Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob K
I guess I don't understand what you're saying so I'm going to disagree for now. 
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. |
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?