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

No Refusal DWI Laws

Recommended Posts

Sobriety Checkpoints are a bigger violation of our rights than the IC laws. This is the one that we all need to be fighting tooth and nail!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bleeds
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.

 

DHCF has already spoken to that and in effect says you're wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bleeds
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.

 

Let me clarify. I'm not argueing one side or the other. I was merely asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sobriety Checkpoints are a bigger violation of our rights than the IC laws. This is the one that we all need to be fighting tooth and nail!!!

 

Why would sober drivers fight this?

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 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!).

I've been thinking about this for a couple of days now, and I have some questions.

 

I can live quite nicely without a baggie of marijuana in my pants pocket, without a pistol under the seat of my car, even without that pesky dead body under the floorboards of my home. But without the blood running through my veins, I'm going to have a hard time getting by.

 

One thing common to these first three items: It's not a sure thing that they're actually there. Thus the term: "Search Warrant".

 

Blood is different from those other things both in type and in kind. Unless I'm very, very special, it's almost a sure thing that blood moves through my veins. And, that blood is in fact living tissue, as fivehead said; a defacto element of the human body.

 

What the police officer is actually looking for, and probably what the warrant is actually written for, is alcohol, which may or may not be present. The problem with this is that unless a breathalizer can be used, living tissue must be removed from the body for testing.

 

That removing a quantity of blood is done regularly without obvious harm is significant, but not really pertinent to the discussion. If it were required to show evidence, could the judge demand the seizure of my gall bladder? A kidney? A tooth? A biopsy from my colon? What exactly are the limits on what a judge can demand in the current configuration of the law? Can he require with "just" cause the removal of anything that I can probably live without? (scare quotes intended)

 

And how, exactly did the law come to be configured this way? It's worth noting that 'blood warrants' haven't been approved by the legislature. They are entirely a product of an active judiciary.

 

I'm asking these questions because I'm interested and I want to know the answer. In no way should anyone construe these questions to mean that I advocate or even tolerate driving under the influence of alcohol or any other intoxicating substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Stuff:

 

§ 724.013. PROHIBITION ON TAKING SPECIMEN IF PERSON REFUSES; EXCEPTION. 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.

 

From the Texas Constitution:

 

In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall... not be compelled to give

evidence against himself

 

Link to the website of some criminal attorney with lots of arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

§ 724.012

(b) 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 a 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 as a direct result of the accident:

 

(A) any individual has died or will die; or

 

(B) an individual other than the person has suffered serious bodily injury; and

 

(4) the person refuses the officer's request to submit to the taking of a specimen voluntarily.

 

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/...0.000724.00.htm

 

So, by LEGISLATED law, to compel the taking of blood, there has to have been an arrest involving the operation of a motor vehicle or watercraft, there has to have been an accident believed by the peace officer to have been caused by intoxication, someone has to have died or suffered serious bodily injury, and the guilty bastage has to have refused to give a sample.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your research, AB. You, Bleeds and I are right. The rest of you are wrong.

 

Nonny nonny boo boo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would sober drivers fight this?

 

Because we don't want this to turn into a Nazi state. If I have a beer or a glass of wine with my dinner, I could be drug through the entire process just to end up testing .02. If I blow .02, I'm legal, but my car has already been towed, and a significant amount of my time has been wasted.

 

It's not against the law to have a beer or two and drive home. It is against the law to get plastered and drive home--to put yourself or others in harm's way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because we don't want this to turn into a Nazi state. If I have a beer or a glass of wine with my dinner, I could be drug through the entire process just to end up testing .02. If I blow .02, I'm legal, but my car has already been towed, and a significant amount of my time has been wasted.

 

It's not against the law to have a beer or two and drive home. It is against the law to get plastered and drive home--to put yourself or others in harm's way.

 

Then blow your .02 and go on. Quite a process, huh?

 

BTW... regardless of how many you drink, if it puts you over .08, it's against the law to drive anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bleeds
Because we don't want this to turn into a Nazi state. If I have a beer or a glass of wine with my dinner, I could be drug through the entire process just to end up testing .02. If I blow .02, I'm legal, but my car has already been towed, and a significant amount of my time has been wasted.

 

It's not against the law to have a beer or two and drive home. It is against the law to get plastered and drive home--to put yourself or others in harm's way.

 

 

I'm calling bravo sierra. Doesn't make sense that the officer's first action would be to arrest you, then impound your car, then haul you to a hospital, wait on a warrant, then draw the blood to see if you are drunk.

 

I'm thinking he's first, if you give him reason to believe you were drunk, conduct a field sobriety test. If you've only had a couple of glasses of wine as you say, you're go to go "Thanks for cooperating. Sorry for the inconvenience. Have a nice evening."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bleeds

For reference purposes:

 

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.

 

The Fourth Amendment to the COTUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For reference purposes:

 

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.

 

The Fourth Amendment to the COTUS.

 

That's it. Those who are able to read and comprehend can see that this is blatantly unconstitutional. The argument is settled and anyone who speaks against it henceforth only proves their ignorance.

 

In summary: 1. Don't drink and drive. It's bad.

2. Even though it's bad, the police have absoultely no constitutional authority to remove part of your body.

 

The end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm calling bravo sierra. Doesn't make sense that the officer's first action would be to arrest you, then impound your car, then haul you to a hospital, wait on a warrant, then draw the blood to see if you are drunk.

 

I'm thinking he's first, if you give him reason to believe you were drunk, conduct a field sobriety test. If you've only had a couple of glasses of wine as you say, you're go to go "Thanks for cooperating. Sorry for the inconvenience. Have a nice evening."

 

It depends on the officer. Sober people can fail field sobriety tests. Can you say your abc's backwards? The FS test that carries the most credence is the eye twitch test (not sure of the name). But even a person who has had a couple of beers can twitch.

 

It is a very realistic scenario that you could roll up on a checkpoint, have a little bit of alcohol in your system, be nervous, and subsequently be arrested by an overzealous rookie cop that is needing to show a supervisor that he can do a DUI stop. Not to mention the other citations that could be generated without probable cause (inspections, seatbelts, open containers, etc). These checkpoints are just as illegal as drinking and driving. They violate our constitution. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bleeds
It depends on the officer. Sober people can fail field sobriety tests. Can you say your abc's backwards? The FS test that carries the most credence is the eye twitch test (not sure of the name). But even a person who has had a couple of beers can twitch.

 

It is a very realistic scenario that you could roll up on a checkpoint, have a little bit of alcohol in your system, be nervous, and subsequently be arrested by an overzealous rookie cop that is needing to show a supervisor that he can do a DUI stop. Not to mention the other citations that could be generated without probable cause (inspections, seatbelts, open containers, etc). These checkpoints are just as illegal as drinking and driving. They violate our constitution. Period.

 

 

No. It's not very realistic. If you failed a FS, you would probably be asked to blow prior to going through the situation you made up.

 

The points you added that might be generated are also not realistic. If you maintain your vehicle, inspections are not a concern. If you are abiding by the law, and wearing your seatbelt, you have no worries. Why would you have open containers in your car if you're not drinking and driving?

 

Show me how checkpoints are illegal. Site case law, statute and precedence. It would seem your imagination is getting a little "creative", not unlike it did in a certain gun debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends on the officer. Sober people can fail field sobriety tests. Can you say your abc's backwards? The FS test that carries the most credence is the eye twitch test (not sure of the name). But even a person who has had a couple of beers can twitch.

 

It is a very realistic scenario that you could roll up on a checkpoint, have a little bit of alcohol in your system, be nervous, and subsequently be arrested by an overzealous rookie cop that is needing to show a supervisor that he can do a DUI stop. Not to mention the other citations that could be generated without probable cause (inspections, seatbelts, open containers, etc). These checkpoints are just as illegal as drinking and driving. They violate our constitution. Period.

 

Very, very flemsy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. It's not very realistic. If you failed a FS, you would probably be asked to blow prior to going through the situation you made up.

 

The points you added that might be generated are also not realistic. If you maintain your vehicle, inspections are not a concern. If you are abiding by the law, and wearing your seatbelt, you have no worries. Why would you have open containers in your car if you're not drinking and driving?

 

Why give up your civil liberties? Nazi State!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bleeds

Why does being required to abide by seat belt laws, laws requiring inspection of your vehicke and laws prohibitting open containers of alcohol in your vehicle while driving make this a Nazi state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is all done with a search warrant. The same thing that allows me to search your house. If I have probable cause to believe you are intoxicated while driving, I can go to a judge, swear an oath as to the truth, then get a search warrant to obtain the evidence.

 

And yes, I've done it and yes, i can hold you down and get the blood whether you like it or not. I think so, Tim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does being required to abide by seat belt laws, laws requiring inspection of your vehicke and laws prohibitting open containers of alcohol in your vehicle while driving make this a Nazi state?

 

Not to get off topic, bleeds...

 

Weren't you against click it or ticket because it violates our right of personal responsibility and that we should be the ones to decide whether or not we want to wear a seatbelt?

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

Now say you refused to give a speciman, who takes the blood: a local hospital, county hospital/clinic etc?

 

I would be leary about getting a blood sample taken from people that have NO medical history about me. Every year I have a blood sample as well as a physical around February of every year to check my health and at least the medical staff has records of my history.

 

And to conclude, don't drink & drive and you won't be put in that situation. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bleeds
Not to get off topic, bleeds...

 

Weren't you against click it or ticket because it violates our right of personal responsibility and that we should be the ones to decide whether or not we want to wear a seatbelt?

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

Now say you refused to give a speciman, who takes the blood: a local hospital, county hospital/clinic etc?

 

I would be leary about getting a blood sample taken from people that have NO medical history about me. Every year I have a blood sample as well as a physical around February of every year to check my health and at least the medical staff has records of my history.

 

And to conclude, don't drink & drive and you won't be put in that situation. :thumbsup:

 

I never said I refused to give blood.

 

I am a huge advocate of seatbelts. I know first-hand they save lives. I also believe we should be allowed to decide whether or not we wear them. But we are not. So the law is the law.

 

Being against forced compliance does not mean I'm against seatbelts. I know the law has saved lives. Doesn't mean I believe the government should have its nose in my business.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bleeds
It is all done with a search warrant. The same thing that allows me to search your house. If I have probable cause to believe you are intoxicated while driving, I can go to a judge, swear an oath as to the truth, then get a search warrant to obtain the evidence.

 

And yes, I've done it and yes, i can hold you down and get the blood whether you like it or not. I think so, Tim.

 

 

I bet you can't hold me down.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is all done with a search warrant. The same thing that allows me to search your house. If I have probable cause to believe you are intoxicated while driving, I can go to a judge, swear an oath as to the truth, then get a search warrant to obtain the evidence.

 

And yes, I've done it and yes, i can hold you down and get the blood whether you like it or not. I think so, Tim.

 

Remember the jackbooted skinhead thugs I referred to earlier?

 

Case in point. School bully all grown up.

 

By the way, take off that badge and I'll snap your neck like a stack of dimes, porky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is all done with a search warrant. The same thing that allows me to search your house. If I have probable cause to believe you are intoxicated while driving, I can go to a judge, swear an oath as to the truth, then get a search warrant to obtain the evidence.

 

And yes, I've done it and yes, i can hold you down and get the blood whether you like it or not. I think so, Tim.

Good for you. Now, answer my questions. They weren't for you in particular, but you showed up. Read back and find them. Tim.

 

Questions are here.

 

I don't think you could hold me down either. Maybe now, just not usually. Of course, like Ron White, I know how many police officers would be used to hold me down.

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...