More disturbing signs of Amerika the Police State

[J]

But due process is a right.

[RonMexico]

Look, I am anti-drunk driving. But I am unconditionally against restricting rights of law abiding citizens to catch a few more criminals. Hell, I am against it for catching a whole bunch more criminals.

Breaking the law is one thing, but this country stands for rights, and process (or at least it used to). We have always understood that the rights and principals we hold dear are more important that the needs of the one or the few.

^^^^
i was once a punk 17 year old kid.... Got pulled over for speeding and was nervous as hell. after a million questions the cop shinned a light in my eyes and said I was drunk, he told me to take a breathalyzer and i did but I passed with flying colors bc I wasn't drinking. If I lived in that county and said "no" to the breathalyzer( like I would now a days bc I understand my rights more fully), I would have been haul off to get my blood tested.

We need to put a stop to these probing laws

[clublights]

But due process is a right.

Agreed.

[Monky]

Where is the violation of due process?

They're given a chance to prove their innocence of not violating the law by using the machine.

They refuse to that which they gave consent by accepting a state issued drivers license.

They obtain a search warrant and the evidence needed to proceed.

The judges probably don't like seeing innocent people killed by people who think they're able to drink and drive either.

But hey.. It's not just for the children


Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.

[clublights]

Where is the violation of due process?

They're given a chance to prove their innocence of not violating the law by using the machine.

They refuse to that which they gave consent by accepting a state issued drivers license.

They obtain a search warrant and the evidence needed to proceed.

The judges probably don't like seeing innocent people killed by people who think they're able to drink and drive either.

But hey.. It's not just for the children


Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.

Does the getting a DL over ride your 5th amendment rights ?

[J]

1. Due process requires real probable cause. This is patently disregarded at checkpoints and a Huge majority of traffic stops that are made on weekend nights.

2. The standard is, or was and should still be, that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Since when does the accused have to prove their innocence in this country regardless of whether they had an easy opportunity do do so or not.

3. As already evidenced, they have "form warrants" that are blindly signed as soon as requested. They receive no where near the process and proof requirements of a "real" warrant.

[RonMexico]

Don't you have a right to not incriminate yourself? And isn't your blood part of yourself? I do not give my blood permission to incriminate me. Laying there and letting you take my blood is incriminating me. Allowing you to tie me down is making me incriminate myself. If the blood is on the ground, it's no longer part of me. But taking it from me is technically different.

My breath is not part of me, but making me blow through something is making me do something to incriminate myself.

Why can't you plead the 5th if you get pulled over while drunk driving? Serious question. How does this jive with tying someone down and taking their blood forcefully?

If you couldn't get a blood or breath sample, it might be hard to convict. But the 5th amendment is pretty black and white and we shouldn't carve out exceptions to any of our rights. I don't like the idea of cops just saying "he smelled like alcohol and was swerving" as enough evidence to get a conviction. On the other hand, it seems like a violation of a persons rights to forcefully get the evidence.

ETA - if suspected of drunk driving, they should just put you in a room and the room measures the alcohol coming off your breath, without you doing anything. Doesn't seem to violate any rights. The cops can say "hold your breath if you want to, but you're going to be in here for 15 minutes".

LEO can chime in, but this is straight from my 1SGTreserve/CSP( former unit) ........
he said gents if you know you are fucked and gonna lose your TS/SCI, you did it to yourself by drinking 10 beers
now,
if you are only at a few beers and the cop is being a dick and you might get a DUI, only crack your window 1/2 inch to hand over documents and roll it back up. If they want to give you a test... Don't. He said he would rather us call him and tell him we got arrested hours later for resisting arrest than a DUI.
Would LEO break windows to get you out?

[hurley842002]

Oh, was it on a roller coaster?

Nah I don't do roller coasters, wouldn't want my Glock to fall out and hit anybody.

[BushMasterBoy]

This is the current law! Any person who is required to take and to complete, and to cooperate in the completing of, any test or tests shall cooperate with the person authorized to obtain specimens of such person's blood, breath, saliva, or urine, including the signing of any release or consent forms required by any person, hospital, clinic, or association authorized to obtain such specimens. If such person does not cooperate with the person, hospital, clinic, or association authorized to obtain such specimens, including the signing of any release or consent forms, such noncooperation shall be considered a refusal to submit to testing. No law enforcement officer shall physically restrain any person for the purpose of obtaining a specimen of such person's blood, breath, saliva, or urine for testing except when the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed criminally negligent homicide pursuant to section 18-3-105 , C.R.S., vehicular homicide pursuant to section 18-3-106(1) (b), C.R.S., assault in the third degree pursuant to section 18-3-204 , C.R.S., or vehicular assault pursuant to section 18-3-205(1) (b), C.R.S., and the person is refusing to take or to complete, or to cooperate in the completing of, any test or tests, then, in such event, the law enforcement officer may require a blood test.

[clublights]

This is the current law! Any person who is required to take and to complete, and to cooperate in the completing of, any test or tests shall cooperate with the person authorized to obtain specimens of such person's blood, breath, saliva, or urine, including the signing of any release or consent forms required by any person, hospital, clinic, or association authorized to obtain such specimens. If such person does not cooperate with the person, hospital, clinic, or association authorized to obtain such specimens, including the signing of any release or consent forms, such noncooperation shall be considered a refusal to submit to testing. No law enforcement officer shall physically restrain any person for the purpose of obtaining a specimen of such person's blood, breath, saliva, or urine for testing except when the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed criminally negligent homicide pursuant to section 18-3-105 , C.R.S., vehicular homicide pursuant to section 18-3-106(1) (b), C.R.S., assault in the third degree pursuant to section 18-3-204 , C.R.S., or vehicular assault pursuant to section 18-3-205(1) (b), C.R.S., and the person is refusing to take or to complete, or to cooperate in the completing of, any test or tests, then, in such event, the law enforcement officer may require a blood test.

Great to know....


but what if they were "hospital personal"?