Posted on 02/21/2009 8:23:37 AM PST by BGHater
Some Drivers Feel Blood Tests 'Invasive'
Drunken drivers beware: If you drink and drive, especially during the last weekend of February, the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office and other area law enforcement will be out for blood.
PBSO deputies plan to set up driving under the influence checkpoints. If they suspect a driver is under the influence, they'll offer an on-the-spot Breathalyzer. If drivers refuse, deputies will ask to draw blood from their arms.
"I think that's really personal and I think that if you deny a Breathalyzer and you say that you don't want that, I think that's outrageous if they take blood without your consent," driver Courtney Liddle said.
Attorney David Olson said that "would only be lawful if a warrant is issued by a judge."
That's just what deputies plan to do. They'll actually drive to a judge's home for a signature and return to the checkpoint.
Olson said drawing blood from drivers is usually done in extreme cases like homicides and fatal collisions. Olson said he's not sure a judge would actually sign a warrant.
"I admire and respect the sheriff's intention to investigate driving under the influence cases, but I am glad that they apparently are going to go to judges before they independently exercise what they believe would be a valuable tool in conducting these kinds of investigations," Olson said.
The PBSO is trying to emphasize that DUI will not be tolerated. But some drivers feel it's a bit too much.
"I think it's invasive on a personal level," driver Dave Staup said. "If you're going to deny a Breathalyzer, you should definitely be able to deny getting blood taken. It's a highly more invasive thing to do."
If drivers refuse to have their blood drawn, they will be arrested and charged with DUI.
For those of us who are ‘blood challenged’ that’s more than just ‘invasion of privacy’, it’s just one step closer to the grave! This won’t pass ‘Constitution’ muster, so a law suit is in Palm Beach’ near future! mebbe if we’re lucky it’ll be Rush again, and we can ‘keep posted’ on that area’s insanity defense!
Ya think?? Man, where are we going with this crap?
Ya think?? Man, where are we going with this crap?
The USA is going to look like a cross between "1984" and the movie "Gattica." The standard of living for the average person will also be reduced by a fair amount.
I've been saying this for 12 years. Given that this type of news reaches us on a now daily basis, it can no longer be written off as the ranting of the "conspiracy theorists" and "tin foil hat crowd."
I hope the first three suspects that undergo this are HIV+
Yes but that is the case for now. What's to stop them from going off the deep end at some point in the future?
How much longer until we have in home "safety inspections?"
Does this mean the LEOs themselves will draw the blood? LOL. If so, there's definitely a law suit in the future. Just the threat of infection is enough to have the lawyers lick their chops.
It won’t before the entire population will be engaging in criminal activity.
The Constitution does not apply. When you sign you driver liscense you waive your 4th amendment rights and all right under the constitution. Most people do not realize it. With a warrent they can draw blood. They will use your refusal as probable cause. They may even get a judge right on the spot. Some people avoid DUI by refusing a breath test and demanding a blood test. By the time they get you to a hospital for a test your BA level if you are borderline may go down.
The problem I have here from the story is that it appears that the police are requesting a breath test based merely on suspicion, and not probably cause. Suspicion is such a low standard, odor of an alcoholic beverage would be enough. Probable cause isn't the toughest standard either, but it's a whole lot more than mere suspicion.
Must be a FL thing.
This has been going on in the State of Nevada for over a decade. You can even be forced to give a blood sample. If you refuse a breath test.
How about the people to be tested just pee on the officers pant leg, then they can test that.
So what should be the ramifications of person refusing Breathalyzer when there is not death injury?
Normally I run really Libertarian; however, my daughter was hit in head-on by drunk who would not do blood alcohol test. Drunk was arrested and has a prior that lawyer managed to get exponged so it is as if drunk is first time offfender. As it stands, the drunk is going to plead guilty to a misdemeanor & get a 6-month license suspension and some “counseling.” Thing is, accident could have been much worse if daughter had not pulled up on curb to get out of driver’s way—another foot either way and could have been planning funerals.
Meanwhile daughter and 1 passenger had injuries, traumatic event for all 3 in her car, college scholarship revoked, and oh and $22,000 car totalled. The DUI lied to insurance company so my insurance had to take care of all meds, etc.
Prosecutor told me the laws are on books to protect the accused as far as drunk driving is concerned—no victims rights.
So I don’t like the idea of blood tests, but what is law enforcement to do if people won’t obey the laws—if they fail field sobriety and refuse breathalyzer, slick lawyer gets them off. So my question is what do we do to keep drunks from turning their cars into lethal weapons and wreaking havoc in others lives?
Yes we sign an implied consent waiving our right from self incrimination. Under the signature it state operating a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law. I hear if you sign and write under protest under your signature you can fight in court. But it is a waste of time taking too much money and years of trouble. But yes we waive our constitutional rights. Similar to black operations waivers to work in highly secure government programs.
I always felt that the CHECKPOINTS already are unconstitutional. I, however am not a lawyer. How do they justify forcing every person on a particular road to stop and submit to checks by the police?
Well you would like Germany. They have no constitution to worry about. They simply set up roadblocks and then test anyone they want for blood. If you fail they take your liscense ...forever. No court no trial thats it. Nobody drinks and drives but they are not free people. They just do whatever they are told without question. I do not think you run Libertarian.
As long as it takes to get Obama's "civilian security force" up and running, no doubt.
I asked some legitimate questions as I am in the middle of this situation—thru no choice or doing of mine.
You don’t know me. How dare you judge me & tell me I don’t run libertarian?!! Rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness end when someone takes car out on road and uses it to injure someone due to recklessness. In my town, they publish the times and locations of road checks so the drunks can simply modify their routes. Again, courts favor their rights—which should make you very happy.
You did not answer my questions? What would you do to stop drunks from driving—most of them are repeat offenders who have flouted law for years. Often they care pulled over for something totally unrelated to drunk driving—like a missing tail-light.
Frankly if people drink and drive, I think they should loose their licenses; maybe Germany has it right—do it and no court games—you loose your license. BTW, don’t think you are accurate that there are no trials in Germany. Germany has much higher driving speeds & realizes the ramifications of DUI accidents. Problem with DUIs in US is that they are constantly being let off with a wrist-slap—that would be Liberal legislators btw.... Oh and since when is driving a constitutionally guaranteed right? You are equating freedom with drinking and driving? It is a privilege to drive, not a constitutionally guaranteed right like the Second Amendment. I don’t think I said that approve of the invasive nature of this situation in Palm Beach btw. But again, what do we if drunks refuse BA testing with breathalizer?
I think if you had a family member injured or killed, you might feel differently about the subject—I know I do which is why I asked. Woman who did this to my daughter & her friends will no doubt do it again and who knows, maybe she will kill someone next time.
Meanwhile, my daughter’s future is permanently changed (full-ride scholarship gone), she may have to change her career choices as her back is now injured and may always give her problems, her senior year high school spent getting out of school to go for therapy & rehab., court dates, med paperwork, car shopping to replace the NEW car that was totalled—the havoc it goes on & on Yet our DUI gets a misdemeanor*** with 6 month lic. suspension. Glad the DUIs rights are protected.
***Oh one of the reasons case not being tried as felony is that the DUI refused a breathalyzer, so not sure can try the case merely on field sobriety test failure.
Again, don’t you judge me until you have walked a mile in my shoes!!!:(
I would take the drunk. Build a gallows in a prominant place and hang him.
One of the more, shall we say, interesting aspects of my job as an EMT/Paramedic (back in the pre-HIV days) was that the county hospital had a detention unit (holding area, not one with beds) where we’d go and ask people who
1. had just been arrested,
2. whose car had been impounded,
3. who had been handcuffed and
4. taken to the hospital in the back of a squad car
to sign a piece of paper giving us permission to draw their blood so the state could prove that they were DUI.
Oh by the way the consitution does not guarantee rights. It limits the government. We have inalienable rights.
Oh by the way the consitution does not guarantee rights. It limits the government. We have inalienable rights.
Thanks for the civics lesson and solutions?! A drunk driver does not have an inalienable right to drink and drive. DUI lost her right when she threatenned my daughter’s inalienable rights. You are saying the DUI’s rights supersede mine.
You answered none of my questions. By the way, you were making a number of incorrect assumptions about German DUI law. I know because I actually took time to look. I can print them here if you wish.
DUI does not have the right to drink and drive—she could have taken a cab, had sober friend drive—I don’t care how drunk she gets (she swerved across 3 lanes of traffic coming straight at my 17 year old), she has all the rights she wants in her home or at a bar, but she loses those rights when she uses her car as a weapon to kill, mame others on the road... Again, you answered none of my questions.
That said, something has to be done and I think tougher sentencing is a good thing. It will cut down on wasted time and (my) money by courts in dealing with multiple repeat offenders who hire a slick lawyer that plays the sytem. Laws need to be changed—again I did not say I want BATs administered roadside. However, something needs to be done. I sincerely asked what should be done.
I hope you never walk a mile in my shoes regarding having family life turned upside down by a DUI accident. So far my daughter’s rights have been totally emasculated by the rights of the DUI.
I would take the drunk. Build a gallows in a prominant place and hang him.
Now your’e talking! Except that the law protects the accused. No jury would convict me, but I am sure liberal judge would. Since the WOMAN has now changed plea to guilty (which is a gift as it is just a misdemeanor vs. felony) there will be no opportunity to have my daughter confront this person and tell them how they messed up her life because of their bad choices.
Yes we have hired a lawyer in a civil trial, but it is low money and will settle out of court.
Again, hope you never walk a mile in my shoes—it has made me very frustrated and bitter about the whole system.
If you punish actual actions as the crimes they are it will stop. The dui laws are insane. They arrest people for the possibility they may commit a crime and let off the ones who harm others too light. I say hang the drunk. He knew he could kill by driving drunk. You can even pull the lever. Do not drink and drive.
If you punish actual actions as the crimes they are it will stop. The dui laws are insane. They arrest people for the possibility they may commit a crime and let off the ones who harm others too light. I say hang the drunk. He knew he could kill by driving drunk. You can even pull the lever. Do not drink and drive.
Well, problem is that she has not killed anyone... yet—however, if you saw our car, you would be amazed at how close she came—basically she is getting same sentence as someone with erratic driving. I think the erratic driving sentencing needs to be toughened so people won’t think it is no big deal to drive drunk.
Like a terrorist caught with a bomb—they didn’t kill anyone, but given a little more time, they will & people die. Same thing with drunks—they don’t kill anyone (including themselves) first time, but being stopped for a DUI can be akin to an angel tapping them on the shoulder to stop, heed the warning.
That said, does seem upside down in terms of light sentencing on a second DUI that actually injured someone—believe me I am trying to get to the bottom of why this is allowed to stand as a misdemeanor—again tho taking lots of time and money.
First off, I’m very sorry about your daughter. But the drunk’s lawyer didn’t “manage” to get his prior expunged, your state’s laws must provide for it. The lawyer may have helped him through the legal process, but he has nothing to do with whether expungement is available or not. I think the answer is to make seriously drunk driving, not just at .08 level, a serious felony. As it is now, the first offense is a wrist slap in reality. But I also don’t think having two beers at a restaurant with dinner should make you a criminal either. In any event, I would hesitate to give the State any more intrusion on having to prove its case against you. As we all know, if you give them power in one area where you believe it will be for the good, eventually they will expand it to another area where it oppresses us all.
I'm sure finding one or a hundred would be no problem at all.
Thanks. Problem is that in IL, you dont have to take the Breathalyzer test—in fact DUI attorneys strongly recommend that you don’t. So solution may be to have laws that make it mandatory—no invasive BAT, but blow test required.
Here in IL, if people refuse the Breathalyzer, they get a summary suspension; if don’t get CAUGHT for 5 years, then first time offense is 6-month lic. suspension;record is cleared—not exactly exponged, but legally it is if they are first time offender. So we have Deja Vu~~likely 5 years ago, her attorney told her to plead guilty to misdemeanor and she got off easy. Speed forward to Dec. 26th, my daughter’s case, the 30-year old WOMAN that hit her must have not gotten caught for 5 years—just passed the deadline according to what I overheard her lawyer say to prosecutor. She is looking for same plea again & if she skirts law for 5 years, she has summary suspension and it is off record again. Too bad she did not wait a couple days to hit my daughter because IL did institute some tougher laws tho not sure exactly what they are.
Meanwhile, good living to be made getting people off DUIs.
Assault with a deadly weapon.
Assault with a deadly weapon.
<<<that is exactly what it was!
Sorry about your trouble. Senseless it seems when things like that happen.
Thanks. I hope others will learn from it—All given we were lucky—she could have killed 5 people (2 in her car and 3 in ours).
Frustration is that daughter and her 2 passengers are being treated like a mailbox—same sentencing as if the drunk hit a mialbox?! However, unfortunately for the DUI and perhaps the system, I am not letting unfair things go by in silence. Hopefully can get laws changed for someone else if not for us.
Thanks again—like I said I tend Libertarian, but sadly I think that Libertarianism and the Constitution assume a rudimentary foundation of following basic courtesies which some of the jerks on roads don’t seem to get—even sober ones.
The courts have held that the minimal intrusion of making people show their DL and Insurance is outweight by the States’ interest in insuring safe public roadways.
Wasn’t it Ben Franklin who said (to paraphrase) that those willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security? Thanks for the answer, Fed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.