Having blood drawn is optional and would require a judge’s signature.  At least the police say they won’t use the usual method Florida police officers use to obtain blood.  The usual method involves beating the crap out of the suspect.

In the Deutschland, the Polizei can legally kick your fucking ass, and extract blood against your will.  I all-ways loved attending DUI cases there just to laugh at the Defendant's black and blue face.

And, whilst the generalization in DUI laws pisses me off enough (1.0 doesn't affect me nor many others the way that it affects most people), what really pisses me off is the blatant Fourth Amendment violation the we have near the Mexican border with the Supreme Court approved border patrol check-points.  Go back to sleep, 'Merica.  Alles Glei.

More fun in cop land.

Discombobulate wrote:

Big deal.  A breathalyzer is a perfectly reasonable request.  If you refuse, fuck ya.  I've thought we should take a cue from germany on this one for years.

The only thing I can see as being a reaonable compromise/replacement for this, is that if you refuse a breathalyzer, you are automatically found guilty of DUI and charged the maximum possible sentence.

If you appeciate privacy, good, I do too, and when cops start coming to people's houses and taking blood, I'll take up arms and join the resistance, but when you're on public roads, your privacy is worth fuckall.

Wrong.

What a fucking nazi you are. Are you a cop, by chance?

It is mentality like this that justifies me putting, "remember officer so-and-so" stickers all over my SKS stock....

Discombobulate wrote:

ad hominum...care to try again?

I don't agree with you on the breathalyzer policy, but I like you.

Taint wrote:

Discombobulate wrote:

ad hominum...care to try again?

I don't agree with you on the breathalyzer policy, but I like you.

Yeah, I like them, too.

I never felt so bitch-slapped by 2 words before.... It was almost refreshing.

I wonder if we are being played by some voice from the past, perhaps?

headkicker_girl wrote:

Forced blood draws already exist in a number of states.  The only difference is that now they are doing it roadside rather than dragging the suspects down to the station, although in Arizona this is old news.

If the thought of having blood drawn at the side of the road keeps one drunk from killing an innocent person, I'm all for it.  As Discombobulate pointed out, the drunk does not have some superior right to terrorize public roads.

And in California, it MAY be the case that they can't force you to give blood (I'm still not sure that's the case), but if you refuse to take the test your license is revoked.

tojo2000 wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Forced blood draws already exist in a number of states.  The only difference is that now they are doing it roadside rather than dragging the suspects down to the station, although in Arizona this is old news.

If the thought of having blood drawn at the side of the road keeps one drunk from killing an innocent person, I'm all for it.  As Discombobulate pointed out, the drunk does not have some superior right to terrorize public roads.

And in California, it MAY be the case that they can't force you to give blood (I'm still not sure that's the case), but if you refuse to take the test your license is revoked.

And I'm fine with that....

I can't wait till they make some hemophiliac take the needle and the person bleeds to death... I'd love to see some city be forced to turn over their town square when they can't pay the punitive damages from that lawsuit... That would be uber-sweet!

ptah13 wrote:

I'd love to see some city be forced to turn over their town square when they can't pay the punitive damages from that lawsuit... That would be uber-sweet!

But you all don't understand. This is a riskless play for the cops. Any mistakes they make get cleaned up by YOU, the taxpayer, who will pay off any legal settlements. No cops will loose their jobs if they are following "policy", even if they do it wrong.

You sue the county for Hepatitis for $50 million and win, all the county does is take out a $50 million bond offering and let the tax payers pick up the interest.

Tax day is rapidly approaching. Are you happy with the bill?

ptah13 wrote:

Discombobulate wrote:

ad hominum...care to try again?

Ok, the "right to privacy", as defined by case law, fully extends past my front yard and to my car.

In my state, "road blocks" were deemed illegal and I haven't seen one in the better part of a decade.

The Supreme Court says, "to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing".

Of course, I'm sure you think you know more than the Supreme Court on this matter, so please, enlighten me.

No, I don't know any better than the Supreme Court (at least on the majority of issues).  However, I would interpret refusal to take the breathalyzer as "individualized suspicion".

Discombobulate wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Discombobulate wrote:

ad hominum...care to try again?

Ok, the "right to privacy", as defined by case law, fully extends past my front yard and to my car.

In my state, "road blocks" were deemed illegal and I haven't seen one in the better part of a decade.

The Supreme Court says, "to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing".

Of course, I'm sure you think you know more than the Supreme Court on this matter, so please, enlighten me.

No, I don't know any better than the Supreme Court (at least on the majority of issues).  However, I would interpret refusal to take the breathalyzer as "individualized suspicion".

Again, my argument isn't against the testing if someone who is suspected of being over the limit. My argument is all about probable cause and the road blocks.

This is why road blocks are now illegal where I live and, I suspect, will be deemed illegal everywhere, eventually based on the Supreme Courts opinion on the matter.

If someone refuses a breathalyzer, I'm all for automatic DUI conviction. People are convicted of OWI, without a blood test or breathalyzer, all the time. Say you pull over someone who has taken prescribed medicine (like, for example, Oxycontin, hehehehe), in large doses, and gets behind the wheel. No breathalyzer will detect this and the person has a legal right to have that drug in their system. I know of individuals who said, "yes I'm on prescription painkillers and were convicted of OWI, just based on the police officers opinion that the person was intoxicated (I'm sure the dude failed the field sobriety test).

Point being, if you can convict someone by simply saying, "I'm certain you are stoned" then why have the need to force someone to take a blood test. Especially if your evidence consists of, "well I accused him of being on drugs, offered to let him take a blood test to prove me wrong and he refused". In my opinion, case should be closed at that point.... Dude is obviously guilty.

Also, I believe people who are really intoxicated, who get behind the wheel, should be executed via being dropped on an Army Ant mound (or something similar).

If you get drunk, get behind the wheel and kill a member of my family, expect someone to return the favor.

jesusluvspegging wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

If you get drunk, get behind the wheel and kill a member of my family, expect someone to return the favor.

MUUUUUR!  CAVEMAN GET REVENGE!

Actually, a bat (similar to cavemen-type weaponry) would be the weapon of choice.