The newest threat to your liberty

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
It seems that we now have "No refusal" checkpoints in which a refusal to blow into a breathalyzer results in blood being forcibly taken from your body.

MADD, living up to its acronym, is absolutely enthralled at this Orwellian idea.

The first story is from Florida and the second is from Texas.

SOURCE 1

THERE IS A VIDEO LINK AT THE PAGE

"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa

Tampa, Florida-- With New Year's Eve only days away, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects this to be one of the deadliest weeks of the year on the roads.

But now a new weapon is being used in the fight against drunk driving.

It's a change that could make you more likely to be convicted.

"I think it's a great deterrent for people," said Linda Unfried, from Mother's Against Drunk Driving in Hillsborough County.

Florida is among several states now holding what are called "no refusal" checkpoints.

It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test.

It's already being done in several counties, and now Unfried is working to bring it to the Tampa Bay area.

"I think you'll see the difference because people will not drink and drive. I truly believe that," she said.

Not everyone is on board, though.

DUI defense attorney Kevin Hayslett sees the mandatory blood test as a violation of constitutional rights.

"It's a slippery slope and it's got to stop somewhere," Hayslett explained, "what other misdemeanor offense do we have in the United States where the government can forcefully put a needle into your arm?"

The federal government says Florida has among the highest rates of breathalyzer refusal.

"Now you've got attorneys telling their clients, don't blow, don't blow! Because we know from the results from these machines that they're not operating as the state or the government says they're supposed to operate," said Stephen Daniels, a DUI consultant and expert witness.

Supporters, though, say you could see the "no refusal" checkpoints in the Bay area by October.

"We don't want to violate people's civil rights. That's the last thing we want to do, but we're here to save lives," Unfried said.

She adds that this type of checkpoint would be heavily advertised, with the goal of deterring any drunk driving.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has recently said he wants to see more states hold similar programs.
Click to expand...

SOURCE 2

VIDEO LINK

'No Refusal' Weekend Program To Exist Year-Round
Drivers Who Refuse Breath Tests Will Have Blood Drawn
Charles Gonzalez, KSAT 12 News Reporter

POSTED: Wednesday, December 29, 2010

SAN ANTONIO -- Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed announced plans this week to extend "No Refusal" weekends to every weekend in 2011 as opposed to certain holiday weekends, like New Year's and the Fourth of July.

The move to extend the program drew positive words from Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

"We're pretty excited about that," said Daniel Garza, youth program specialist with MADD. "It was a great pleasure to hear that this morning that law enforcement is going to get another good tool to be able to combat drunk driving here in San Antonio."

With an estimated 6,000 drunken driving arrests in Bexar county for 2010, MADD feels the program will cut down on arrests in 2011.

"When they're announced and everyone knows that they're coming, they serve as a deterrent," Garza said. "It would be a great pleasure to see it become 365 days."

But criminal lawyers who handle DWI cases see it differently.

"I guess the message they're sending is, 'Get drunk during the week,'" said Jamie Balagia, a lawyer who goes by "DWI Dude".

"They're saying, 'You give us a breath specimen or you give us a blood specimen or we're going to take it anyway,'" George Scharmen, a criminal defense lawyer.

Scharmen said with the district attorney's refusal to take plea bargains in DWI cases, the new policy won't do anything but stretch out cases. He said he has some cases that have waited five years to get to court.

"You have motions to suppress breath and blood draws on the basis of a bad search warrant, on the basis of involuntariness," Scharmen said.

"If they don't have enough evidence against you to make a solid case, how is what little they have enough for a judge to sign a warrant?" added Balagia.

Reed's office released statistics from nine No Refusal weekends between May 2008 and the Fourth of July weekend in 2010. The stats showed that 312 blood tests were taken with an average blood alcohol level of 0.159, nearly twice the legal limit. Twenty-nine of the tests were below the legal limit.

"If you have a special program, there should be a goal and a goal that you can actually show statistically that there's benefit," Balagia said. "Susan Reed can't do that."

"The implication is that on the No Refusal weekend they have a tendency to get more convictions or they have a tendency to get better evidence," Scharmen said.

Copyright 2010 by KSAT.com All rights reserved.
Click to expand...
 
If you refuse or fail a breathalyser over here in the UK you're arrested and taken to a police station for a mandatory blood test. Idiots still DUI.

Personally I think anyone who DUIs should lose their licence for a good long time and be required to undergo training and retesting before they get it back at the very least. I've seen too many people killed by drunks driving cars.
 
"a violation of constitutional rights" hah its far worse than that.

"the government can forcefully put a needle into your arm?"

yup we are all criminals now.
 
gee, i guess we need to let the federal government to step in and tell these local yokel fascist fucks that they are degrading the rights of the individual, a foundation of american culture.

gee, red states. how surprising.
 
Winky said:
"a violation of constitutional rights" hah its far worse than that.

"the government can forcefully put a needle into your arm?"

yup we are all criminals now.
Click to expand...

What "Constitutional rights" are being violated, and please don't say the 4th?
 
If they want to make this work, have a judge on 'speed-dial', and a mobile FAX. If its not a static site, then being stopped for erratic driving would equal probable cause...Otherwise, I ain't buying it. On the side of this legislation is the fact that there is no 'Right to Drive" explicit in the Constitution, so that argument gets flushed at the start...
 
catocom said:
the Right to Liberty.
Click to expand...

Which of the first 10 amendments is THAT one?

The classic definition of "natural rights" are "life, liberty,
and property", but these need to be expanded somewhat. They are
rights of "personhood", not "citizenship". These rights are not
all equally basic, but form a hierarchy of derivation, with those
listed later being generally derived from those listed earlier.

Personal Security (Life):
(1) Not to be killed.
(2) Not to be injured or abused.

Personal Liberty:
(3) To move freely.
(4) To assemble peaceably.
(5) To keep and bear arms.[18]
(6) To assemble in an independent well-disciplined[13] militia.
(7) To communicate with the world.
(8) To express or publish one's opinions or those of others.
(9) To practice one's religion.
(10) To be secure in one's person, house, papers, vehicle[14],
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
(11) To enjoy privacy in all matters in which the rights of
others are not violated.[7]
Click to expand...

Source, good fellow...
 
(2) Not to be injured or abused.

might apply...
(3) To move freely

...
Right now, here, if you refuse the breathalyser, and or blood test, you are considered to be guilty.
I think that is the way it should be, and have no problem with it.
When you take all 'choice' away, that is a violation.

One should at least have the option to demand a sterile environment with registered personnel.
 
good luck, cato.

but when simply the condition of being behind the wheel of an automobile effectively becomes probable cause... well, that certainly does violate the spirit of individual rights as we've often interpreted them.

literalism, of course, should go back to where it springs from. a donut hole.
 
Gato_Solo said:
If they want to make this work, have a judge on 'speed-dial', and a mobile FAX. If its not a static site, then being stopped for erratic driving would equal probable cause...Otherwise, I ain't buying it. On the side of this legislation is the fact that there is no 'Right to Drive" explicit in the Constitution, so that argument gets flushed at the start...
Click to expand...

Wrong.

You have the right to travel as said in the Constitution. You have a right to drive by extension. This is a great article explaining your right to drive.
 
Taking blood is certainly abridgment of the 4th, but hey! They have judge right there on site to order it. "t"'s crossed "i"'s dotted for the state.

Don't like drunk drivers, stay off the road, driving isn't a right.
 
2minkey said:
gee, i guess we need to let the federal government to step in and tell these local yokel fascist fucks that they are degrading the rights of the individual, a foundation of american culture.
Click to expand...

That was covered by the 1st story

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has recently said he wants to see more states hold similar programs
Click to expand...

There is no implicit right to drive, no matter what Gotholic digs up. There is a right to travel without duress (yes Gato, the 4th.) Potentially the 1st (right to assembly) the 5th (providing witness against oneself) are also under attack.

If the state is looking to stop drunk driving, upon the drivers refusal, unless they have explicit evidence (smell of alcohol, open containers in plain sight), they might have the authority to force the operator to stop driving. They do not have the authority to forcibly take blood samples. Why create a bigger issue than is necessary (I also think it's ok for cops to harass known drug dealers, trash their stash & not make an arrest). Stop the problem. Oh, sorry, there's no income in stopping the problem.
 
I'm curious though: They can take your blood from your veins but can they ask if your in the United States illegally?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top