[Shadow]

Originally Posted by Bob K

You're so smart.

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.

Yeah, I'm a real fecking genius
Seriously though, I don't want anyone to misunderstand my statement.
Pursuant to Florida Statute, we as licensed drivers have no right
to refuseany test authorized by the state to determine a level of intoxication while operating a motor vehicle:

316.192:

(1)(a)1.a.Any person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by so operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved chemical test or physical test including, but not limited to, an infrared light test of his or her breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood or breath if the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages.

316.1932 (2)

(c)Any person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved blood test for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of the blood or a blood test for the purpose of determining the presence of chemical substances or controlled substances as provided in this section if there is reasonable cause to believe the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or chemical or controlled substances and the person appears for treatment at a hospital, clinic, or other medical facility and the administration of a breath or urine test is impractical or impossible. As used in this paragraph, the term “other medical facility” includes an ambulance or other medical emergency vehicle. The blood test shall be performed in a reasonable manner. Any person who is incapable of refusal by reason of unconsciousness or other mental or physical condition is deemed not to have withdrawn his or her consent to such test. A blood test may be administered whether or not the person is told that his or her failure to submit to such a blood test will result in the suspension of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state and that a refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her blood, if his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended for refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, urine, or blood, is a misdemeanor. Any person who is capable of refusal shall be told that his or her failure to submit to such a blood test will result in the suspension of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 1 year for a first refusal, or for a period of 18 months if the driving privilege of the person has been suspended previously as a result of a refusal to submit to such a test or tests, and that a refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her blood, if his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended for a prior refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, urine, or blood, is a misdemeanor. The refusal to submit to a blood test upon the request of a law enforcement officer is admissible in evidence in any criminal proceeding.

316.1933(Reasonable force to obtain blood sample)

(1)(a)If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a motor vehicle driven by or in the actual physical control of a person under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substances, or any controlled substances has caused the death or serious bodily injury of a human being, a law enforcement officer shall require the person driving or in actual physical control of the motor vehicle to submit to a test of the person’s blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content thereof or the presence of chemical substances as set forth in s. 877.111 or any substance controlled under chapter 893. The law enforcement officer may use reasonable force if necessary to require such person to submit to the administration of the blood test. The blood test shall be performed in a reasonable manner. Notwithstanding s. 316.1932, the testing required by this paragraph need not be incidental to a lawful arrest of the person.

Originally Posted by Bob K

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.

To give everyone a better understanding of how rediculous the wording is in some of our laws, how obviously they are not reviewed regularly, take a look at this exerpt from 316.1934 and see if you notice anything "unusual" in the wording?:

(1)(a)It is unlawful and punishable as provided in chapter 322 and in s. 316.193 for any person who is under the influence of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances, when affected to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired or to the extent that the person is deprived of full possession of normal faculties, to drive or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle within this state. Such normal faculties include, but are not limited to, the ability to see, hear, walk, talk, judge distances, drive an automobile, make judgments, act in emergencies, and, in general, normally perform the many mental and physical acts of daily life.

As to the implied consent and blood draws, I still think to do it the way it's implied in the article, is a violation of both the citizens constitutional rights, as well as a means to circumvent the Florida statute as it pertains to testing and enforcement.

As you can see here:

The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to any lawful test of his or her breath will result in the suspension of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 1 year for a first refusal, or for a period of 18 months if the driving privilege of such person has been previously suspended as a result of a refusal to submit to such a test or tests, and shall also be told that if he or she refuses to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath and his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended for a prior refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, urine, or blood, he or she commits a misdemeanor in addition to any other penalties. The refusal to submit to a chemical or physical breath test upon the request of a law enforcement officer as provided in this section is admissible into evidence in any criminal proceeding.

All of the penalties as they relate to the drivers license, are administrative.; however, any information gained, may be used in any subsequent criminal proceeding.

Administratively, the results are the same...a suspension of your driving priviledge (more enhanced for refusal) for DUI.

I have always and still do believe, that the wording in the states DUI statutes was put there to enforce administrative policies on the driving public (restrict "lawful" driving abilities upon conviction), while protecting the citizens constitutional right against self incrimination (by allowing the opportunity to refuse with sanctions).

A basic DUI is a misdemeanor.
There are administrative policies in place to deal with refusals.
Unless there's been a serious or fatal crash, I see no lawful means for a judge to even be able to sign a warrant for a blood draw?

Am I missing something?

Full text to Florida Statutes (2010):http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...EChapter%20316

DUI section begins at 316.193