14 replies to this topic

[Dredimus]

I looked around in the search function but didn't see anything bout this, so I'm gonna put out what I have...

    Last night, in the wee hours, I was laying in bed, restless as usual and watching some television. The channel I landed on was TruTV I believe and it was a show about the jail in Las Vegas. In this episode, there was an apparent DUI/DWI case that had been pulled over and arrested. Once detained and brought in for booking he was cooperative. As far as I know there were no injuries involved with this case. An officer walked up to him and asked him if he was ready to consent to a blood test for the DUI. The driver said no, he would not consent. So they physically strapped him to a chair and took his blood anyway. IS THAT LEGAL? You would think it would be a violation of the 4th Amendment.

   Anyway, I thought about it off and on all day at work today and when I got home I decided to do a few searches and sure enough, this happens all over the country. Texas, Illinois, Florida, Nevada and California to name a few. The results of a few test were contested and went so far as the state courts in Illinois where it was ruled that officers have "probable cause" and do not need a warrant for blood samples. Can you not obtain the results of a breathalyzer for the same purpose instead of actually violating ones body like that? And what would you do in a situation such as this?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Breathe tests can't test for drugs. IIRC they need a court order to take blood though, and a flobotomist to take the blood.

[Simbi Laveau]

Maybe six weeks ago is wasn't legal,but it might be now.See my post about the supreme court just ruling that ,in addition to indefinate detainment,no reason needed,we can be strip searched for no reason now too.
Forced blood and DNA cannot be far behind.

[Clyde the Glyde]

Dredimus, on 06 April 2012 - 03:51 AM, said:

I looked around in the search function but didn't see anything bout this, so I'm gonna put out what I have...

    Last night, in the wee hours, I was laying in bed, restless as usual and watching some television. The channel I landed on was TruTV I believe and it was a show about the jail in Las Vegas. In this episode, there was an apparent DUI/DWI case that had been pulled over and arrested. Once detained and brought in for booking he was cooperative. As far as I know there were no injuries involved with this case. An officer walked up to him and asked him if he was ready to consent to a blood test for the DUI. The driver said no, he would not consent. So they physically strapped him to a chair and took his blood anyway. IS THAT LEGAL? You would think it would be a violation of the 4th Amendment.

   Anyway, I thought about it off and on all day at work today and when I got home I decided to do a few searches and sure enough, this happens all over the country. Texas, Illinois, Florida, Nevada and California to name a few. The results of a few test were contested and went so far as the state courts in Illinois where it was ruled that officers have "probable cause" and do not need a warrant for blood samples. Can you not obtain the results of a breathalyzer for the same purpose instead of actually violating ones body like that? And what would you do in a situation such as this?

That's the reason so many police departments are now requiring blood samples. People are refusing to take the breathalyzer test. And many are also refusing the sobriety tests aswell. They feel that their odds are better of not getting arrested if they refuse all on-site tests while at the scene.

But a forced blood draw should definitely be against a person's Constitutional rights.  

What's a fair solution ? I don't know. But seeing how driving is not a right but rather a privilege, refusing a breathalyzer and sobriety test may be enough to take away someone's driving privileges on those grounds alone.

[Dredimus]

Wearer of Hats, on 06 April 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:

Breathe tests can't test for drugs. IIRC they need a court order to take blood though, and a flobotomist to take the blood.

   Thats the kicker here.. from the cases I have seen so far, a court order/warrant has not been deemed necessary due to "probable cause".

[questionmark]

I am totally in favor, as long as performed by a medical professional. It protects the assumed drunk, the cop and the rule of law to have non-perishable evidence.

[MissMelsWell]

I know in my area they can't forcibly take your blood. However if you refuse field tests, and refuse the blood tests, you're automatically thrown in jail and held until trial. Your trial likely won't go well or in your favor or shown any lieniency. Most smart people choose the field and blood tests as it gives them more options for a plea... your chances of a more positive outcome lie with taking the tests.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Well in many European countries if you refuse a blood test they beat the blood out of you...

[libstaK]

MissMelsWell, on 06 April 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

I know in my area they can't forcibly take your blood. However if you refuse field tests, and refuse the blood tests, you're automatically thrown in jail and held until trial. Your trial likely won't go well or in your favor or shown any lieniency. Most smart people choose the field and blood tests as it gives them more options for a plea... your chances of a more positive outcome lie with taking the tests.

In Australia, refusing a breathalyzer is automatic cancellation of your licence - for 6 months I think (could be more).  Fact is, roads have rules all users must abide by, taking a breathalyzer is considered a part of those rules here, I think it makes perfect sense.

[preacherman76]

questionmark, on 06 April 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

I am totally in favor, as long as performed by a medical professional. It protects the assumed drunk, the cop and the rule of law to have non-perishable evidence.

There is a surprise. I hardly see how forcing someone to take a blood test against thier will, protects anyone.


This is as unconstitutional as its gets. If they want to draw blood they need a warrent. It has to state what they are testing for, and why they think you have said substance in your system. Otherwise it is a unreasonable search.

[Wandering]

libstaK, on 08 April 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

In Australia, refusing a breathalyzer is automatic cancellation of your licence - for 6 months I think (could be more).  Fact is, roads have rules all users must abide by, taking a breathalyzer is considered a part of those rules here, I think it makes perfect sense.

Well, the 'rules' you refer to here are merely acts and legislation. Very different to an actual law.

Acts and Legislation only have the force of law with mutual consent...Which unfortunately you give to the police without even realising when you give them your details/Drivers Licence.

I have had personal experience in refusing to identify myself and after alot of bluster, threats and a few hours in a holding cell I was released without any charge or fine.

Really woke me up to the Sovereign side of things.


p.s. interesting factoid, the publicly available 'constitution' is 17 pages long. The real constitution that you have to order online is 400+.

Wonder what they forget to mention in the publicly available one




KNOW YOUR LAW!

[libstaK]

Wandering, on 08 April 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

Well, the 'rules' you refer to here are merely acts and legislation. Very different to an actual law.

Acts and Legislation only have the force of law with mutual consent...Which unfortunately you give to the police without even realising when you give them your details/Drivers Licence.

I have had personal experience in refusing to identify myself and after alot of bluster, threats and a few hours in a holding cell I was released without any charge or fine.

Really woke me up to the Sovereign side of things.

Well, that is interesting - I'll bear it in mind, not that I would need to given I don't drink (designated driver here ).  However, there are fines for not presenting your licence also - how were you not at the least fined?

Edited by libstaK, 08 April 2012 - 11:55 AM.

[lightly]

I don't like the idea.  I would guess that the results wouldn't be available until later?  .. back at a lab?  
  Field sobriety 'tests' can determine conclusively if someone is drunk, or otherwise impaired as to be a danger to themselves or others ..  and ..  breathalyzers can  immediately determine legal blood alcohol limits...   At which point a dangerous driver can be separated from their vehicle.

*

Edited by lightly, 08 April 2012 - 12:17 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

In most cases, not all, when the issue to be decided is the coercive authority of the state versus the rights of the individual, courts rule in favor of the coercive power of the state.

Judge Victoria Roberts' ruling last week regarding the Hutaree Militia was an exception, but very rare.

In this Age of Unitary Executive, individual rights are pretty much a thing of the past, sacrificed at the various altars of the War On Drugs, Mothers Against DRunk Drivers, War on Terror, and any other bogus cause the government wants to pursue.

[Wandering]

libstaK, on 08 April 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

Well, that is interesting - I'll bear it in mind, not that I would need to given I don't drink (designated driver here ).  However, there are fines for not presenting your licence also - how were you not at the least fined?

They can only fine you providing you have given them jurisdiction over you, which is normally you handing them your licence.  I simply refused to provide them with any details. .. That's not exactly right, you can't simply refuse as that is being dishonourable.

It's hard to explain...

You have to be in charge of the conversation, you can't obey any orders from them. They will try to trick you into doing things like signing to get your backpack back as you leave lockup. You must write 'under protest and duress' on the document if you fear you cannot get away without signing it, rendering it unusable in court. Calling your parents with your 'one phone call' which provides a link to your family and then to yourself. You must be your own sovereign, the police only have the real power to arrest you when you do something that is unlawful.

There is a reason that speeding is not called 'unlawful speeding' like 'unlawful wounding' is. Because they are both enshrined in very different legalese.

I could really talk about this forever, there's a huge amount of information out there.

In general I would recommend just learning about the Freeman-On-The-Land philosophy, (what Hutt River Province) in WA is based on.

"Hutt River is an Independent Sovereign State having seceded from Australia on the Twenty First Day of April 1970
and is of comparable size to Hong Kong
(not the New Territories)."

Most peoples personal aim in this is for your own home/land to be your own sovereign state. You do not pay Australia taxes, nor council rates etc. Unfortunately the way society is currently set up makes it very hard for young people to do this.

Most of the people I have met in WA who have succeeded in this are 40+ gentlemen who run their own business, as working a regular job is essentially impossible if you want to be a sovereign.

Hutt River has gone a step further and created an entire country. Sadly not many people even know of It's existence. Just the way the government likes it.


Anyway, fascinating subject but I must sleep. Work tomorrow.    Have fun on your day off you lucky fellas!

Edited by Wandering, 08 April 2012 - 02:15 PM.