No Refusal DWI Laws

[Guest bleeds]

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.

 

 

[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 don't think so Tim.

 

You'll have to do it to prove to me you can.

[Fivehead]

Once again, I have nothing but respect for the brave men in blue who put their lives on the line every day to protect we citizens from the lower reaches of society who threaten our safety. Five-O seems to be the exception rather than the rule. He is the exception that proves the rule. He is displeased with my response, so his immediate reaction is to issue a threat. Rather than react negatively, I should have pity on him. He obviously feels threatened by a superior intellect. His first response is to lash out primitively with violence. I should expect no more from a man whose previous avatar was an image of a man in his pajamas being pepper sprayed into submission.

[BluePirate]

Who's Tim? :blink:

[Five0pd310]

I don't know who Tim is, I was just responding to his post on the first page of this thread where he didn't think Tim could hold him down. Anyway, if he had any reading comprehension he would know that I did not threaten anyone. I was trying to be humorous but some people love to feel that they are victimized. Also, there have been many people who have said they would not be held down. They learned they were wrong. Every one of them. They also earned an extra charge of resisting search, a class A misdemeanor. Most of the time that is a higher offenser than the DWI itself.

[Five0pd310]

Once again, I have nothing but respect for the brave men in blue who put their lives on the line every day to protect we citizens from the lower reaches of society who threaten our safety. Five-O seems to be the exception rather than the rule. He is the exception that proves the rule. He is displeased with my response, so his immediate reaction is to issue a threat. Rather than react negatively, I should have pity on him. He obviously feels threatened by a superior intellect. His first response is to lash out primitively with violence. I should expect no more from a man whose previous avatar was an image of a man in his pajamas being pepper sprayed into submission.

 

 

I guess if the guy in the jammies had been beaten into submission it would have looked better?

 

If you don't like me because I operate within the laws that your elected officials have set up, then that is your problem, not mine. You obviously know nothing about me or how I stand. Yes, I agree that search warrants are needed in our society in order to enforce the law. You don't. Big deal. Why do you have to degrade me because of it?

 

PS - I don't need your pity. Save it for the victims of drunk drivers.

[DLine06]

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.

 

Yeah that's what I was meaning to get at. I fully understand what your saying.

[Fivehead]

I guess if the guy in the jammies had been beaten into submission it would have looked better?

 

If you don't like me because I operate within the laws that your elected officials have set up, then that is your problem, not mine. You obviously know nothing about me or how I stand. Yes, I agree that search warrants are needed in our society in order to enforce the law. You don't. Big deal. Why do you have to degrade me because of it?

 

PS - I don't need your pity. Save it for the victims of drunk drivers.

 

I just think that if your initial reaction is a threat you are a bully.

 

Shed that badge and let's see if you can hold me down, Rambo. My money's on me.

[Five0pd310]

Answer this....

 

If I have probable cause to believe John Doe has crack cocaine in his house and I can convince a judge of that. Should I be able to get a search warrant to search his house?

[Five0pd310]

I just think that if your initial reaction is a threat you are a bully.

 

Shed that badge and let's see if you can hold me down, Rambo. My money's on me.

 

 

Show me where I threatened to do anything to you. You said you couldn't be held down, I said you could. If mine is a threat then yours would be too. You're the one trying to show everyone how "tough" you are by cahllenging me to a fight. You sound like the bully to me. An internet bully, that is.

[BluePirate]

Did I mention that I hate drunk drivers?

 

[DLine06]

Answer this....

 

If I have probable cause to believe John Doe has crack cocaine in his house and I can convince a judge of that. Should I be able to get a search warrant to search his house?

 

I think your comparing apples to oranges.

 

It's 1 thing to search a person's house, vehicle and etc. What some are having a tough time with is being forced to give up a blood sample after your refusal. Searching a guy's body internally for alcohol or drugs inside them is a lot more personal and I doubt the founding fathers had ever thought to deal with this.

[Immortal13]

I just think that if your initial reaction is a threat you are a bully.

 

Shed that badge and let's see if you can hold me down, Rambo. My money's on me.

[applebutter]

I guess if the guy in the jammies had been beaten into submission it would have looked better?

 

If you don't like me because I operate within the laws that your elected officials have set up, then that is your problem, not mine. You obviously know nothing about me or how I stand. Yes, I agree that search warrants are needed in our society in order to enforce the law. You don't. Big deal. Why do you have to degrade me because of it?

 

PS - I don't need your pity. Save it for the victims of drunk drivers.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, our elected representatives had absolutely nothing to do with blood warrants issued for anyone a peace officer believes is driving while intoxicated. They do allow for the taking of a blood sample in very specific circumstances.

 

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.

 

§ 724.012 and § 724.013

 

If you have taken blood using a warrant for any situation not defined by the four requirements given above, then you have violated the laws my elected officials have set up. Instead, if you have done this, you are working for judicial activists, not the law.

 

[applebutter]

FiveO, DHCF, I really would like answers to my questions. I want to knwo where the ability of a judge to demand that living tissue be removed from my person ends.

 

Can a judge, if the need for evidence warrants, require that my finger be removed? A testicle? A toe? These things have a lot more in common with blood than they do with a bag of pot hidden behind a picture.

 

I did a better job spelling out the questions before, but nobody seems to want to answer them.

[Five0pd310]

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.

 

§ 724.012 and § 724.013

 

If you have taken blood using a warrant for any situation not defined by the four requirements given above, then you have violated the laws my elected officials have set up. Instead, if you have done this, you are working for judicial activists, not the law.

 

That gives officials the right to take blood WITHOUT the assistance of a search warrant. It has nothing to do with this.

 

The issue we are talking about is getting an evidentuary search warrant for evidence.

[Five0pd310]

FiveO, DHCF, I really would like answers to my questions. I want to knwo where the ability of a judge to demand that living tissue be removed from my person ends.

 

Can a judge, if the need for evidence warrants, require that my finger be removed? A testicle? A toe? These things have a lot more in common with blood than they do with a bag of pot hidden behind a picture.

 

I did a better job spelling out the questions before, but nobody seems to want to answer them.

 

Nope. In my opinion a judge can not order the removal of your fingers for evidence, but he can order you to give your fingerprints. He can not order you to remove your testicle, but he can order you to give a DNA samplefor sperm. He can not order you to remove your heart, but he can order you to give a specimen of your blood.

 

 

Please don't tell me you don't see any differences in these actions.

[Guest bleeds]

Nope. In my opinion a judge can not order the removal of your fingers for evidence, but he can order you to give your fingerprints. He can not order you to remove your testicle, but he can order you to give a DNA samplefor sperm. He can not order you to remove your heart, but he can order you to give a specimen of your blood.

 

 

Please don't tell me you don't see any differences in these actions.

 

 

Wow. Big difference in taking a fingerprint and invasively removing blood.

 

But the thing that jumps out at me on this post is the thing about "He can not order you to remove your testicle, but he can order you to give a DNA samplefor sperm."

 

Due to your wording, I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Break that down for us.

 

BTW, without the help of your little buddy Mr. Pepper Spray, I still don't think you can hold me down.

[OBTS]

Applebutter sounds like he's read NEXT by Michael Crichton.

[applebutter]

Nope. In my opinion a judge can not order the removal of your fingers for evidence, but he can order you to give your fingerprints. He can not order you to remove your testicle, but he can order you to give a DNA samplefor sperm. He can not order you to remove your heart, but he can order you to give a specimen of your blood.

 

 

Please don't tell me you don't see any differences in these actions.

Tell me why removing some living tissue is allowable and some isn't. I never mentioned anything that would cause a sure death. Removing the heart was never mentioned by anyone but you.

 

Don't ask me to answer my own question. Justify the taking of blood samples by force, in cases where it IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY LAW.

[DieHardCubFan]

FiveO, DHCF, I really would like answers to my questions. I want to knwo where the ability of a judge to demand that living tissue be removed from my person ends.

 

Can a judge, if the need for evidence warrants, require that my finger be removed? A testicle? A toe? These things have a lot more in common with blood than they do with a bag of pot hidden behind a picture.

 

I did a better job spelling out the questions before, but nobody seems to want to answer them.

 

 

AB, if you would read my earlier replies (somewhere in pages 2-4) you would see that in Texas (and I would imagine all other states) a peace officer who has probable cause and requests a search warrant from a qualified magistrate, that the peace office IS able to obtain a blood sample using the search warrant.

 

AB, as Five-O mentioned, the Statutes you keep referring are moot issues when an officer obtains a probable cause search warrant. As I noted way back in this tpic, it is the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter # 18 sepcifically, that covers the issuance of search warrants and overrides the statute you are referring to (as the court case I cited some time also determines.

 

And under this statute (which was created by the legislature way back when) there is essentially only one thing (believe it or not) that I am unable to get a search warrant for....that would be the "personal writings of the accused." In other words, I can not get a search warrant for the diary you keep on how and why you plan on killing your parents, rob the local bank, etc.

 

Here is a couple of sections of CCP Chapter 18:

 

Art. 18.01. SEARCH WARRANT. (a) A "search warrant" is a written order, issued by a magistrate and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for any property or thing and to seize the same and bring it before such magistrate or commanding him to search for and photograph a child and to deliver to the magistrate any of the film exposed pursuant to the order....

 

Art. 18.02. GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE. A search warrant may be issued to search for and seize:

 

(1) property acquired by theft or in any other manner which makes its acquisition a penal offense;

(2) property specially designed, made, or adapted for or commonly used in the commission of an offense;

(3) arms and munitions kept or prepared for the purposes of insurrection or riot;

(4) weapons prohibited by the Penal Code;

(5) gambling devices or equipment, altered gambling equipment, or gambling paraphernalia;

(6) obscene materials kept or prepared for commercial distribution or exhibition, subject to the additional rules set forth by law;

(7) a drug, controlled substance, immediate precursor, chemical precursor, or other controlled substance property, including an apparatus or paraphernalia kept, prepared, or manufactured in violation of the laws of this state;

(8) any property the possession of which is prohibited by law;

(9) implements or instruments used in the commission of a crime;

(10) property or items, except the personal writings by the accused, constituting evidence of an offense or constituting evidence tending to show that a particular person committed an offense;(11) persons; or

(12) contraband subject to forfeiture under Chapter 59 of this code

 

These warrants are, as I described some time back, known as Evidentiary Search Warrants, and becausethe alcohol content in the your blood would constitute evidence tending to show that you committed a crime, then a search warrant can be issued.

 

And no, a judge would not be able to issue a search warrant to cut off one of your fingers or one of your testicles. He could order a sample of your blood, saliva, hairs (the important issue would be the part of the hair inside the skin, not the visible stand outside) and even semen. This is long and well established by state law, case law and appellate laws.

 

HOWEVER, just so you know, lets say if you have a bullet from a gun inside you from the homeowner that shot you after you broke into their home and you deny any involvement and/or knowledge of the burglary, that a judge could (and has on several occassions - and the search warrant, search, and conviction has withstood court challenges) issue a search warrant and a court order for a surgeon to perform surgery on the burglar to remove the bullet, as it is evidence.

 

And OBTS, I am surprised by some of your (and several others here on SDC) comments about drinking, driving and especially police officers (i.e Nazis, etc.). And actually you are incorrect about having a couple of drinks and blowing .02% BAC and being released. The .08% blood alcohol contact (BAC) is the statutory minimum that is prima facie evidence of intoxication. You can be convicted for an amount less than .08% BAC. In otherwords, with a BAC of .08% or higher, it is presumed you are intoxicated. Something less than that, you can still be proven to be intoxicated by other means.

 

And finally to Fivehead, if there was something that I said that offended you I sincerely apologize. However, I have looked back on all of my posts and found nothing that is offensive......and NOTHING that would be as offensive as many of the comments you have made about police officers (and I'd be glad to copy your many posts...i.e. "jack-booted thugs, et al to prove my point).

 

You gentlemen have a good day.

[Guest bleeds]

DHCF, you have instructed us that we forfeit our rights to not incriminate ourselves when we get our license. In fact, unless I read you wrong, you have insinuated we are forced to do so in order to obtain our license. Can a case be made that we are forced to agree to that under duress?

 

Here's my take. If I am drunk and drive and am stopped, I have evidence in my veins that would prove my intoxication. Under duress, I have agreed a judge can order the taking of that evidence to prove my guilt. I have no choice but to submit or have it forcefully taken.

 

Second scenario. I murder someone. I have evidence in my mind that could be used to convict me. But, given the 4th Amendment, I can't be compelled to forfeit that evidence, as it would be self-incrimination. What is the difference? Both are evidence. Both are in my body. Both could be used to convict me of each respective crime.

 

I know what the law says. You've made that clear. My take is, as with seperation of church/state and abortion, activist judges have bastardized the wording and intent of the COTUS in order to make it easier to further an agenda, this one being the obliteration of our COTUS rights to non-self-incrimination.

 

BTW, the image of jack-booted thugs wearing badges is furthered by comments made by Five0 in this and other forums regarding use of force, and his enjoyment thereof. If you would like, I can quote one from another forum where he was expressing great enthusiasm in using force, and the promise to do it to those of us who might find ourselves in a compromising situation in his jurisdiction.

 

Bottom line. Just because it is law doesn't make it 1) right, or 2) constitutional.

[BluePirate]

And OBTS, I am surprised by some of your (and several others here on SDC) comments about drinking, driving and especially police officers (i.e Nazis, etc.). And actually you are incorrect about having a couple of drinks and blowing .02% BAC and being released. The .08% blood alcohol contact (BAC) is the statutory minimum that is prima facie evidence of intoxication. You can be convicted for an amount less than .08% BAC. In otherwords, with a BAC of .08% or higher, it is presumed you are intoxicated. Something less than that, you can still be proven to be intoxicated by other means.

 

DHCF... I know the zero tolerance law applies to anyone under 21, in that it's illegal to drive with any detectable amount of alcohol, but does that apply to everyone now?

[applebutter]

AB, if you would read my earlier replies (somewhere in pages 2-4) you would see that in Texas (and I would imagine all other states) a peace officer who has probable cause and requests a search warrant from a qualified magistrate, that the peace office IS able to obtain a blood sample using the search warrant.

 

AB, as Five-O mentioned, the Statutes you keep referring are moot issues when an officer obtains a probable cause search warrant. As I noted way back in this tpic, it is the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter # 18 sepcifically, that covers the issuance of search warrants and overrides the statute you are referring to (as the court case I cited some time also determines.

 

And under this statute (which was created by the legislature way back when) there is essentially only one thing (believe it or not) that I am unable to get a search warrant for....that would be the "personal writings of the accused." In other words, I can not get a search warrant for the diary you keep on how and why you plan on killing your parents, rob the local bank, etc.

 

Here is a couple of sections of CCP Chapter 18:

 

Art. 18.01. SEARCH WARRANT. (a) A "search warrant" is a written order, issued by a magistrate and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for any property or thing and to seize the same and bring it before such magistrate or commanding him to search for and photograph a child and to deliver to the magistrate any of the film exposed pursuant to the order....

 

Art. 18.02. GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE. A search warrant may be issued to search for and seize:

 

(1) property acquired by theft or in any other manner which makes its acquisition a penal offense;

(2) property specially designed, made, or adapted for or commonly used in the commission of an offense;

(3) arms and munitions kept or prepared for the purposes of insurrection or riot;

(4) weapons prohibited by the Penal Code;

(5) gambling devices or equipment, altered gambling equipment, or gambling paraphernalia;

(6) obscene materials kept or prepared for commercial distribution or exhibition, subject to the additional rules set forth by law;

(7) a drug, controlled substance, immediate precursor, chemical precursor, or other controlled substance property, including an apparatus or paraphernalia kept, prepared, or manufactured in violation of the laws of this state;

(8) any property the possession of which is prohibited by law;

(9) implements or instruments used in the commission of a crime;

(10) property or items, except the personal writings by the accused, constituting evidence of an offense or constituting evidence tending to show that a particular person committed an offense;(11) persons; or

(12) contraband subject to forfeiture under Chapter 59 of this code

 

These warrants are, as I described some time back, known as Evidentiary Search Warrants, and becausethe alcohol content in the your blood would constitute evidence tending to show that you committed a crime, then a search warrant can be issued.

 

And no, a judge would not be able to issue a search warrant to cut off one of your fingers or one of your testicles. He could order a sample of your blood, saliva, hairs (the important issue would be the part of the hair inside the skin, not the visible stand outside) and even semen. This is long and well established by state law, case law and appellate laws.

 

HOWEVER, just so you know, lets say if you have a bullet from a gun inside you from the homeowner that shot you after you broke into their home and you deny any involvement and/or knowledge of the burglary, that a judge could (and has on several occassions - and the search warrant, search, and conviction has withstood court challenges) issue a search warrant and a court order for a surgeon to perform surgery on the burglar to remove the bullet, as it is evidence.

 

...

Okay, at least this is an answer. I never suggested that the blood warrants were authorized by the statutes I listed. I did say that those statutes prohibited the taking of blood by force except in very narrow circumstance, and I'll stand by that.

 

A couple of points on Article 18.02. None of the specific definitions describe living tissue. The blood was not stolen, it wasn't designed for crime, only in rare instances can it be considered a weapon. It's not for gambling, usually it's not considered obscene, it's not a drug, and so far, it's not illegal to possess. It's not a crime implement like a prybar. And it's not contraband. If you squint just right, and you really, really want it to mean that, you can force (10) to fit. I do not believe the legislature had forcible removal of part of a living organ to fit in with things other than "writings of the accused". This item is included, I think, to exclude things that may be considered testimony. But the Constitution of the State of Texas prohibits the forced surrender of EVIDENCE by the accused. I gave the quote earlier.

 

The peace officer is not searching for blood. Any reasonable person would suspect that there is actually blood in any given random vein. But the posession of blood is not prohibited in any way. The peace officer is looking for alcohol. But, in order to use a method that involves the removal of blood, living tissue will be removed and killed. This is not the same as taking fingernail clippings. It's not the same as cutting hair or taking a DNA sample by swabbing the lining of the mouth.

 

Finally, you really didn't show me any limits that prohibit judges from removing any organ from my body that I can live without. If a judge can decide to override a statute for the convenience of the court, that establishes a standard. That standard can be used to require me to surrender my gall bladder or a biopsy of my colon, if that furthers the legal process. I have no idea what specific circumstance would require such an action. But I can't say it's not possible, and neither can you. The statute I listed covers this subject explicitly, and the implicit coverage by 18.02 is a pretty weak argument to steal parts of my body from me.

 

It should be noted that none of these arguments apply to breath analysis. When I breath out, I'm done with that air and anything carried with it.

[OBTS]

DHCF...check your U2U.