[Shadow]

Originally Posted by Z06 Rocket

As it stands now the 1st refusal gets your license taken away for a year "admistratively" and thats all. A second or beyond refusal gets your license taken away "Admistratively" for 18 months - AND - you get an additional criminal charge. If its your first refusal it's just a ticket. Second or more refusal and your misdemeanor (or felony if its serious crash or more than 3rd DUI in 10 years) is in conjunction with a misdemeanor "Refusal to submit to testing".

It looks like you and I posted about the same time and are saying the same thing relative to the charges and administrative actions, as well as the procedures to be followed.

As it stands now there is no way to force a blood draw except in DUI cases where a crash occurred with serious injury (making it a felony case). The change just makes it lawful to force a blood draw if there is Probable Cause to believe someone is impaired WITHOUT the serious crash occurring first.

Then the legislature needs to address this and write it into law.

I see it as a very good proactive step in the right direction. They will not be randomly forcing blood from anyone. They will have multiple clues to make probale cause affidavits that they believe you are under the influence long before any needle is put to a vein.

As long as it's a long list of "clues" to establish PC so as not to become abused, and the warrant is done preferable after enough PC exists to make the DUI case in the first place, then I don't have a huge issue with it.
Otherwise, I'm still opposed.

It is all sworn to in court, and I guarantee no cops I know would risk their career, home, and family as well as their freedom to make a BS DUI arrest. It is the same thing as we have now - except the "suspected impaired driver" cannot legally refuse the breath test or it becomes a forced blood test. If you are not impaired it will never go that far and you will be out of the checkpoint in a minute or two.

I don't see that as necessarily the case.
Unfortunately, I've had more than one opportunity to review "creatively written" reports
In all these cases, I've never had an agency take action against the officer in question

I agree with you that 99% of all LEO's I've known or worked with over the years are/were hard working, dedicated individuals who believe in the system and work within it

It's the 1% that I'm concerned with, that makes such an invasive method on a traffic related issue, more concerning.

As we all know, there will be those that attempt to abuse the newfound freedom. All we can pray for is the judge on scene is astute enough, and there's enough oversight, to keep this from happening.

If the people don't drink and drive (or dope up and drive) and there is nothing to worry about.

That may not be the case.
A medically impaired driver, a distracted driver and a fatigued driver, may all exhibit some or all of the clues related to DUI.
Hopefully, the results of a SFST will remove any question.

Use a designated driver (friend - taxi - etc) or drink at home. I have no sympathy for drunk driving arrestees, only the victims of the impaired drivers when a crash occurs. It is a conscious decision to drive after becoming impaired, no one forced the person to get behind the wheel at gun point.

As the former victim of a DUI driver (still have the reminders), and friend to many that were also victims, some still living, others deceased, I have to agree 100% with you there.

No sympathy for them!! No one forced them to drink and drive!

My only concern in this matter is for "justice" and thre preservation of our constitutional rights

Stay safe out there!