quote:

Originally posted by mark_a:

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
I can see this evolving into another law enforcement hating thread...

Most of them earn it. Not all but most.

I respect your opinion but really don't think it is true nor applicable to this conversation.

Have a good day.

Thanks for sharing your opinion then?
Not sure why you felt the need to post that you have conflicting feelings .

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
I bet it’d really burn your brisket to know that a warrant wasn’t even required across the board for blood draws as a general rule until a few years ago.

I’m not a big DWI guy, they are the single biggest pain in the ass arrest/prosecution, but keep in mind that a lot of impaired drivers are on pills or drugs, that don’t show up in a breath test. There are officers certified as “Drug Recognition Experts” that are legally experts that can interpret the driver’s conditions medically to testify as to what drug they were impaired on, but that’s one of the rarest certifications I know of. A blood test isn’t subjective.

I’m also not a fan of DWI checkpoints. But that’s another thread...

The Supremes ruled that warrantless blood draws violated the 4th in 2013, but there was some fragmenting in the majority. More recently the Supreme Court held that a warrantless blood draw can be okay on an unconscious person. The court believes that the unconsciousness is an exigent circumstance (since you often wouldn't have probable cause for a warrant if the person cannot be observed conscious), and there is also a thread of "implied consent" (that is, you impliedly consented to such searches by driving on public roads) thread in all of these DUI/checkpoint/warrant cases.

I think the implied consent rationale is nonsense. When I walk down the sidewalk, I don't consent to be frisked, which is dangerously close to the same logic.

These cases split the courts in interesting ways. They often fracture the court on law and order/individual rights lines, which means than the judges we commonly label as conservative sometimes come down on different sides of these cases. There have even been some law and order lefties who rule in favor of what I think are invasive searches. That just goes to show you that the traditional conservative/liberal labels are often not very useful and are too simple and broad.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
I had a jackass cop cost me thousands of dollars, $5k. I understand the people saying it's an infringement of rights, at the same time it's no different than a warrant for a bank account of someone committing fraud.

Cop pulls me over, I had two drinks, a tall beer and a shot (single, not double). Has me do all the field sobriety tests, then says if you blow in this machine I'll let you go. I blow just below the limit .079. He says I still think you are drunk, I'm arresting you anyways. Get to station it was .081. Charged with DUI.

I had stopped in the bar on the way home drank the two drinks in ten minutes, drove four miles, got pulled over. The alcohol was not in my system yet, your body can't process it that fast. Total of fifteen minutes from drinks to being pulled over.

Had to pay lawyer $5k to say I was not drunk and I would have been home before it even hit my system. Cop testified that I passed the field sobriety tests, but he *thought* I was under the influence.

Screwed me out of $5,000, impound fees, and a day of work over this stupid cops hunch. I passed all three roadside tests and the roadside breathalyzer. Later found out that cop does almost nothing but DUI arrests.

A hunch is not probable cause.

you're part of the problem

you just don't realize it yet

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

I've lived Texas my entire life and I've never experienced a sobriety checkpoint. I do remember hearing about a checkpoint setup by Arlington PD several years ago but nothing since. I've always heard that these type of checkpoints were illegal in Texas. A quick search of the net I found that specifically, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held in 1991 that such checkpoints violated Texas drivers’ Fourth Amendment rights and were therefore unconstitutional.

I unknowingly evaded a DUI checkpoint in VA long ago. I hadn't been drinking and wasn't trying to evade. It's just that they had traffic backed up so far, that people couldn't see what the hold up was and were doing U-turns on the median strip and taking alternate routes. They had cops looking for those people too, but they were overwhelmed and couldn't stop everyone. It was such a clusterfook.

When they start treating cell phone use while driving the same as DUI, I'll believe the state cares an iota about public safety. At least most drunk drivers probably think they're ok to make it home. 100% of cell phone drivers know they're on their phone and don't need to be.

I don't want my government, or any, or anyone else for that matter, sticking needles into people against their will, including Narcan...

Those who support such things are broken, terrible people, who probably also talk during movies and beat their dogs for no good reason.

Shameful, the whole lot.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:

Thanks for sharing your opinion then?
Not sure why you felt the need to post that you have conflicting feelings .

OK, let me take this out of the realm of feelings then.. I have a lot of friends in law enforcement. To an officer they are professional and loathe bad cops more than you do. This thread is about potentially illegal search and seizures. You chose to take that and turn it into police bashing by your completely ludicrous and unsupportable statement.

So, in case you were confused by my politely informing you that I thought it inappropriate to shit up the thread try this on for size:

I find people that make statements like yours to generally be low life pieces of scum who don't have the brain cells God gave a slug. Does that help? It is easy to not get in to situations where you are in direct conflict with the police. It is apparently a lot harder for people like you to understand that there is a time and place for everything and conflict with an officer in the field rarely ends in a good result for said dumbass.

Be reasonable should you find yourself in peril legally and get your day in court.

I hope that cleared things up for you. Start your own cop bashing thread but don't whine when someone politely calls you out when it is in a different thread.

quote:

Originally posted by mark_a:

Ok scooter. You can FOAD and please add me to your ignore list so I never have the bad fortune of communicating with such scum again.

(laughs at Scooter)

Chill, dudes.

quote:

Do we need an organization like the NRA, GoA and other organizations to start protecting everyone of our rights? Are there any? Do we even have any rights left?

No refusal weekends, and administrative suspensions for refusal, don't endanger your rights.

Chemical tests are only required when an officer has probable cause to believe the driver is intoxicated... the same standard of proof as required for a warrant. Getting that warrant and drawing the blood with a warrant based on that probable cause is not an end run around the 4th Amendment, it specifically and exactly complies with it.

Further many states, including Colorado, have an "express consent" law. Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. If you exercise that privilege and operate a motor vehicle within the state you have expressed your consent to a chemical test of your blood when required by a peace officer, based on his having probable cause to believe you're under the influence of alcohol, drugs or both. If you refuse this test, withdrawing your consent, the state withdraws your privilege to drive. There is a back stop: if a judge finds that the officer didn't have probable cause you can get your license reinstated. If there was probable cause, you lose it for a year and then drive with a restricted license requiring an interlock device in any motor vehicle you operate for another year (or two, I forget). The solution is: take the test you agreed to take when you started the car.

In either case, neither consequence is a violation of any rights.

Sobriety checkpoints are illegal in Texas.

Nobody does them in Texas, not DPS, not counties, not cities.

A no refusal blood draw is always based on a warrant. Tx trans code chapter 524 used to have a non warrant requirement to fill out a form THP51 and do a warrantless blood draw in cases of fatality and substantial risk of death, but it was removed after the supreme court ruled in Missouri v. McNeely (569 US 141) that all of these draws need a warrant.

I find the contention that the execution of a search warrant should require the consent of the person being searched to be quite absurd. The whole point of the warrant is that is a court order to search for or seize some thing. Needing voluntary compliance with a court order or law means that it is not an order at all.

I have done a bunch of blood warrants. In 99% of cases, it is a very businesslike transaction where the suspect refuses to blow to give himself some time to get his BAC down below 0.08. Then he gives some blood and moves on to get fingerprints.

Very occasionally one will put on a show for the video camera (all blood draws are videotaped in my area), but generally even then the show ends when the draw is done.

I had one who actually put a real fight, but he was also a multiple murder charge (killing someone while committing felony DWI fits the elements of murder under 19.02(b)(3) ). He knew he was going for murder, had 3 priors for DWI and a head injury from crashing into the family he killed. Without a sample, he probably gets away with murder since the head injury invalidates your SFSTs.

So when he says he won't comply with the court order, do you drop the murders and charge him with misdemeanor resisting search, or do you follow the text of the warrant and 9.51 penal code?

^^^^
This is the best description of the process and why it shouldn't confuse people in this entire thread.

For those of you who enjoy getting worked up about your 4th amendment rights, please read Mitchell v. Wisconsin.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=...&cshid=1588363777625

That case is awesome. Seems if you are too drunk to refuse the blood draw, cops can take it under implied consent without a warrant. With implied consent, you have to actively withdraw the consent, otherwise the consent from getting your license is still valid.


Best part of this case was that Justices Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, Breyer and Chief Justice Robert's all voted with the majority.

Aren't you glad that Justices Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor are there to protect your rights........

If you're citing case law you're missing the point entirely. The question and problem is a philosophical one, not a legal one. Leave that to the courts. No one here is deciding any of that anyway.

And no one here is attempting to argue against the legal issue in its current state, much less in some ill conceived Muh Freedomz nonsense. The point, the real point, is that they're wrong, the laws themselves.

Disagree if you like, but that's the topic. Not some crap about exigent circumstances, nor some ruling here or there. I am stating, declaratively, that the landscape, as is, is (philosophically) *all fucked up*...

As in - Full Stop. If you (the universal) don't even have that degree of sole dominion over your own body?

The rest is damn near an illusion, then. The entire camel is inside the tent. "Freedom" is almost a joke.

Everything else is like some ridiculous pointless exercise, hamster wheels. (Figuratively, not Matrix).

Once they ("they") got "us" to concede such things, largely unbeknownst to folks, the rest is a piece of cake.

Shamefully so. As in - we're "lost" even thinking it's okay, but here we are, stuck with it and other issues.

It's all more or less moot, anyway. Too few pay enough attention or care enough to do anything.

There's just too much mass and momentum in the status quo, like a million freight trains worth.

I follow these dumbass laws like the rest of them, but they're not above scathing criticism and ridicule...

I think it’s garbage. Like someone else stated already, make cell phone driving illegal and actually enforce the shit out of it. Make it same penalties as DWI. Misdemeanors until strike 3 and it’s a felony charge. Each time you get caught doing it you go to jail. Pass and enforce that shit then I’ll believe you are protecting us.

I rode my motorcycle yesterday out to the country for a ride. The amount of idiots on their phones and swerving were too numerous to count. One lady, I was stuck behind for a few miles. 2 lane road and we are heading north. She swerved once too many times for my liking and the rear right wheel of her truck went into the grass. I dropped 2 gears and before I left her for dead, I glanced over and saw her on her damn phone.

Ewww, drinking and driving blah blah. Here is a smartphone, it’s perfectly legal to surf and drive. Bunch of bullshit.

quote:

Sobriety checkpoints are illegal in Texas.

They are a waste of time. They yield little in the way of results. They are done mainly because private agencies pay for the overtime.

We stopped them many years ago after seeing the waste of time and the paperwork required. So much better to just observe drivers and spot the telltale signs of impairment.

quote:

Originally posted by Prefontaine:
I think it’s garbage. Like someone else stated already, make cell phone driving illegal and actually enforce the shit out of it. Make it same penalties as DWI. Misdemeanors until strike 3 and it’s a felony charge. Each time you get caught doing it you go to jail. Pass and enforce that shit then I’ll believe you are protecting us.

I rode my motorcycle yesterday out to the country for a ride. The amount of idiots on their phones and swerving were too numerous to count. One lady, I was stuck behind for a few miles. 2 lane road and we are heading north. She swerved once too many times for my liking and the rear right wheel of her truck went into the grass. I dropped 2 gears and before I left her for dead, I glanced over and saw her on her damn phone.

Ewww, drinking and driving blah blah. Here is a smartphone, it’s perfectly legal to surf and drive. Bunch of bullshit.

So in that case officers would be applying for search warrants to get phone records and we’d be in the same discussion. Just a different type of evidence being requested.

I agree with 46and2.

The law recognizes "implied consent." So that IS the law, and makes some warrantless blood draws legal.

It can be hard to keep what the law is and what it should be separate in a discussion like this.

Warrantless draws and implied consent SHOULD NOT be the law. Implied consent is a legal fiction in my mind. The basic premise is that in applying for a driver's license you impliedly consent to a warrantless blood draw. But who makes you apply for a license? The state. Which then says because you applied for the license which we make you get, you have also waived part of your 4th amendment rights.

Privilege (not a right) schmivilege. That shouldn't matter. As I said earlier, the state shouldn't get to burden your 4th amendment right just because it doesn't have to give you a driver's license if you aren't a competent driver. The two things shouldn't go together. The rights in the constitution aren't trivial things. They are there because they are the bedrock of our freedoms. Those shouldn't get trumped by being granted the privilege of having a driver's license.

This makes the state's ability to restrict your ability to drive in public, which is a valid exercise of the state's power, into an ability to abridge your Constitutional rights, which is invalid. What a neat trick that is! A regular Catch-22!

Make the cops observe me driving while impaired, if I don't consent, get a warrant for a blood draw. That isn't too hard. The other tests available also give the cops the ability to arrest and charge us with the crime of DUI. If the state then has the evidence to convict you and remove your license, let the state go for it.

Of course, everyone hates drunk drivers. But that shouldn't override our rights.

Imagine some version of this being applied to the right to bear arms. We'd, quite rightly, lose our minds. (I know the parallels aren't exact, but there are similarities.)

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

So in that case officers would be applying for search warrants to get phone records and we’d be in the same discussion. Just a different type of evidence being requested.

Enforcing one and skipping the other is the very definition of hypocrisy.

The officers I know here would rather work a drunk wreck than one involving inattentive smart phone distraction.

DUI driving is minuscule in comparison to all these mother fucking idiots distracted driving. It’s so rampant it happens each and every time I drive or ride now. I don’t see, myself, the drunks on the road being even comparable. And distracted driving is just as bad as DUI or worse. The bird sized brain herd is addicted to a little ass small screen. Let’s fill the jails full of them. Put them on chain gangs.

Until then I’m not buying auto-needles by the Police, checkpoints or anything else. I call it what it is, bullshit.

quote:

So when he says he won't comply with the court order, do you drop the murders and charge him with misdemeanor resisting search

Yes, btw, unfortunately....

Because that (again, truly unfortunate) scenario is, broadly, less important than our collective freedom to not be stabbed with needles against our will (over a suspicion, even), no matter the sob story.

That's the sort of infected thinking and wonky priorities that got us in this situation in the first place and is the very heart of the matter.

It's in the Tyrants Handbook, pg 1, I'm sure of it.

Right next to "for the children", right?



Don't appeal to authority. Don't tell sob stories.

They're wholly beside the point, really.

The string of decisions and decision makers who led us to this current reality were all wrong, all along, all infected with too much Karen-ism, so to speak.