Guest bleeds Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 DHCF, does this include using invasive techniques? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardCubFan Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 DHCF, does this include using invasive techniques? Such as?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clutchon18 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 So if you were an unlicensed drunk, you don't have to give a sample.... But if you do have a drivers license, you are subjected to said blood samples? Makes perfect sense in today's world/government.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye1980 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 OK, you asked for it ...a view from the "other" side...... It is never a good idea to refuse a breath test. If you do, you are going to jail...no questions asked , it will happen. What a person need to remember is that driving an motorized vehicle is a privledge, not a right . A privledge is not provided by the constitution, rights are . A privledge can be taken away , a right cannot. Years ago it may have been a good idea to not blow, but with video cameras now it really does not matter when you are staggering around on tape and I have seen it all on the tapes such as... " I could not do that if I was sober" " If I get out of this I will never drive drunk again" " I cannot give blood because a spider bit me on the leg and my arm is still sore" " I cannot walk a staight line in heels" ( and the officer noted she was wearing sneakers) If you feel like you are safe to drive , why not give a breath test? If you feel you are over the legal limit, why the h*ll are you driving anyway? I have seen the results of drunk driving . I hear the stories every day and it makes me sick. Drinking is not the problem, drinking then driving is the problem. And it is a problem that affects everyone in some way . Is there a way to stop it ? Yes there are ways , but that will never happen . New laws will be proposed next year to crack down harder on first time DWI's . Maybe people will learn someday ,but more lives will be lost before that ever happens. I just hope and pray it is not someone I know and love and I also hope it is not you . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluePirate Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Years ago it may have been a good idea to not blow, but with video cameras now it really does not matter when you are staggering around on tape and I have seen it all on the tapes such as... What a myth... I've been to countless drunk driving MVA's where the drunk wasn't "staggering around." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardCubFan Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 So if you were an unlicensed drunk, you don't have to give a sample.... But if you do have a drivers license, you are subjected to said blood samples? Makes perfect sense in today's world/government.... Clutch, if I understand the Implied Consent law correctly, it actually does not matter if you have a license or not. It essentially says that if you are opertaing a motor vehicle (along with a watercraft, aircraft, etc.) in a public place, then the Implied Consent law can be applied. Again, because driving a vehicle is a privilege and not a Constitutional right, the law can and will apply to even drivers who are not licensed in Texas (i.e. licensed in Louisiana, New York or not at all). (And just so you'll know - no, I am not a lawyer. I am a professor of criminal justice and have three degrees in the field and have been in law enforcement for almost 30 years and have a pretty good knowledge of the Constitution and Constitutional law.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye1980 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 What a myth... I've been to countless drunk driving MVA's where the drunk wasn't "staggering around." And I have seen many that were, just this morning , as a matter of fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluePirate Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 And I have seen many that were, just this morning , as a matter of fact And? The point is that the camera can't prove someone is ETOH... Since most drunks don't stagger around, saying it does is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parentofredheads Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Clutch, if I understand the Implied Consent law correctly, it actually does not matter if you have a license or not. It essentially says that if you are opertaing a motor vehicle (along with a watercraft, aircraft, etc.) in a public place, then the Implied Consent law can be applied. Again, because driving a vehicle is a privilege and not a Constitutional right, the law can and will apply to even drivers who are not licensed in Texas (i.e. licensed in Louisiana, New York or not at all). (And just so you'll know - no, I am not a lawyer. I am a professor of criminal justice and have three degrees in the field and have been in law enforcement for almost 30 years and have a pretty good knowledge of the Constitution and Constitutional law.) Criminey sakes, can't argue with that! LOL! But can't you just hear the defense attorney now.... LOL! Course then it's up to the State to actually prove it...sometimes I wonder about that! Truthfully, I'm glad I don't have to worry about such things as that...uh, anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Such as?... I guess what I'm asking is, even if the process requires invasive medical proceedures (IV), there is still implied consent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluePirate Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Pretty sure they have to have a warrant to gain a blood sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye1980 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Pretty sure they have to have a warrant to gain a blood sample. And judges will be on call Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluePirate Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 And judges will be on call They are in my county. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clawsnstripes Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 That would be post simian rectal emergence. talk small words. is that a monkey's rear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justsomeone Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 What a myth... I've been to countless drunk driving MVA's where the drunk wasn't "staggering around." I have to agree with this, I sat on a jury for a drunk driving case. The man asked for a breathalyzer,it was broke so they couldn't give him one.He refused to have his blood drawn he said he was afraid of needles. they did have tape for when they pulled him over but he was not falling over or anything like that. we let him go they had no proof he was drunk. the state trooper did say he could smell alcohol but withouut the blood test who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USNDocOfMarines Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I believe in ZERO tolerance for DWI. I'm sure most of you do as well. However, if you are sober enough to refuse a sample and make a valid argument to the officer without sounding like an idiot then you probably aren't a danger. Then again, the officer did pull you over for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justsomeone Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I believe in ZERO tolerance for DWI. I'm sure most of you do as well. However, if you are sober enough to refuse a sample and make a valid argument to the officer without sounding like an idiot then you probably aren't a danger. Then again, the officer did pull you over for a reason. i agree. he was going 5 miles over the speed limit that was why he got pulled over. but no one should drink and then get behind the wheel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 We need to understand there are little things officers look for in order to pull someone over; broken tail light, license plate light ou, no directional signal, etc. Once they have on on the side of the road, then begin the "profile" (yes I know DHCF, that's probably not what it's called). Look, listen, smell. Anything stands out, then the process begins. I'm assuming an officer can give a field sobriety test if, for any reason, he suspects the driver has been drinking. DHCF or Five0 will have to elaborate on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medman7 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I'm assuming an officer can give a field sobriety test if, for any reason, he suspects the driver has been drinking. DHCF or Five0 will have to elaborate on that. From everything I know bleeds, you are very right about this. They can use their discretion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 DHCF, while you're at it, are there Miranda rights regarding "no refusal" blood draws? Miranda allows your attorney to be present during questioning. Does this right extend to your attorney being present during a blood draw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildcatPride Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Even though you can count me in the anti intoxication camp, 5th amendment clause includes "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1stSuperScot Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Good call, WP! Those pesky details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Even though you can count me in the anti intoxication camp, 5th amendment clause "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." Yeah, kind of had that in the back of my mind when I asked DHCF the question. Things quiet in your neck of the woods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildcatPride Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Not there yet. At extended boy scout camp for a few more days. By all indications, apparently things are much better. Google Iraq news on the difference a year makes; a 66% decrease in casualties. Some soldiers are at risk of not earning CIB's. See new thread, so as not to hijack this one. "TV News Winds Down Operations on Iraq War" Somebody tell Harry Reid http://www.smoaky.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=91218 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluePirate Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 I have the CAR. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now