"no refusal" checkpoints
 

How can this be legal? What is the probable cause to stop someone just because they are driving a car.

Yeah, I'm not keen about people driving under the influence, but damned if I want to think that if someone mistakes my being a bit distracted while driving as being intoxicated that I could be FORCED to have blood drawn from me alongside the road. Do they have trained doctors and nurses there with them as well?

Talk about a perfect example of trading freedom for security... :rolleyes:

This crap is getting REAL ridiculous....

Wow, what a mess. I am really in favor of this law, but as you say we have to be concerned about our rights. I would like Shadow and other LEO's to comment. I find it hard to believe that some innocent guy would be convicted of DUI if indeed he was maybe just distracted or even just stopped at a check point.

If a person has been drinking and there is some doubt as to whether they are over the limit it seems to me if they're that close to being over then get them off the road. Have you ever driven on a two lane road and wondered if there was an impaired person driving the car coming at you? I have and it's a scary thought.

I have also been behind cars and it was obvious the driver was impaired and I don't hesitate to call 911 on the cell. I have no way of knowing if they're drunk, sick or just tired but they need to be stopped. The last one was on a two lane road and they were all over the place. The car swerved just in time to miss a bridge abutment and I really think the person would have been killed if they hit it.

A doctor or nurse is not a requirement to draw blood. The person just has to be trained and certified. I would be more concerned about who and how the blood is being tested.

This is the first I've heard of it, and would like to know exactly which counties are operating this way, and for how long?

It violates the basic premise of both the 4th:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_...s_Constitution

and 5th amendment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_A...s_Constitution

against self incrimination and unlawful search & seizure.

Driving is a priviledge, one that can and will be revoked for non-compliance with the law (failure to submit to a lawful test...); however, I don't find anywhere in the statute, where having a judge on scene or otherwise, exempts law enforcement from the responsibility to act within the constitution!

If the suspected DUI driver were involved in a fatal or serious injury crash, then there is a provision for forced compliance by a qualified professional.

I suspect if they attempt to move forward with such chit in this county, they'll find themselves in the losing end of an expensive (read that taxpayer funded) lawsuit(s).
I also expect to see cases either dismissed prior to trial by another judge (one with some fecking sense!) or overturned on appeal at a higher level.

As others have said, I'm all for DUI enforcement.
Hell, I'm all for devised installed in cars that identify the driver and restrict your ability to start the vehicle above a certain BAC.

But I'm NOT willing to throw aside my constitutional right, for ANY reason, in tha name of safety or security....and for the record, I've been the VICTIM of a drunk driver caused crash.

The courts have once again overstepped thier authority (IMO) and when identified, the judges involved should be protested and as citizens, we should campaign to have them removed from office.

If the Sheriff or Chief of Police condone this blatant act of impropiety, then we as citizens, have a constitutional responsibility to work diligently to see that they have the ability to draw thier unemployment come next election if not sooner.
In the case of a Chief, the Mayor needs to go!

...just my humble opinion of course:D

I guess I don't understand what you're saying so I'm going to disagree for now. :D

If you're on duty and pull over a suspected intoxicated driver don't you tell them they have to take a breathalyzer test? If they refuse don't you take them to jail? And then to court? See where I'm going with this?

Looks to me like they're just expediting the process.

Heck, I've seen idiots TEXTING on their cell phones while driving and they were all over the damned road. Either there is an awful lot of mid day drunk-ons around here, or it is merely the incidence of cell phone distractions while driving has greatly increased. I have been behind cars where it was obvious the driver was searching around for their cell phone, even trying to look under the PASSENGER seat while driving down the road! :ack2: I could PLAINLY see this through the back window of the vehicles. Matter of fact, I would have to say that drivers impaired by using their cell phones while driving are just as much of a danger, if not more so, than drivers impaired by consuming alcohol, simply because of the greater prevalence of this problem. The later is dangerous because alcohol impairs judgement and concentration. The former is dangerous because cell phones impair attention and concentration (as well as judgement, in that only a damned fool would do stunts like mentioned above searching for their cell phone).

And you have NO idea how much it tweaks my butt to have to think that it would be highly hypocritical of me to say on one hand that drivers shouldn't be pulled from their cars and FORCED to have blood tests undertaken alongside the road for the sake of safety, but then on the other hand to make a statement that using cell phones in a moving automobile should be banned for safety reasons.... :banghead: But I sure can THINK it... :rant:

Scenario: On duty officer observes a "suspected" impaired driver.
Establishes enough PC to effect a traffic stop.

Fast forward....Standard questions, blah blah blah...SFT's...fails.

You request that they submit to an approved test for intoxication.
They refuse.
You advise them that they have no right to refuse and that thier driving priviledge will be suspended as a result of said failure.
They again refuse.

Assuming you have enough at this point, arrest, charge, issue another citation for failure to submit, take DL.

Blood draw is not allowed in less than a fatality or serious injury crash.
They still have the right not to incriminate themselves and we still do not have the right to force a blood draw (effectively a search).

Where law enforcement and the courts are attempting to subvert the issues, is by having a judge on scene to witness the events, establish PC, and sign a "search warrant" for the blood.

I don't like the smell of this, and it still violates a citizens right against self incrimination.

Searches and the warrants required, were meant for criminal cases, not criminal traffic!

Clearer now?

To clarify, "Technically" they're probably right by doing it this way.
Procedurally, it's gray.
Constitutionally, I think it circumvents the intent.
And overall, sets a terrible precedent for future intrusions into your life.

You're so smart. :lmao:

Yes, it's clear now and I appreciate the lesson. I thought a person had to submit to a blood test but in fact they're rewriting the rule book or I should say trying to rewrite the rule book. I could look into this further but I won't.

I think what irritated me the most about this thread is that I read attorneys specialize in defending DUI. I guess it's just a personal problem.

I think we all understand that part. Every day we just keep getting more crap forced on us and we'll never see the end of that. We could go several hours on this subject. I need to hit the sack.

Thanks bud. :thumbsup: