Posted on 12/16/2013 8:56:37 AM PST by moonshinner_09
Troopers all across Texas are going after drunk drivers this holiday season.
The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) is aiming to lower the amount of drunk drivers across the state by increasing the amount of troopers, working overtime, and enforcing stricter rules.
No refusals are among the stricter rules being enforced, meaning if an officer believes you are drunk and asks you to take a blood test you will most likely have to still take one.
If you say no, the officer will get a warrant from a judge immediately to get your blood specimen.
Saying no to a breathalyzer will also prompt authorities to get a warrant for a blood test.
"For example if you are a 0.05 you can still get arrested if the officer believes that you have lost physical and mental capacity to safely operate a motor vehicle," Trooper Maria Hernandez said.
Anything over a 0.08 blood alcohol concentration is deemed too dangerous for a driver to be behind the wheel.
Another rule is if they catch you intoxicated while driving with children under 15-years-old, you will get a $10,000 fine, two years in state jail and your license will be suspended.
This is the first time DPS is teaming up with police, fire departments and emergency medical services (EMS) to decrease the amount of drunk driving related accidents.
(Excerpt) Read more at valleycentral.com ...
“Check out the on-line BAC calculator I posted above. One beer an hour, based on your weight, is likely not going to put you anywhere near over the limit.”
There is no “limit” if impairment is to be judged by the officer. Even if you had nothing to drink they can arrest you for driving impaired. You will have to prove your innocence.
They will have a judge issue a warrant for your blood if you refuse, so yes, that will happen. However, if you take a field sobriety test and fail, then subsequently take a blood test and pass, the officer will testify you must have been under some sort of drug the test didn’t pick up on, and, in his opinion, you were under some mind altering influence and you could and probably will be convicted.
I was stopped once and asked to take a field sobriety test. I told the officer I can’t do those tests sober! It’s true. I have some kind of weird balance problem and always have had.
He laughed and sent me on my way since it was apparent I hadn’t been drinking.
1903. First license plate issued. That was the day you had to ask permission to be on public lands in a motorized vehicle. The early 1900’s were full of socialist parasites. We got the Federal Reserve, Income Taxes and such things as the idea to ask permission to be on public roadways.
I like to ask people this question: If you were forced to leave this planet to live on one of two other ones that were identical to this one except for one attribute: On one, all drivers have a BAL of .15 and on the other, All drivers are required to be texting at all times.
Which planet would you choose?
I’d choose the former planet because those folks are most dangerous regarding non-standard situations, though they may be a little more likely to run a stop sign, etc. With the texters, all bets are off.
There are two directions in this process, enforcement and prosecution. The bar for enforcement is admittedly lower than for prosecution. There is not a prosecutor who will ever bill a case for 0.05% BAC. It isn’t going to happen.
I would not do a field sobriety nor breathalizer. It’s all blood test for me. That or nothing. I read an article once that said virtually no attorney or elected official will submit to a breathalizer. There is sound science to support that.
It doesn’t measure the alcohol in your blood (only your breath), for starters.
Both are dangerous. There is no need to choose.
Only open your window enough to get your license and registration through.
Refuse to get out of your car. Tell them to give you a ticket, arrest you, or let you go.
If you don’t open the window or get out, they can’t claim they smelled alcohol on you, which is what they need for probable cause for any tests.
A judge won’t issue a warrant because someone doesn’t want to open their window or get out.
Unless you were swerving all over the road, and they have it on tape, there is little they can do.
If they drag you out of your car with no probable cause or warrant, anything they find is ‘poisoned fruit’ they can’t use in court.
Both are dangerous. There is no need to choose.
Nevertheless, you get my point. Some things are not as dangerous as they are perceived to be while others are significantly moreso.
I also like to say that deer are to motorcyclists what sharks are to surfers. But I think the former may actually be MORE dangerous.
LOL...
I guess those who drink and drive have a problem with this. I don’t drink liquor of any sort and have never been pulled over as suspect. Wonder why that is? Those who do drink and drive usually hurt others. Most times never themselves. I vote for stopping all with liquor on their breath.
Wrong, had a buddy who blew a .04, since BA only test for alcohol, the cop testified he had to have been on something, probably MJ, and lied about by buddies driving, he got convicted.
Remember, a lot of these DUI checks are done as roadblocks or “checkpoints.” They’ve perfected the art of getting you off the road and disrupting your travel.
I’ve seen too many incidents where someone got their window bashed in by a hot-headed, roid-raging DUI enforcement cop. I agree with the idea, but I prefer to avoid the confrontation altogether.
Remind me never to drive anywhere near your geography.
I don’t believe you. And you likely can’t prove it.
Actually as I recall, “alcohol involved” in FBI crime statistics speak means that any occupant of EITHER vehicle has consumed alcohol within 24 hours, so it may simply mean that 35% of Americans drink alcohol semi-regularly.
0.15% BAC driving is dangerous by any standard. That you don’t think so is disturbing.
I never said it isn’t. You are gleaning too much from between the lines.
Just to be clear, for me “safe” and “dangerous” are relativistic terms that have no meaning without a qualifier. I always think “dangerous compared to what”?. Hence my .15 vs texting example. My point was not that .15 is not dangerous. My point was that texting is more dangerous than people think. I feel about texting the way you feel about alcohol.
And yes, they are both “dangerous”.
“There are two directions in this process, enforcement and prosecution. The bar for enforcement is admittedly lower than for prosecution. There is not a prosecutor who will ever bill a case for 0.05% BAC. It isn’t going to happen.”
Even if you are not prosecuted, from the article it sounds like you will still be arrested, taken to jail and kept there for who knows how long. All based on an officers opinion. The potential for abuse is enormous.
I could care less what you believe, it happened.
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.