Don't see the problem. Officer believes there is evidence of a crime so his/her duty is to secure said evidence. The suspected impaired driver can do it the easy way or the hard way.

DUI checkpoints are another thing entirely that walk a fine line with regard to the 4A.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
OK... then you've got nothing to worry about.

The old "if you are not doing something wrong then don't worry about it comrade" argument, the acceptance of this in courts and in general JMO is disappointing that anyone finds this ok.. Unless I"m doing something wrong and legally observed to be doing it wrong, and/or they have prior proof that I'm doing something wrong, then they shouldn't be looking at me.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Don't drink and drive. It's not just a catchy phrase. It's the law. Your license to drive on the public streets is contingent upon following the law.

That is true, however JMO the DL TOA isn't the discussion point, it is about governmental forced self incrimination based on a blockade technique. You capitulate, or we'll force you to capitulate in the name of DUI revenue for us and our Civil attorney buddies. There's gold in DUI's..

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
DWI testing is not an "egregious abuse of the 4th Amendment" if there is probable cause.

The discussion isn't that DWI testing is an abuse of the 4th, but how the government arrives at the decision that they can force you to take the DWI test.

"Probable cause" and we know that can be loosely interpreted, "lets see, 40 year old male, car, 1am, probable cause he fits the profile of DUI"
Wonder how many forced blood tests end up negative, in those cases the Judge, Cop City and county should have their asses sued.

There is a big difference in an officer viewing someone driving erratically, or stopping every car at 1am under a fishing expedition to catch people who have had alcohol, and without seeing any violation of the MVC forcing them to incriminate themselves.

Regardless of what the odds are, driving away from a bowling alley or White Castle at 2am isn't probable cause. Well White Castle, maybe, if you have a car full of college students...

quote:

Originally posted by Anubismp:
My feelings on DUI are pretty strong but I'll bring up two things that may help you understand all that. Mind you, I dont live or work in the great state of Texas( but strongly enjoyed the time I spent there) so check your local laws. I will also point out Uber or Lyft are cheaper than a DUI and safer.

Check the stuff you sign when you signed for your license and I think you will see that in many states you agree to take the tests or risk suspending your license. Again not sure about TX, might be different there.

I dont see the 4th amendment issue if a judge has granted a search warrant. If you get pinned down and phlebotomized (triple word score) without one I'd absolutely understand.

My opinion as in all legal stuff is of course mine and everyone else is entitled to theirs as well but hey, you asked.

Arrest them and take them to jail just like any other weeknight. If the officer believes someone is impaired, get it on dash cam showing them stumbling around. Let the officer give his "expert" opinion in court. Give the person their day in court. Watch some YouTube videos and see for yourself some of the not guilty verdicts that result because of improperly administered FSBs. Watch officers testifying that can't even recite all of the "clues" for each of the tests. I watched one video last night where a young lady did two of the three FSBs perfectly except she didn't follow directions EXACTLY as the officer instructed. Never mind that she was tired and worked a 12 hour shift until 3 AM and hadn't slept 24 hours because of school. Or one where a training officer is caught on audio telling the new guy to "get him....talk about smelling alcohol" before ever getting up to the car.

Probable cause or not, you are not required to provide evidence against yourself (I should have mentioned the 5th amendment). Why don't we start waterboarding suspected bank robbers and get them to confess because some cop has probable cause to believe their subject did the crime. No, you take your evidence to a court of law.

Yeah, okay, check the stuff you sign to get a license. Bullshit. Everyone in Texas has to drive to survive. It isn't a GD privilege its a necessity regardless of what they say.

Rumor is from many a lawyer (I am told) that cops will tell them to never agree to the FSB tests. They are designed to make you fail. My FSILs dad is a retired cop and his stepmom is a former prosecutor. The say the same thing. How many times have you tried to walk heel to toe in your lifetime? Yet they expect someone to do it on the side of a busy road at night having never even tried doing it?

You think these "on call" judges on no refusal nights aren't rubber stamps? Ask some of President Trumps allies about judges. Ask Sydney Powell, General Flynn's attorney, how "crooked" the DoJ is. Have you watched any videos of her on YouTube talking about it.

Maybe I'm jaded given all the other crap going on, but I'm not buying into it. Like I said, I don't drink and drive and rarely drink at home. My stepdaughter doesn't have her dad because of some shithead drunk. I see signs nearly everyday (when we weren't locked down in our homes) driving to work sometimes where the electronic signs on the side of the highway shows the count of alcohol related fatalities on Texas roadways. Its a bad deal, but our justice system has to have limits regardless.

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:
Is it ok to strap a rape or murder suspect down to draw blood for DNA testing?

"suspect"

Need I say more. Wake up man.

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Don't drink and drive. It's not just a catchy phrase. It's the law. Your license to drive on the public streets is contingent upon following the law.

That is true, however JMO the DL TOA isn't the discussion point, it is about governmental forced self incrimination based on a blockade technique.
There is a big difference in an officer viewing someone driving erratically, or stopping every car at 1am under a fishing expedition to catch people who have had alcohol, and without seeing any violation of the MVC forcing them to incriminate themselves.

OK. I agree. "Checkpoints" where they blockade the road and force everyone to submit to a test without any probable cause ARE a violation of the 4th Amendment", IMO.
I didn't realize that we were talking about blockades. Sorry.

zero sympathy for drinkers who drive

none at all

you don't have to drink if you have to drive

you get caught, sucks to be you

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Don't drink and drive. It's not just a catchy phrase. It's the law. Your license to drive on the public streets is contingent upon following the law.

That is true, however JMO the DL TOA isn't the discussion point, it is about governmental forced self incrimination based on a blockade technique.
There is a big difference in an officer viewing someone driving erratically, or stopping every car at 1am under a fishing expedition to catch people who have had alcohol, and without seeing any violation of the MVC forcing them to incriminate themselves.

OK. I agree. "Checkpoints" where they blockade the road and force everyone to submit to a test without any probable cause ARE a violation of the 4th Amendment", IMO.
I didn't realize that we were talking about blockades. Sorry.

You had me worried for a bit LOL

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Obeying traffic laws is an obligation. Drinking and driving is neither a right, nor a privilege.

Obeying a lawful order is an obligation. That includes a sobriety check.

One may elect to fail to comply with the law; failure to comply comes with consequence.

Try refusing a DOT drug or alcohol test and see how that torpedoes a career.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:
Is it ok to strap a rape or murder suspect down to draw blood for DNA testing?

"suspect"

Need I say more. Wake up man.

Yes, I am afraid you would need to say more..... Are you saying any suspect should not have their blood drawn or that it's ok to draw some suspect's blood just not if they are suspected of DUI?

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:
Is it ok to strap a rape or murder suspect down to draw blood for DNA testing?

It certainly is, with a warrant or consent.

quote:

Originally posted by kidcop:

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:
Is it ok to strap a rape or murder suspect down to draw blood for DNA testing?

It certainly is, with a warrant or consent.

Yes, obviously after having sufficient probable cause and a judge's order.

I'm one of the go-to guys in my shop when there's a "hey, how do we / can we articulate sufficient PC for a warrant in this case?" question. I'm the search & seizure nerd.

And, I've had a judge decline to issue, in cases where the element of "instrusion" was much more mild than inserting a needle into a human body. So it does happen. It's embarrassing as hell when it happens, but it happens. PC is either there, or it's not.

Fortunately for my brethren working traffic, their observations can make for pretty strong PC.

Don't want to be held down & have blood drawn pursuant to a valid warrant? Easy answer. Don't do or exhibit behaviors that are consistent with something that's a crime in every U.S. state and territory, and where your blood is very good evidence. Or, at least, don't do it where the officer is skilled at articulating PC and has easy access to a judge.

This 'driving is a privilege, not a right' concept has always bothered me.

But after the last three decades of of seeing Americans increasingly give up their liberties, exponentially crescendo-ing in the last three months ...



I guess maybe all the Rights I used to believe were given us by God and revered as such in our Constitution and Bill of Rights have just been privileges after all.

I have been on the scene of many horrendous crashes caused by DUI drivers during my career. I also have family members who have been seriously injured by DUI drivers. Until you have witnessed first hand the destruction and human suffering caused by DUI drivers you can't begin to understand what a scourge they are.

Most states have passed aggressive legislation over the past 40 years in an attempt to empower law enforcement to deal with the problem, and DUI laws are constantly being tested in the courts. DUI's are lucrative cases for criminal lawyers because many of the assholes who get arrested have money.

You consent to testing when you get your license. A forcible blood draw pursuant to a warrant issued by a judge based upon probable cause is a legal search. In most states law enforcement can forcibly draw blood in a serious injury or fatality that is DUI related even without a warrant. Until the laws are changed or ruled unconstitutional by the courts, they are a viable tool. Until then, fuck a bunch of assholes who would drive impaired.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
This 'driving is a privilege, not a right' concept has always bothered me.

Me too. It's remarkable how many people thoughtlessly repeat this drivel.

Anyone who truly believe it must consider themselves a subject of the government. There's no getting around it.

Firearms are a right but driving is a privilege because it wasn't written on a piece of parchment. You can't make this stuff up and good luck trying to get through to these people.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
I don't drink and drive, and I agree 100%.

I'll take a more "dangerous" world and increased liberty and less government power, almost every time.

I don't need nor want the government to "protect me" thusly.

No one should be strapping anyone to a table for any such thing against ones will, ever - maybe...

The very idea is 1000x more vile than all the DUI deaths combined.

It's an extraordinarily putrid violation of ones person.

And take the DL argument and case law and choke on it. They're wrong, but we live with it anyway.

Take the driver off the road at the time, obviously. Work with what clear evidence you have.

Beyond that, bugger off with this whole "strapping people down" business. That's fucking crazy talk.

Tell us how you really feel.
In all seriousness, I respect your opinion, although I disagree with it.

14 years and NEVER have requested a search warrant for blood when they refused.
Have yet to loose a DUI case.

I googled No Refusal in Texas and the website I found says the no refusal applies if you have been pulled over for suspicion of being impaired. It does not mention checkpoints. So the issue really is probable cause and how it applies at a checkpoint.

If the checkpoint only serves as an observation to lead to probable cause for further investigation I would have a hard time arguing against it. If however officers at a checkpoint are randomly selecting people for a breathalyzer or field test without probable cause that would be a different story. I don't believe one can sign away a right merely by exercising a privilege.

Would people be okay with random ID checks at a gun range to look for felons in possession of a firearm?

Just don't give the police PC for a warrant. That means don't drive in such a way as to give them PC for a stop. And if you're stopped, you'd better hope the cop's dash cam footage shows you maintaining your lane and exhibiting no signs of impairment.

You do not have to comply with a request for a field sobriety test. That's not the same as refusing a chemical test. By the time they've asked you to do a field sobriety test, they've already decided you're going to jail. They're just letting you build the rest of their case for them on their dash and body cams. Don't comply. If they ask for a chemical test, you're betting your license by refusing. That's just a matter of driving being a privilege and not a right.

I have refused a breathalyzer and skated for it. But only because I got lucky. Not sure I would do that again, though I would always refuse a field sobriety test. And you don't have to answer the cop's questions by the side of the road either. Everything he needs to know is on your documents.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Orndorff:
Don't see the problem. Officer believes there is evidence of a crime so his/her duty is to secure said evidence. The suspected impaired driver can do it the easy way or the hard way.

DUI checkpoints are another thing entirely that walk a fine line with regard to the 4A.

agree

checkpoints should not be allowed

i don't think dog 'indications' should be permissible either

---------------------------------