Jump to content
The Smoakhouse Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Fivehead

No Refusal DWI Laws

Recommended Posts

I would like to hear your opinion on the No Refusal DWI law. My view is that it is the latest nail in the coffin of Constitutionality in this country. The facet of this statute that makes it even more heinous than the ealier assualts on our civil rights is that a person could actually be legally physically harmed by a police officer in the name of public safety.

 

What if the DWI suspect in question was a hemophiliac? He could concievably be punctured by a needle and slowly bleed to death in a holding cell. What about the MRSA bacteria currently running rampant in this country? The MRSA staph could be introduced by a needle stick and spread throughout the body and attack organs and joints and kill the "suspect".

 

Five-0, you might as well get the ball rolling. I know you'll jump in and tell me how wrong I am eventually. Get it over with.

well lets let drunks run the road cause we dont wanna violate their civil right. retard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bleeds
well lets let drunks run the road cause we dont wanna violate their civil right. retard

 

 

Here we go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pop.gif

 

I would assume that's a Coke in your smilie's hand, eh?? lol.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to hear your opinion on the No Refusal DWI law. My view is that it is the latest nail in the coffin of Constitutionality in this country. The facet of this statute that makes it even more heinous than the ealier assualts on our civil rights is that a person could actually be legally physically harmed by a police officer in the name of public safety.

 

What if the DWI suspect in question was a hemophiliac? He could concievably be punctured by a needle and slowly bleed to death in a holding cell. What about the MRSA bacteria currently running rampant in this country? The MRSA staph could be introduced by a needle stick and spread throughout the body and attack organs and joints and kill the "suspect".

 

Five-0, you might as well get the ball rolling. I know you'll jump in and tell me how wrong I am eventually. Get it over with.

 

 

This really is nothing new. In most cases there is enough 'PC', probable cause to warrant not giving the blood test. I don't know if the law has changed sense I was in the academy in 97 but if the blood test or DWI test of any sort aren't performed within 2 hours of the pull over then a defense attorney can get the case thrown out. I'm not sure how it is in Texas in regards to that. I don't do anything that would impair my driving ability. Personally, I think drunk drivers should spend some serious time in jail and then go through a 6 month rehab program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Only if there is a possibility of the perp incriminating himself. However most cops read Miranda and even have a card that they give the perp in case they lie and say they weren't read thier rights. They tell you to do that for ALL arrests. We were taught to also include the question of, do you read, write, and understand the English language?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bleeds
Only if there is a possibility of the perp incriminating himself. However most cops read Miranda and even have a card that they give the perp in case they lie and say they weren't read thier rights. They tell you to do that for ALL arrests. We were taught to also include the question of, do you read, write, and understand the English language?

 

 

You've missed my point completely. I'm not asking about being Mirandized. I know a DWI suspect would be if he was arrested. I'm asking if the Miranda rights regarding having a lawyer present during questioning extends to a blood draw. Does the suspect have the right to have an attorney present during a blood draw?

 

BTW, by definition, if blood is being drawn to determine sobriety, the possibility exists for self-incrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've missed my point completely. I'm not asking about being Mirandized. I know a DWI suspect would be if he was arrested. I'm asking if the Miranda rights regarding having a lawyer present during questioning extends to a blood draw. Does the suspect have the right to have an attorney present during a blood draw?

 

BTW, by definition, if blood is being drawn to determine sobriety, the possibility exists for self-incrimination.

 

 

Yes they have the right to have an attorney present. Good luck finding one after hours! Self-incrimination by word of mouth or action is more what they are shooting for. Obviously a positive blood test is going to incriminate you. However if your being forced to take it, how is it SELF-incrimination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bleeds
Yes they have the right to have an attorney present. Good luck finding one after hours! Self-incrimination by word of mouth or action is more what they are shooting for. Obviously a positive blood test is going to incriminate you. However if your being forced to take it, how is it SELF-incrimination?

 

It's self-incirimination because it's you (or your blood) revealing your blood alcohol level.

 

Hmmm. You sure you're a cop? I would have suspected a real cop would have picked up on the importance of having your attorney present during a blood draw and known that self-incrimination doesn't only refer to speaking.

 

I'll help you out a little so you can use this at parties.

 

The importance of having your attorney present during any blood draw is it buys you time. Time your body will use to metabolize alcohol.

 

Now, I'm still not sure you have that right, I'll wait for DHCF for that one. But if you do, then you have the luxury of waiting until he gets there before the draw can start, unless you are forced to accept a court-appointed attorney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's self-incirimination because it's you (or your blood) revealing your blood alcohol level.

 

Hmmm. You sure you're a cop? I would have suspected a real cop would have picked up on the importance of having your attorney present during a blood draw and known that self-incrimination doesn't only refer to speaking.

 

I'll help you out a little so you can use this at parties.

 

The importance of having your attorney present during any blood draw is it buys you time. Time your body will use to metabolize alcohol.

 

Now, I'm still not sure you have that right, I'll wait for DHCF for that one. But if you do, then you have the luxury of waiting until he gets there before the draw can start, unless you are forced to accept a court-appointed attorney.

 

I never said I was a cop. I went through police academy and emt training. I worked in law enforcement for a year and realized that getting shot at wasn't worth any amount of money in the world!

I disagree with your point on the incrimination because if you are forced to give the blood then you are not 'voluntarily' forthcoming of evidence. Thats where the line, "you have the right to remain silent"' comes in effect. I also said by action, not just verbally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Miranda deals with custodial interrogations, so yes, because the officer will be asking questions and because the alleged drunk is in custody, he will have to advise the alleged drunk of his rights under the Miranda decision and the alleged drunk will have to waive them before the officer continues the questioning.

 

HOWEVER, ya'll are missing the point. The drawing of blood is an evidentiary event. It would be no different than if I had probable cause (PC, as HighRollin8s called it) and was conducting a search of your vehicle, residence, or person. Miranda deals with interrogations (or in other words the legal questioning of a person suspected of a crime). It does not necessarily deal with searches.

 

Because in these refusal situations, where the alleged drunk refuses to give a breath specimen, the officer(s) will then advise him of the potential consequences of his refusal (i.e. loss of driver's license, charges anyway, etc.) and they still refuse, then the officer will prepare an affidavit for a search warrant, contact a judge who after reviewing the affidavit for probable cause will then issue the search warrant and then the blood sample will be taken.

 

A search warrant is an order from the court to do something. If a search warrant has been issued the person whom it has been issued against really has no option(s) to refuse the search. In other words, if we have a search warrnt for your home & you refuse to open the door - we kick it down...if we have a search warrant for your body (for blood) we can, if necessary, forcibly restrain you to obtain it.

 

Again, the best solution to never have to worry about this issue is to NOT DRIVE if you drink. Unfortunately, alot of people are TOO STUPID to understand that concept.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Miranda deals with custodial interrogations, so yes, because the officer will be asking questions and because the alleged drunk is in custody, he will have to advise the alleged drunk of his rights under the Miranda decision and the alleged drunk will have to waive them before the officer continues the questioning.

 

HOWEVER, ya'll are missing the point. The drawing of blood is an evidentiary event. It would be no different than if I had probable cause (PC, as HighRollin8s called it) and was conducting a search of your vehicle, residence, or person. Miranda deals with interrogations (or in other words the legal questioning of a person suspected of a crime). It does not necessarily deal with searches.

 

Because in these refusal situations, where the alleged drunk refuses to give a breath specimen, the officer(s) will then advise him of the potential consequences of his refusal (i.e. loss of driver's license, charges anyway, etc.) and they still refuse, then the officer will prepare an affidavit for a search warrant, contact a judge who after reviewing the affidavit for probable cause will then issue the search warrant and then the blood sample will be taken.

 

A search warrant is an order from the court to do something. If a search warrant has been issued the person whom it has been issued against really has no option(s) to refuse the search. In other words, if we have a search warrnt for your home & you refuse to open the door - we kick it down...if we have a search warrant for your body (for blood) we can, if necessary, forcibly restrain you to obtain it.

 

Again, the best solution to never have to worry about this issue is to NOT DRIVE if you drink. Unfortunately, alot of people are TOO STUPID to understand that concept.

 

The search of a person's property is quite a different matter than the search of a person's physical being. A concealed weapon or drug search would be quite within the limits of Constitutionality, since the clothing of the person, their property, is actually the object of the search. A cavity search for drugs and/or stolen property would also be Constitutional, since the object of the search is a foreign object introduced into the body by the individual. Forcible removal of a person's blood, which is a de facto element of the actual human body, is quite a different matter. And in complete violation of the 4th AND 5th amendments.

 

If we are not going to follow the rule book, we need to just dispose of it instead of illegitemately and fraudulently leaning upon it. To quote the movie Tombstone "Just wearing that badge don't make you right".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The search of a person's property is quite a different matter than the search of a person's physical being. A concealed weapon or drug search would be quite within the limits of Constitutionality, since the clothing of the person, their property, is actually the object of the search. A cavity search for drugs and/or stolen property would also be Constitutional, since the object of the search is a foreign object introduced into the body by the individual. Forcible removal of a person's blood, which is a de facto element of the actual human body, is quite a different matter. And in complete violation of the 4th AND 5th amendments.

 

If we are not going to follow the rule book, we need to just dispose of it instead of illegitemately and fraudulently leaning upon it. To quote the movie Tombstone "Just wearing that badge don't make you right".

 

Fivehead, my friend...you are mistaken on your understanding of the Constitution. The 4th amendment covers search and seizure (whether it is a baggie of marijuana in your pants pocket, a pistol under the seat of your car, a dead body under the floorboards of your home, OR even the blood that runs through your veins!).

 

It has nothing to do whether, as you said above, something foreign. If the officer has probable cause, which is the legal standard to conduct ANY SEARCH, AND if he obtains a search warrant to retrieve the blood from the body - then it IS A LEGAL SEARCH!

 

I have probably in my career sought & obtained hundred's of blood, hair, & body fluid search warrants (which in Texas are also known as Evidentiary Search Warrants, covered by Article 18.02 (10) of the Code of Criminal Procedures), most of them involving sexual assault, murder or capital murder cases and believe me - I know what I am talking about when it comes to search warrants.

 

Also, there is a Texas case that addresses this exact issue. It is the Beeman v Texas (2002), which is a case out of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest criminal court in Texas) which upheld the 8th Court of Appeals out of Midland's ruling -

 

After being charged with driving while intoxicated, Beeman unsuccessfully moved to suppress the blood test results, arguing that his rights had been violated under Texas Transportation Code Chapter 724, our implied consent law. Beeman then pled guilty under a plea bargain agreement. He appealed, arguing that since the requirements of the Transportation Code had not been met, the blood sample should have been suppressed. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that "Chapter 724 does not speak to the broader powers of a peace officer when, as here, that officer obtains a search warrant." (1) It stated that "[w]here a search warrant is secured, the question of the power of a peace officer in taking a specimen is left up to the Fourth Amendment . . ." (2) We granted Beeman's petition for discretionary review to address this issue.

In other words, the lower court allowed the use of the blood sample, which had been taken via a search warrant and used to convict him of DWI.

 

Beeman appealed the decision and the highest court in Texas ruled in it's conclusion (opinion)...

 

"The warrant authorized the seizure of Beeman's blood, and he does not contest the validity of the warrant. Compliance with the implied consent statute was not necessary to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, and the implied consent statute does not offer protection greater than the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."

 

In other words, if a search warrant was issued & the blood sample taken (even forcibly), then it is a moot issue whether the alleged drunk consented or not.

 

It is ALL evidence and it all falls under the 4th amendment NOT the 5th amendment. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fivehead, my friend...you are mistaken on your understanding of the Constitution. The 4th amendment coers search and seizure (whether it is a baggie of marijuana in your pants pocket, a pistol under the seat of your car, a dead body under the floorboards of your home, OR even the blood that runs through your veins!). It has nothing to do whether, as you said above, something foreign. If the officer has probable cause, which is the legal standard to conduct ANY SEARCH, AND if he obtains a search warrant to retrieve the blood from the body - then it IS LEGAL!

 

I have probably in my career sought & obtained hundred's of blood, hair, & body fluid search warrants (which in Texas are also known as Evidentiary Search Warrants, covered by Article 18.02 (10) of the Code of Criminal Procedures), most of them involving sexual assault, murder or capital murder cases and believe me - I know what I am talking about.

 

It is ALL evidence and it all falls under the 4th amendment NOT the 5th amendment. Period.

 

The key phrase here is "probable cause". A great many traffic stops are, as my friend the ex-cop attorney says, "BS stops". It is nearly impossible to operate a motor vehicle without giving some overzealous jack-booted skinhead "probable cause" to pull you over and shake you down. Among the most common "probable causes" for BS stops are driving while teen and driving while black.

 

You, sir, are mistaken. Legal does not mean Constitutional. There are literally tens of thousands of Unconstitutional laws currently being illegitimately enforced in this country. The invasion of and subsequent theft of a part of a citizen's body is not now, nor will it ever be supported by the Constitution.

 

As for the 5th amendment question, blood forcibly taken from a suspect constitutes self incrimination just as surely as testimony forcibly coerced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The key phrase here is "probable cause". A great many traffic stops are, as my friend the ex-cop attorney says, "BS stops". It is nearly impossible to operate a motor vehicle without giving some overzealous jack-booted skinhead "probable cause" to pull you over and shake you down. Among the most common "probable causes" for BS stops are driving while teen and driving while black.

 

You, sir, are mistaken. Legal does not mean Constitutional. There are literally tens of thousands of Unconstitutional laws currently being illegitimately enforced in this country. The invasion of and subsequent theft of a part of a citizen's body is not now, nor will it ever be supported by the Constitution.

 

As for the 5th amendment question, blood forcibly taken from a suspect constitutes self incrimination just as surely as testimony forcibly coerced.

 

How about a little common sense here, Five. If what you are suggesting were to be allowed, then it would be nearly impossible for anyone to ever be convicted of DWI. Police officers would be forced to let drunk drivers run free all over the roads without even stopping them. Is that really what we want? I don't think so.

 

Police officers(or jack-booted skinheads as you call them) have to have some way to do their jobs. Probable cause and a warrant should be all that is necessary to allow police to legally obtain the evidence needed to procecute someone for DWI. If they are not over the legal limit, then they will walk. Simple.

 

By the way, you really need to tone down your rhetoric. I have a very good friend who is a Tyler Police officer, and the fact that he shaves his head has nothing to do with him being over-zealous or a skinhead. Please don't let your fingers type faster than your brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The key phrase here is "probable cause". A great many traffic stops are, as my friend the ex-cop attorney says, "BS stops". It is nearly impossible to operate a motor vehicle without giving some overzealous jack-booted skinhead "probable cause" to pull you over and shake you down. Among the most common "probable causes" for BS stops are driving while teen and driving while black.

 

You, sir, are mistaken. Legal does not mean Constitutional. There are literally tens of thousands of Unconstitutional laws currently being illegitimately enforced in this country. The invasion of and subsequent theft of a part of a citizen's body is not now, nor will it ever be supported by the Constitution.

 

As for the 5th amendment question, blood forcibly taken from a suspect constitutes self incrimination just as surely as testimony forcibly coerced.

 

 

You know - once again, you just can't stop being WRONG WRONG WRONG....but then again, there is no use arguing with a fence post. What you obviously need to do is shut up and have another drink! You know the old saying about "Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"?

 

By the way, where ya gonna be drinkin' tonight? I've got some overzealous jack-booted skinhead friends that I am sure would love to show you first-hand how it IS legal to draw your blood!

 

Good day and happy (and Safe) New Year to All! Mrs. DieHard and I are off to celebrate our anniversary!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way, where ya gonna be drinkin' tonight? I've got some overzealous jack-booted skinhead friends that I am sure would love to show you first-hand how it IS legal to draw your blood!

Your side in this debate is usually decided by which car you are in. If you have teens, or have had a friend or loved one injured by an inebriated driver (even if it was them) you have to be on the side of law enforcement have at their disposal every possible tool. I tend to believe that mine(teens) are always innocent so lets get them (drinkers not just drunks)off of the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well lets let drunks run the road cause we dont wanna violate their civil right. retard

 

I've held off on a reply while I turned ideas over in my mind for a well thought out, pithy, intelligent reply. I have come to the conclusion that, when dealing with Special Olympians such as yourself I might as well save myself the trouble because your pitifully limited grasp of the language and of concepts more complex than what to eat at your next meal probably confuse and disorient you. Let me instead reply in terms you might understand.

 

It ain't about drinkin an drivin, #####. It's about the law takin your stuff without you sayin OK.

 

I'm sorry. I probably used too much punctuation and capitalization. I tried to misspell enough words to make you feel at home. Sorry, Corky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know - once again, you just can't stop being WRONG WRONG WRONG....but then again, there is no use arguing with a fence post. What you obviously need to do is shut up and have another drink! You know the old saying about "Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"?

 

By the way, where ya gonna be drinkin' tonight? I've got some overzealous jack-booted skinhead friends that I am sure would love to show you first-hand how it IS legal to draw your blood!

 

Good day and happy (and Safe) New Year to All! Mrs. DieHard and I are off to celebrate our anniversary!

 

The end justifies the means and to Hell with the Constitution. So be it. I'm not drinking, by the way. Just attempting to defend the intent of the founding fathers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Die Hard:

 

I deleted my previous post that occupied this space. It was coarse and vulgar, and I apologize to anyone who had the misfortune of having read it.

 

That having been said, I would like to express my extreme disappointment in your last post. You were sticking to the format and presenting intelligent arguments until then. You then lowered yourself to insults and threats out of the blue. I, for one, was taken aback. I have always considered you to be a voice of reason in a gulf of ignorance. You owe it to yourself to stick to reasoned argument and leave the lowbrow road to slobbering idiots like Sideliner, Tigger and Kevnasty with their 2 digit IQ's and 20 word vocabularies.

 

Yours,

Fivehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. - I certainly do not consider all police officers to be jack-booted skinhead thugs. Just the ones who ARE jack-booted skinhead thugs. The majority of police officers are hard-working underpaid public servants who valiantly serve. I refer to the cowboys who became officers in a desire to continue their role as school bullies and borderline criminals under the veil of legitimacy offered by a badge. The kind who get an erection when the words "click it or ticket" are whispered in their ear.

 

Those guys. Not the good guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've held off on a reply while I turned ideas over in my mind for a well thought out, pithy, intelligent reply. I have come to the conclusion that, when dealing with Special Olympians such as yourself I might as well save myself the trouble because your pitifully limited grasp of the language and of concepts more complex than what to eat at your next meal probably confuse and disorient you. Let me instead reply in terms you might understand.

 

It ain't about drinkin an drivin, #####. It's about the law takin your stuff without you sayin OK.

 

I'm sorry. I probably used too much punctuation and capitalization. I tried to misspell enough words to make you feel at home. Sorry, Corky.

 

Instant classic. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Die Hard - you keep thinking there are no dirty cops, the rest of us citizens will continue to know what's really happening out here in the real world....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Die Hard - you keep thinking there are no dirty cops, the rest of us citizens will continue to know what's really happening out here in the real world....

 

He never said that and doesn't believe that!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...