Posted on 11/12/2010 6:46:29 PM PST by MissouriConservative
But yet, in the state of MN, it’s against the law to ask for ID from those voting.
Here in Texas, too, it’s been the case for decades. I don’t see much difference between a mandatory blood test or breathalyzer, frankly. It’s at the officer’s discretion.
You might want to reread what you wrote. Ad hominem attacks make you sound like an idiot.
First, I wonder what happened to my right to not incriminate myself?
That said, chronic drunk drivers are a problem. We all know that. So I guess I could reluctantly accept this intrusion of my rights if it did anything to keep drunk drivers off the road. But it most decidedly does not. All it does is generate revenue.
If you’ve ever sat in a traffic court (my ticket was dismissed thank goodness) the people who’re there for drunk driving are multiple (4,5,7 and more times) offenders. These people have chosen to be outlaws and they’re comfortable with that. They only come to court to avoid jail time—which the courts repetively grant them. So the law is absolutely worthless as a means to make our roads safer.
IMHO it is far better to refuse the breathalizer than to submit. A drunk driving offense will hurt you more point and insurance wise than a reckless or careless driving charge.
This is why we have a 2nd amendment. To protect the others.
No, the issue is not fundamental rights. There is no fundamental right to driving a vehicle, people choose to drive. With this choice, the driver (dependent on the state they are licensed in) knowingly signs the 'implied consent' waiver. Yes, you can refuse to give a blood sample. That is your right under the US Constitution. However, the LEO can then exercise the (usual) state provision under the 'implied consent' law and confiscate your drivers license, and if there isn't another licensed driver in the vehicle, impound your vehicle.
So, you can exercise your rights under the US Constitution. I highly recommend it. However, you better know a real good attorney and have their phone number handy.
When did traveling down public roads paid for with our tax dollars in our privately-owned property become a "privilege?" When did America become so brainwashed that they willingly gave up that right?
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
- Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
Most people in the nation "choose" to drive in the same manner which people "choose" to submit to an electronic strip search or being groped by a government functionary at the airport.
Ok, please point me to the article and/or amendment in either the US Constitution or any State Constitution that states driving a vehicle is a 'right'. This is the same circular argument abortionist use when trying to support their view that abortion is a right.
Not the same, you can thank the muzzies for that one.
I see - state law trumps the Constitution now. Even the 4th Amendment regarding unreasonable search and seizure.
You make the fundamental error that the power-hungry statists want you to make, and have carefully conditioned you to make: assuming that rights come from constitutions, rather than being protected by them.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, ...
The pernicious myth that our rights are defined and limited by what's in any Constitution, anywhere in the world, is a mental poison that is rotting out the inmost soul of the spirit of liberty.
This myth feeds on the small, childish part lurking in each of us that craves abandonment of personal responsibility, and secretly longs for serfdom under a king or emperor who can make all the hard decisions and bear all the bitter consequences so we don't have to. Why do you think People magazine has millions of subscribers who fawn over the glamorous lives of rich celebrities? It's nourishment for this mental contaigen.
Cure yourself!
Hard lesson.
Well here’s how I see it.
If he wasn’t drinking, he should have submitted to the test.
If he was drinking, then yeah, it will work out to his benefit if his lawyer can help get him out sooner.
So it’s only beneficial to him if he was drinking. Which means he was willing to lie to me while he was incarcerated.
I’m disappointed. I had hoped he would man up and accept responsibility.
Yes but then they are automatically guilty of not cooperating. Once you sign up your license you waive the rights. The best thing to do is plead broke. Here in Florida I think a suspect can refuse the breath and sobriety test and demand a blood test. The best thing to do is not drink and drive. Cabs are cheap when compared to the DUI. Or get a designated driver.
Lots of words - not a lot of thinking.
The point here is - the government can’t decide that you have consented to give up your constitutional rights.
There is a difference between negotiation and coersion. The Constitution is not negotiable.
Your argument is an EXTREMELY slippery slope. Next - following your logic - if you choose to drive on the roads, we can access the computer in your trunk. If you choose to fly, we can ....
Your argument is backwards - it has nothing to do with the right to drive a car - which was never claimed, by the way. It has to do with rights which the government CANNOT abridge for any reason. The government is constrained by the Constitution - they cannot coerce a citizen to nullify their Constitutional rights.
Apples and oranges. A license to drive is considered a privilege. In accepting the license, the driver agrees to take a BAC test when requested by a police officer who suspects the driver may be intoxicated. If the driver then refuses to take the test, he is not complying with his previous agreement to comply when he accepted the license. So the license issuaing agency, the notor vehicles department, can suspend the driving privilege for a period of time previously determined by the department. That issue is between the driver and the motor vehicles department because it arises from the licensing agreement.
That is a separate issue from the driver’s guilt as to a drunk driving charge. That is a criminal issue between the driver, the police and the D.A.’s office.
There is no whim of a police officer involved as it relates to a license suspension. The driver has already agreed to take a test when requested by a police officer who has a reasonable suspicion that the driver is drunk. If the driver refuses, the license is suspended for that reason by the licensing department, not the police, not the court. If the driver is prosecuted, his license can and most likely will be suspended by the court if he is convicted based on other evidence the officer and/or others present. Depending on a state’s laws, it might be up to the judge if that suspension will run concurrent to the motor vehicle suspension for the BAC refusal or consecutive to it.
In CA, the driver chooses between blood, breath or urine.
Not exactly. It’s not LEO that suspends a license under implied consent. It’s the licensing agency (motor vehicles) that suspends for failure to take a test.
When a cop impounds a vehicle, it has nothing to do with the driver not taking a test. It has to do with public safety and protection of the personal property of the driver he is arresting. When a cop takes a driver into custody, the government accepts liability.
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.