No Refusal DWI Laws

[applebutter]

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO. 1079-01

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




KNOWEL BEEMAN, JR., Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS
MIDLAND COUNTY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johnson, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of felony driving while intoxicated (DWI). At the time appellant was arrested, he refused to give a specimen of blood or breath for testing. The arresting officer then obtained a search warrant and collected a blood sample without appellant's consent. After the trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress the results of the blood test, appellant plead guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement.

Appellant appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. The court of appeals held that, because the peace officer in this case obtained a search warrant and did not violate any of appellant's statutory rights to refuse the taking of a blood specimen, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to suppress. Beeman v. State, No. 08-00-00390-CR (Tex.App.-El Paso, delivered March 29, 2001, pet. granted). Appellant asserts in his appeal to this Court that the court of appeals erred in holding that the trial court properly overruled his motion to suppress.

After filing his "Motion to Suppress Blood Test" in the trial court, appellant filed an affidavit in which he swore to the following: 1) on the date alleged in the indictment, he was rear-ended by named person; 2) no one was injured in that accident; 3) the other person was cited for following too closely; 4) appellant was arrested for felony DWI; 5) while being transported to the detention center, appellant refused an officer's request to submit a breath specimen; 6) the officer then transported him to a hospital, secured a search warrant, and had the hospital draw blood. Appellant's affidavit also states that prior to the taking of the blood specimen, he "repeatedly refused any type of chemical test" and that "[t]he blood was withdrawn over [his] objection." In his "Motion to Suppress Blood Test," appellant alleged, that because he did not consent, the taking of his blood specimen was in violation of Tex. Transp. Code �� 724.012 and 724.013 and, therefore, the results of the testing should have been suppressed under Article 38.23, Tex. Code Crim. Proc. (1)

The Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 724, � 724.011, provides that a person "arrested for an offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was operating a motor vehicle in a public place . . . while intoxicated, . . . is deemed to have consented, subject to this chapter, to submit to the taking of one or more specimens of the person's breath or blood for analysis to determine the alcohol concentration or the presence in the person's body of a controlled substance, drug, dangerous drug, or other substance." (Emphasis added.) Section 724.013 states a specific prohibition against taking a specimen if a person refuses an officer's request: "Except as provided by Section 724.012(b), a specimen may not be taken if a person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen designated by a peace officer." Section � 724.012(b), the only exception to the general prohibition of �724.013, states:

A peace officer shall require the taking of a specimen of the person's breath or blood if: 1) the officer arrests the person for an offense under Chapter 49, Penal Code, involving the operation of a motor vehicle or watercraft; 2) the person was the operator of a motor vehicle or a watercraft involved in an accident that the officer reasonably believes occurred as a result of the offense; 3) at the time of the arrest[,] the officer reasonably believes that a person has died or will die as a direct result of the accident; and 4) the person refuses the officer's request to submit to the taking of a specimen voluntarily.




The Legislature specifically provided that a driver arrested for DWI may refuse an officer's request to take a breath or blood specimen, in spite of "implied consent"; "Except as provided by Section 724.012(b), a specimen may not be taken if a person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen . . . ." � 724.013 (Emphasis added.) The plain language of that single exception, � 724.012(b), sets out four requirements which must be satisfied in order for the involuntary taking of a blood specimen to be authorized: 1) the defendant was arrested for an intoxication offense under Chapter 49; 2) the arresting officer reasonably believed that the accident occurred as a result of the offense; 3) the arresting officer reasonably believed that a person has died or will die as a direct result of the accident; and 4) the defendant refused to submit voluntarily. Badgett v. State, 42 S.W.3d 136, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). In the case before us, only two of the four requirements of �724.012(b) were satisfied; appellant was arrested for DWI, and he refused to submit to the taking of a specimen. The taking of blood was not therefore authorized under �724.012(b). It was therefore not authorized and was obtained in violation of � 724.013.

The state asserts that interpreting � 724.013 to preclude use of a search warrant to obtain a blood sample would produce an absurd and ridiculous result, as it would confer upon DWI suspects rights that no other class of citizens has against reasonable searches and seizures and effectively exempt DWI suspects from a reasonable search. The state argues that, while � 724.013 clearly circumscribes the power of a peace officer to take a specimen without a warrant, it does not speak at all to the question of when a peace officer can obtain a warrant, leaving that question up to the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. The state's argument assumes that the necessarily invasive procedure required to obtain a blood sample is a reasonable search.

My interpretation of �� 724.012 and 724.013 does not lead to an absurd or ridiculous result. The Legislature has chosen to give DWI arrestees the right to refuse to submit a breath or blood specimen unless the rather restrictive requirements of � 724.012(b) are met. The state would have us condone broad application by permitting use of a search warrant to circumvent the legislated prohibition. It is not unreasonable or absurd for the Legislature to decline to give carte blanche to officers to demand and forcibly obtain blood samples from all persons arrested for DWI. (2) The Legislature could quite reasonably decide to permit officers to require the taking of a specimen only in those situations in which the officer reasonably believes a life-threatening accident had been caused by the DWI offense.

The state argues that it needs blood-alcohol evidence in DWI prosecutions, but numerous DWI charges have been prosecuted successfully after refusal without resorting to the forcible taking of a specimen. From today, it is possible for a blood sample to be forcibly obtained from each and every DWI arrestee; there can now be a blood test result in literally each and every DWI case if a search warrant is obtained.

It is axiomatic that, while our constitutions limit the powers of government and provide protection for the rights of the people, the Legislature can pass laws that provide even greater protection. The Legislature has clearly and explicitly provided a statutory right for a DWI arrestee to refuse a request for a specimen, with one specific, limited exception. I do not acquiesce to the state's request that we disregard and judicially repeal the Legislature's clear and explicit statutory right to refuse to provide a specimen. In Subchapter C of the Transportation Code, �� 724.031 - 724.064, the Legislature has established provisions and procedures for the suspension and denial of the driver's license of a person who refuses the request of a peace officer to submit to the taking of a specimen. The Legislature thus contemplated the possibility of refusal and provided adverse consequences, other than the involuntary taking of a specimen, for those DWI arrestees who refuse to submit a breath or blood specimen. Might this be because the Legislature recognized the difference between a warrant to the search the property or clothing of a person and a warrant that permits the extremely invasive search of bodily fluids? Other such invasive searches are authorized by statute. (3) The Legislature could have authorized such an invasive search for offenses under Chapter 49, but instead chose to highly restrict the ability of law enforcement to forcibly collect blood samples.

Generally, a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed by an abuse of discretion standard, but when a case presents a question of law based upon undisputed facts, as in this case, we apply a de novo review. Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Appellant's affidavit, the only evidence in the record with respect to the suppression motion, establishes that the requirements of � 724.012(b) were not met. Since the uncontroverted evidence shows that no one was injured in this accident, the arresting officer could not have "reasonably believed" that a person had died or would die as a direct result of the accident. Thus, the evidence was obtained in violation of statute and, pursuant to Article 38.23, was subject to suppression. I conclude that the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion to suppress.

I respectfully dissent.




Johnson, J.



En banc

Filed: October 9, 2002

Publish

1. Art. 38.22(a) states that "[n]o evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas . . . shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case."

2. "The majority holds that the Court of Appeals' opinion violates the statute's plain language because its reasoning nullifies the requirements of � 724.012(b)(2). I agree. According to the Court of Appeals, the officer would only need to reasonably believe that the driver was intoxicated, without any evidence of causation. This would give carte blanche to officers to demand blood samples from intoxicated drivers." Badgett v. State, supra, 42 S.W.3d at 142 (Keasler, J., dissenting)(footnote omitted).

3. See, e.g., Health & Safety Code �� 162.002 (requiring blood bank donors to submit to tests for infectious diseases, including tests for AIDS, HIV, hepatitis, and serological tests for contagious venereal diseases), 81.090 (requiring the taking of a pregnant woman's blood for testing for syphilis, HIV infection, and hepatitis B infection), 81.050 (providing for mandatory testing of persons suspected of exposing certain other persons to reportable diseases, including HIV infection), 89.051 (requiring jail and community corrections facility inmates to undergo screening tests for tuberculosis infection); Family Code �� 54.033 (requiring a child adjudicated for engaging in certain delinquent conduct to undergo a medical procedure or test to determine whether the child has a sexually transmitted disease, AIDS, or HIV infection; mandatory with court order), 54.0405 (requiring a child placed on probation for certain conduct to submit a blood sample or other specimen to create a DNA record of the child); Government Code �� 411.150 (requiring juveniles committed to the Texas Youth Commission to provide blood samples or other specimens to create a DNA record), 411.148 (requiring prison inmates who are serving sentences for certain offenses to provide blood samples or other specimens), 508.186 (requiring as a condition of parole or mandatory supervision that certain releasees submit a blood sample or other specimen); and Code of Criminal Procedure, articles 42.12, Section 11 (a)(22) (allowing trial courts to order a defendant to submit a blood sample or other specimen as a condition of community supervision) and Section 11 (e) (requiring a judge granting community supervision to certain defendants to require that the defendant submit a blood sample or other specimen as a condition of community supervision), and 21.31 (requiring persons indicted for, or waiving indictment for, certain offenses to undergo a medical procedure or test to show whether the person has a sexually transmitted disease, AIDS, or HIV infection; mandatory with court order).

[Five0pd310]

But saying without implied consent the number of intoxicated drivers would be out of control can be said with accuracy?

 

No, it can't. However, my opinion can reflect that. I can't even say for a fact that drunk driving would increase if there were no DWI laws at all. Even so, it would be foolish to abolish the law.

[DieHardCubFan]

Don't forget the investigation leading to the arrest.

 

Just out of curiosity, give me an example (I know what you mean, I just want to see what example(s) you would use). (Humor me, please....)

[camuchs]

Okay I generally don’t do this from work but this one got me.

 

Buckeyefan quote“You have to agree that our world has evolved over the past 232 years and the interpretations of that period doesn't apply to today.” That is where YOU and anyone who believes that is WRONG!! I believe that ‘the framers’ were intelligent beyond what you may have the capacity to fathom. It is the LIBERAL interpretations that threaten the very fabric that holds our COTUS together. That and the fact that you think the COTUS is 232 years old, make me understand why you may be confused. September 17, 1787 was not 232 years ago. Do the math. It really gets to me when people confuse the signing of the Declaration of Independence with the COTUS, those same people think Washington became POTUS in 1776. Tell that to your Constitutional Law class.

 

Buckeyefan quote“I can think of numerous crimes such as rape that I could get away with, simply by stating that according to the 4th and 5th Amendments no one could take my DNA in order to prove said rape.” Now, that’s comparing apples to Cadillacs. In rape cases the DNA is taken to corroborate substantial [blood] evidence that has been collected from the victim [rape kit] and/or the crime scene. The blood evidence is the probable cause to get the warrant for a suspect’s DNA. In a DWI case the officers judgment is the probable cause. (Let’s just hope he isn’t fighting with his wife, just got passed over for a raise/promotion or just found out that his daughter is pregnant before he pulls you over)

 

Buckeyefan quote“But of course, if and when the DWI laws are changed deeming implied consent unconstitutional, how long will it take for some activist judge or attorney to use the same concept for rape cases? There will be no way that we could have it both ways.”

 

By that same reasoning I say to you:

 

If and when the COTUS is left to such loose [read: liberal] interpretation and these tiny pinholes are continually poked into the 4^th and 5^th Amendments, eventually those same little pinholes are so big that we have an enormous gaping hole in the COTUS where the Bill of Rights once was. [and yes, the 1^st and 2^nd will be vulnerable to the same lousy, loose and liberal interpretation.]

 

Talk about misinterpretations, some of you seem to think that because we do not like this law that we are pro-drunk driver. No, we are pro-COTUS. Making new laws when the existing ones are not enforced does justice for no one. If you want new laws, then make no provision for occupational license after suspension of DL for DWI/DUI. I think the possibility of losing ones job because you can’t drive to work, would be more of a deterrent than putting devices in cars to blow on and continuing to let the offenders drive. I would like to know the % of those arrested and convicted of DWI/DUI that actually serve prison time. Anyone have those stats? The truth is that no matter how hard officers work to get the drunk drivers off the roads, the judges and DA’s that prosecute these offences are dropping the ball. Such as 894.

Now, I must return to work. I'm on someone else's time now

 

 

[applebutter]

Just out of curiosity, give me an example (I know what you mean, I just want to see what example(s) you would use). (Humor me, please....)

I won't give a specific example, I'm not a police officer or an attorney.

 

But it's my understanding that search warrants are often issued before an arrest. If that's the case, and if eventually there is an arrest, that would be an example of following due process before the arrest.

 

Therefore, due process must be followed not only from arrest to possible conviction and execution of sentence, but also prior to any arrest.

 

Consider yourself humored. And feel free to correct me if I'm in error.

[DieHardCubFan]

Buckeyefan quote“I can think of numerous crimes such as rape that I could get away with, simply by stating that according to the 4th and 5th Amendments no one could take my DNA in order to prove said rape.” Now, that’s comparing apples to Cadillacs. In rape cases the DNA is taken to corroborate substantial [blood] evidence that has been collected from the victim [rape kit] and/or the crime scene. The blood evidence is the probable cause to get the warrant for a suspect’s DNA. In a DWI case the officers judgment is the probable cause. (Let’s just hope he isn’t fighting with his wife, just got passed over for a raise/promotion or just found out that his daughter is pregnant before he pulls you over)

 

I'm sorry, but to borrow a phrase from my good friend Bleeds - I'm calling Bravo Sierra on that!

 

 

[applebutter]

So far, in this argument, I have not seen anything written by anyone on the side of ubiquitous blood warrants that will admit that it's even possible for a warrant to be illegal or invalid. Certainly the police officer serving the warrant is not to blame, but what does it take in your minds to make a warrant invalid?

 

If someone was factually incorrect in what was told to the issuing judge does that make the warrant invalid?

If the judge is drunk when he approves the warrant, does that make the warrant invalid?

If the warrant is drawn out with a crayola on a napkin, does that make a valid warrant?

If the information required for the warrant is not readily available and so the warrant is not complete when it's signed, does that make the warrant invalid?

If the police officer can't communicate directly with the judge, but instead has to go through one or more intermediaries (think camp fire stories) does that make the warrant invalid?

[applebutter]

I'm sorry, but to borrow a phrase from my good friend Bleeds - I'm calling Bravo Sierra on that!

On what? Camuchs had several points.

 

I suspect that you mean on the point that the kind of day the police officer is having can have an effect on his judgement. That is beyond dispute. Whether he allows his mood to effect the execution of his job reflects on the quality of the man. I suspect that it's rarer than some would think. But that doesn't mean it's not possible and it doesn't mean that it won't happen.

[Five0pd310]

The warrant would be invalid if the officer lied to get it.

The warrant would be invalid if the judge signing it was mistaken in his judgement as to whether PC was present.

The warrant would be invalid if it was not served within the time period set forth (three days excluding its date of issuance and date of service).

The warrant would be invalid if the information gained to get it was obtained illegally or from the fruit of an illegal act.

 

 

Several things can invalidate a warrant.

[BluePirate]

No, it can't. However, my opinion can reflect that. I can't even say for a fact that drunk driving would increase if there were no DWI laws at all. Even so, it would be foolish to abolish the law.

 

Certainly, if your opinion "reflects that" your opinion would be wrong just as your buddy's is.

[BluePirate]

The warrant would be invalid if the officer lied to get it.

The warrant would be invalid if the judge signing it was mistaken in his judgement as to whether PC was present.

The warrant would be invalid if it was not served within the time period set forth (three days excluding its date of issuance and date of service).

The warrant would be invalid if the information gained to get it was obtained illegally or from the fruit of an illegal act.

 

 

Several things can invalidate a warrant.

 

After reading this list are we still supposed to believe the State is able to ensure accountability?

 

[buckeyefan1984]

Okay, I tell you what. I've just severely injured someone or even killed them in an automobile accident. I've refused to talk, I've refused to move, I've refused the FST, I've refused the chemical test, I've refused EVERYTHING. The person that I've just killed is your wife, your husband, your children, SOMEONE that you hold dear.

 

Now then, let's see you arrest me or better yet CONVICT me of DWI or DUI?

 

Oh, you can arrest me for DWI or DUI, but I would like to see how you could make it stick without violating my civil rights and to keep from being sued?

 

When it goes to court, I'll claim that I wasn't drunk and I'll claim that I did nothing wrong. Now then, convince a judge and jury that I was guilty of drunk driving.

 

This should be interesting.

 

 

 

 

 

[applebutter]

Okay, I tell you what. I've just severely injured someone or even killed them in an automobile accident. I've refused to talk, I've refused to move, I've refused the FST, I've refused the chemical test, I've refused EVERYTHING. The person that I've just killed is your wife, your husband, your children, SOMEONE that you hold dear.

 

Now then, let's see you arrest me or better yet CONVICT me of DWI or DUI?

 

Oh, you can arrest me for DWI or DUI, but I would like to see how you could make it stick without violating my civil rights and to keep from being sued?

 

When it goes to court, I'll claim that I wasn't drunk and I'll claim that I did nothing wrong. Now then, convince a judge and jury that I was guilty of drunk driving.

 

This should be interesting.

All you actually included in this case is what you now need to convict with the help of a willing judge to rubber stamp a warrant. No testimony, no photos, no testimony of other witnesses, no driving record, no location so that we might figure out how he got drunk, no length of skid marks, nothing that would allow you to do your job without the state forcing suspects to give evidence against themselves.

 

My question for you, what did you do before 2002 when suddenly the Eighth Court of Appeals in Midland County "discovered" that people aren't entitled to their own blood if agents of the state want it? Did every single uncooperative DWI walk?

 

How frustrating that must have been for you.

 

So, the very first conviction of an uncooperative DWI was Knowel Beeman?

[buckeyefan1984]

Nope, not frustrating to me. But I love how you completely dodged the question. I'm still waiting for someone to show me how to do it.

 

Come on applebutter, don't dodge the question if you're going to respond.

 

 

 

 

[Guest bleeds]

Interesting.

 

But even the decision of the court admits that blood can be drawn w/o a warrant in situations where time is a factor:

 

Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 333 U. S. 13-14; see also Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, 378 U. S. 110-111. The importance of informed, detached and deliberate determinations of the issue whether or not to invade another's body in search of evidence of guilt is indisputable and great.

 

The officer in the present case, however, might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened "the destruction of evidence," Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 376 U. S. 367. We are told that the percentage of alcohol in the blood begins to diminish shortly after drinking stops, as the body functions to eliminate it from the system. Particularly in a case such as this, where time had

to be taken to bring the accused to a hospital and to investigate the scene of the accident, there was no time to seek out a magistrate and secure a warrant. Given these special facts, we conclude that the attempt to secure evidence of blood alcohol content in this case was an appropriate incident to petitioner's arrest.

 

Also, Justice Brennan, in his delivery of the opinion of the court admitted the court was writing on a clean slate in regards to intrusions into the human body:

 

Because we are dealing with intrusions into the human body, rather than with state interferences with property relationships or private papers -- "houses, papers, and effects" -- we write on a clean slate. Limitations on the kinds of property which may be seized under warrant, [Footnote 10] as distinct from the procedures for search and the permissible scope of search, are not instructive in this context.

 

 

This seems to me to indicate that the inconvenience of getting a warrant sworn was cause to compell the accused to submit to the blood draw. Thus, the arguement that permeates this thread regarding drawing blood ONLY after a warrant has been issued is, at least according to the text of the decsion of the court, moot.

 

I would add the decision of the court, while a majority decsion obviously, was the result of a 5-4 split, with the Chief Justice siding with the dissent. This tells me this is not as cut and dried as we have been led to believe, although I realize a 5-4 decision is as binding as a 9-0 vote. Four justices agreed with me, and their arguements are compelling.

 

You know, I thought this was good stuff, especially the part where the justice said it was okay to pull blood without a warrant, given certain LEO's leaning on the warrant as their main point of arguement.

 

I also thought the part about it being a 5-4 vote with the Chief Justice being on the side of dissent was pretty good. I especially like the part where I asserted that although a 5-4 is as good as a 9-0, the close vote indicated there was no consensus on the issue.

 

But oddly, I got no response from anyone argueing for the "state".

 

[Guest bleeds]

Okay, I tell you what. I've just severely injured someone or even killed them in an automobile accident. I've refused to talk, I've refused to move, I've refused the FST, I've refused the chemical test, I've refused EVERYTHING. The person that I've just killed is your wife, your husband, your children, SOMEONE that you hold dear.

 

Now then, let's see you arrest me or better yet CONVICT me of DWI or DUI?

 

Oh, you can arrest me for DWI or DUI, but I would like to see how you could make it stick without violating my civil rights and to keep from being sued?

 

When it goes to court, I'll claim that I wasn't drunk and I'll claim that I did nothing wrong. Now then, convince a judge and jury that I was guilty of drunk driving.

 

This should be interesting.

 

 

BTW, BEF, it's the state's job to find ways to acquire convictions that fall into the scope of constitutionality, not convenience.

 

The 4th, 5th, and 14th clearly offer protections. So out of convenience, activist justices decided to make them say what they didn't say.

 

The emperor has no clothes.

[BluePirate]

Nope, not frustrating to me. But I love how you completely dodged the question. I'm still waiting for someone to show me how to do it.

 

Come on applebutter, don't dodge the question if you're going to respond.

 

The emotion you introduce doesn't change the argument. I don't care how you do it! That's your problem.

 

[buckeyefan1984]

You know, I thought this was good stuff, especially the part where the justice said it was okay to pull blood without a warrant, given certain LEO's leaning on the warrant as their main point of arguement.

 

I also thought the part about it being a 5-4 vote with the Chief Justice being on the side of dissent was pretty good. I especially like the part where I asserted that although a 5-4 is as good as a 9-0, the close vote indicated there was no consensus on the issue.

 

But oddly, I got no response from anyone argueing for the "state".

 

Because we believe in having a warrant before having a doctor draw the blood.

[buckeyefan1984]

BTW, BEF, it's the state's job to find ways to acquire convictions that fall into the scope of constitutionality, not convenience.

 

I'm still waiting. I haven't seen this much weaving and bobbing in a long time.

[buckeyefan1984]

The emotion you introduce doesn't change the argument. I don't care how you do it! That's your problem.

 

In other words, you're saying that it can't be done. So I guess I can get sloppy drunk, put my SUV into drive and plow straight ahead into your home, killing almost everyone inside. I can then blame a deer running in front of my vehicle and I swerved to miss it.

 

I guess that means I get a free pass doesn't it?

 

Well, does it?

[applebutter]

Nope, not frustrating to me. But I love how you completely dodged the question. I'm still waiting for someone to show me how to do it.

 

Come on applebutter, don't dodge the question if you're going to respond.

That was not a dodge. I told you that you failed to provide the other physical evidence that the state should have in order to attempt to prove guilt.

 

If you recall, I said you included:

No testimony, no photos, no testimony of other witnesses, no driving record, no location so that we might figure out how he got drunk, no length of skid marks, nothing that would allow [us] to do [our] job without the state forcing suspects to give evidence against themselves.

 

How would you like me to answer the question? I would do police work, collect evidence in a legal way, and attempt to convict. Since the case exists only in your mind, you (the poster, not the uncooperative alleged drunken driver) would have to provide the evidence.

 

Complete your little world, and maybe you'll get a better answer.

[Guest bleeds]

I'm still waiting. I haven't seen this much weaving and bobbing in a long time.

 

 

Why are you getting mad? And please don't insult our intelligence by saying you're not. It's obvious.

 

I was under the impression that LEO's were supposed to remain calm under pressure.

[BluePirate]

In other words, you're saying that it can't be done. So I guess I can get sloppy drunk, put my SUV into drive and plow straight ahead into your home, killing almost everyone inside. I can then blame a deer running in front of my vehicle and I swerved to miss it.

 

I guess that means I get a free pass doesn't it?

 

Well, does it?

 

No! I said I don't care how you do it. Don't put words in my mouth. You might think it can't be done, but I'm quite positive that good cops know how and do "get it done" often.

 

Make no mistake... If you drive your car into my house, I'll kill you.

 

I'll let you decide if that's a free pass. :thumbsup:

[buckeyefan1984]

Yes applebutter, what you did was a complete dodge of the question. I told you everything that I would do, now see if you can convict me of DWI or DUI?

 

Yes, I am challenging you. If you can convict me of a DWI or DUI without me being able to beat it, I will completely cave in this discussion. But I'm willing to bet that you can't do it.

 

Matter of fact, I know you can't do it.

 

 

 

 

[buckeyefan1984]

Why are you getting mad? And please don't insult our intelligence by saying you're not. It's obvious.

 

I was under the impression that LEO's were supposed to remain calm under pressure.

 

Bleeds, I am completely calm. I'm just waiting for someone, anyone to be able to show how they could prove me as DWI or DUI in court.

 

I'm also completely enjoying the other side of the argument squirm.