Gov getting blood and saliva from people on roadsides

[Ranger353]

18-3-106 / 205 deal with vehicular homicide/assault.

42-4-1301.1 is the Expressed Consent Bull Shit

So IOW. If you do not consent to blowing, in effect to give the State evidence, or if you just refuse on principle , or for whatever reason. The State says you are a Persistent Drunk Driver

Why? Because Fuck you that's why. So it is WRITTEN, So it SHALL BE ! The Holy Book of the State is Final. If you have nothing to hide. Blah Blah. People love this shit. If it can save one life.. yadda yadda

Quite frankly, you should refuse everything. From stand on one leg, follow the light, chew gum and rub your belly, recite the pledge of allegiance in Klingon, whatever other idiotic thing they come up with. And refuse to blow.

Then just drive. Whatever.

Why on earth should you be forced to give them evidence? What ever happened to the right against self-incrimination. Oh yea.. We erased that one. Why. Because we (the State) have the guns, and are more willing to use them. IOW FU now hand over your $ ! Oh and BTW, now we will require you to buy this interlock thing from our buddy who happens to sell them.

Fascism at its finest - all under the color of Law. Congrats !

The statute states: "(68.5) (a) "Persistent drunk driver" means any person who:
(I) Has been convicted of or had his or her driver's license revoked for two or more alcohol-related driving violations;"

Which means if you are not a two time DUI/DWI-Alcohol related violator then the statute cannot be used against you. There is no "or" after the clause, therefore is a requirement to be met before the other clauses can be invoked. This statute is after the habitual alcoholic driver.

[Ranger353]

that may well be the "good intentions"
but the new law (according to the article) will label you a persistent drunk driver without being a drunk driver, without due process. just because you said NO. i think its pretty clear. It says any driver who refuses. at least its clear to me.

Don't believe the media, just like anything else, those knucklehead reporters will take liberty with the facts and not always report the truth. Read the statute, it's on-line and free to access.

[Ronin13]

I'm guilty of this so don't flame, but expressed consent is the key term here... As soon as you were issued a license you consented to chemical tests when asked to prove you are safe to operate a motor vehicle on roadways. It's all in the writing when you went and got your license- I know I didn't read it either.

The question I have on all this- what about sovereign citizens? I've seen examples of these people not having state issued DLs and not having actual plates on their cars (some are downright atrocious attempts at "art"). Technically they don't apply when it comes to expressed consent, but also technically they are legally not allowed to drive on public roads within the state of Colorado. And it's even worse to hear some of them do not recognize the authority of any police department or deputy, only the duly-elected Sheriff of that county.

[BPTactical]

As far as the new Co law it is pretty clear: you choose to drive in this state you give up your rights to a degree.
How's that for leverage?

On the cheek swabbing, where the fawk is the ACLU (as much as I can't stand them)

[centrarchidae]

Yes. And let's all trip over ourselves to believe something on 7News, because they never screw up and leave anything important out of the story.

Oh, wait, yes, they did. But since the story as printed supports the "fthapolicerevenuepigsshotmydog" notions around this place, I guess we can let the mistake slide. It fits the narrative.

i dont follow you.

"Starting on Jan. 1, any Colorado driver who refuses a sobriety test will be branded a "persistent drunk driver.""

this says nothing of arrest, being drunk, having the odor of an intoxicating beverage. it says any driver who is told to take the sobriety test is now labeled a persistent drunk driver. wow. so, no 5th amendment, no due process. either comply or you will be removed of your ability to drive. nice.

[lowbeyond]

ack.. the strikes didn't come though in the copy paste

http://legiscan.com/CO/text/HB1240/id/842712

heck even in the bill summary they say that it applies to refusal

In current law, the definition of "persistent drunk driver"includes
a person who drives a motor vehicle with a BAC of 0.17 or more. The bill
lowers this threshold to 0.15 or more. The bill also amends the definition
of "persistent drunk driver" to include a person who refuses to take or
complete, or to cooperate in the completing of, a test of his or her blood,

(68.5) (a) "Persistent drunk driver" means any person who:
(I) Has been convicted of or had his or her driver's license revoked
for two or more alcohol-related driving violations;

(II) who Continues to drive after a driver's license or driving
privilege restraint has been imposed for one or more alcohol-related driving
offenses;

(III) or who Drives a motor vehicle while the amount of alcohol in
such person's blood, as shown by analysis of the person's blood or breath,
was 0.17 or more 0.15 OR MORE grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters
of blood or 0.17 or more 0.15 OR MORE grams of alcohol per two hundred
ten liters of breath at the time of driving or within two hours after driving;
OR

(IV) REFUSES TO TAKE OR COMPLETE, OR TO COOPERATE IN THE
COMPLETING OF, A TEST OF HIS OR HER BLOOD, BREATH, SALIVA, OR URINE
AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 18-3-106 (4) OR 18-3-205 (4), C.R.S., OR SECTION
42-4-1301.1 (2).

[OneGuy67]

I went and read the laws and such, even talked to some LEO friends, I do not think that is accurate. It might be more expeditious to waive your rights, but the law can not force you to submit without cause.

You are correct. Having run a couple of DUI checkpoints in the past, there is a very strict standard which has to be followed. You do not have everyone conduct roadsides; there must be some indication of intoxication before that is asked of the driver.

[blacklabel]

The question I have on all this- what about sovereign citizens?

When I was selling cars in Wyoming I had one of these guys go off on me when I asked for his DL before a test drive. I won't go into how I feel about the sovereign citizen movement so I'll just parrot the government and call them terrorists.