It seems like a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process right. "[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

I think driving would fall under "liberty" just like being able to wear underwear would fall under liberty. If there's no right to drive, then why can't the government ban wearing underwear, or eating meat, or chocolate ice cream, etc.
 
WhipperSnapper said:
I'm supporting the criminal Defendants in this one. You shouldn't have to "sign your Constitutional rights away" in order to drive. It just opens the door to a huge slippery slope where pretty soon, the Bill of Rights becomes unenforceable.

"Do you live in this state? By living in this state you have agreed to waive all of your Constitutional rights."

"Do you own a home in this state? By owning property here you have agreed to waive all of your Constitutional rights."

Etc. It's just such a dangerous, slippery slope that's being contemplated. Engaging basic economic activities and freedoms shouldn't require you to sign your Constitutional rights away.
Click to expand...

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.


.
 
dullard said:
How does this play with the 5th and 6th amendment with regards to the right to an attorney? The question is when does that right start? Consider the Miranda rights--the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning.
Click to expand...

It's not a Fifth Amendment issue. It's a Fourth Amendment search and seizure issue.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...
 
fleshconsumed said:
Just because someone engages in certain activities that are deemed privileges/non-essentials in no way implies that he should give up his constitutional freedoms. That's the same kind of logic that says that since usps mail and electronic mail is privilege and not explicitly protected constitutional right, you should give up your right to privacy and let government inspect your communications without warrant. No. Just no.
Click to expand...


Those are two different things. 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.

In the case of sending mail, you are not being granted a privilege. You pay for that service. Hence, your Fourth Amendment rights would still be valid with regards to your property. And do US mail technically not a government agency. So, the fact that they might x-ray your mail for safety purposes would not be considered a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights as for the violation can only be done by a government agency or agent.

- Merg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top