What's new
By:

More Out Of Control Govt

S

Scat

Well-Known Member
https://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=165079&catid=250

Florida is among several states now holding what are called "no refusal" checkpoints.

It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test.
Click to expand...

Seriously? If I refuse to blow in a machine a judge will issue a warrant on the spot, with absolutely no reasonable suspicion other than I won't blow the machine, to perform an invasive medical procedure on me? This has to be unconstitutional.
 
Do the blow test. What do you have to hide? Take the test, can't imagine it takes more than a few minutes, and you're done.

I thought conservatives were all for states being able to make up their own rules? I get so confused with states fighting against the evil empire (federal govt) and claiming that states rights are being taken away. Then flip flopping and asking that the fed gov step in when their own states make up rules.

Which is it? Are you in favor of states having more power or less?
 
Marcus said:
https://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=165079&catid=250



Seriously? If I refuse to blow in a machine a judge will issue a warrant on the spot, with absolutely no reasonable suspicion other than I won't blow the machine, to perform an invasive medical procedure on me? This has to be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say with absolutely no reasonable suspicion. A lot of cars are stopped at these DUI checkpoints and I'm sure they'll be selective on who to test based on reasonable suspicion--smell of breath or from car, behavior, speaking, eyes. They're not going to do it to everyone they stop. They're going to do it to those they think are impaired and could kill someone.
 
I tend to agree with Marcus here. Even if the intentions start out benign, this tactic is begging to be abused.
 
The Thriller said:
Do the blow test. What do you have to hide? Take the test, can't imagine it takes more than a few minutes, and you're done.
Click to expand...

Really? You're basically advocating the policy that everyone is guilty until they prove their innocence.

I thought conservatives were all for states being able to make up their own rules? I get so confused with states fighting against the evil empire (federal govt) and claiming that states rights are being taken away. Then flip flopping and asking that the fed gov step in when their own states make up rules.

Which is it? Are you in favor of states having more power or less?
Click to expand...

You make it sound like conservatives want to grant states unlimited powers which is just retarded. Government at all levels needs controls and limits to what they can and can't do.
 
I will never submit to a state blood test. Since I don't drink I'll happily use the brethalyzer, but both these things are dumb. Why can't they come up with a solid impairment test that doesn't differentiate between any drug one may have in his/her system?
 
Marcus said:
Really? You're basically advocating the policy that everyone is guilty until they prove their innocence.
Click to expand...
Huh, that never stopped conservatives from adamately supporting asset forfeiture laws, which is bacially another form of stealing. In that case, the person's property is guilty until proven innocent.

Then again, conservatives tend to leave their consistency at the door when it comes to the drug war.
 
Nate505 said:
Huh, that never stopped conservatives from adamately supporting asset forfeiture laws, which is bacially another form of stealing. In that case, the person's property is guilty until proven innocent.

Then again, conservatives tend to leave their consistency at the door when it comes to the drug war.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely about asset forfeiture. It is completely horrendous and I can't believe that people, especially people who like to go on about freedom, liberty and rights, aren't up in arms about it.

If you want to perform a search on me or of my property the standard must be the same in all cases. You must provide probable cause. The 4th amendment has completely fallen victim to the drug war. It is very hard to conduct such a war and respect the privacy of the people. That's because in the vast majority of drug crimes there is no victim to report the crime, so essentially everyone is suspect (especially if they live in the wrong place and/or dress in the wrong way, or they are of the wrong skin color).

I feel that the drug war and our prison system are the worst problems we have in this country right now.
 
Marcus said:
Seriously? If I refuse to blow in a machine a judge will issue a warrant on the spot, with absolutely no reasonable suspicion other than I won't blow the machine...
Click to expand...

Doesn't there have to be reasonable suspicion before the police officer can direct you to blow into the machine?
 
jazzman12 said:
Marcus, perhaps re-read the post from KEK because he basically nailed it.
Click to expand...

I understand what KEK is saying but I don't see anywhere in the article I referenced where it states that the breathalyzer test will be random or even selectively administered. It just states that these check points will be "no refusal".

Colton said:
Doesn't there have to be reasonable suspicion before the police officer can direct you to blow into the machine?
Click to expand...

Define reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is pretty much whatever the cop says it is. If you hiccup when you roll down the window the cop could use this as reasonable suspicion to administer the test. If there is a long line to get through the check point and you don't feel like waiting they could use your leaving the line and doing a U-turn as reasonable suspicion. If you have a Jack Daniels t-shirt on they could use this as reasonable suspicion. If you question the validity of these check points when the officer approaches you it could be considered reasonable suspicion. The term reasonable suspicion is incredibly vague and benefit of the doubt usually goes towards law enforcement.

McFly said:
I'm pretty sure in Utah if you refuse a blow test you get your license suspended automatically.
Click to expand...

That's fine. Driving is a privledge and it states right on your license that you waive certain rights by signing the license. My beef is that refusing to blow should not result in an immediate warrant for your blood. That's the part that gets ridiculous.
 
Marcus,

Exhibit some common sense. Do you really think they're going to have some judge signing off warrants on every single driver that goes through the checkpoint? Law enforcement, if they're doing their jobs, will be selective and utilize the services of said magistrate when needed, almost as a last resort really.
 
KrazeeEyezKilla said:
Marcus,

Exhibit some common sense. Do you really think they're going to have some judge signing off warrants on every single driver that goes through the checkpoint? Law enforcement, if they're doing their jobs, will be selective and utilize the services of said magistrate when needed, almost as a last resort really.
Click to expand...

Just the drivers that refuse to blow. I though that part was pretty clear.
 
Marcus said:
Just the drivers that refuse to blow. I though that part was pretty clear.
Click to expand...

And if the cops have done their jobs, said person will blow above the legal limit, thus making the warrant deserved, so to speak.

Seriously, if it's going to save a life that night, do you really give a **** if your rights have been infringed upon so greatly? Just saying man.
 
First they came for the terrorists and I did nothing because I wasn't a terrorist.
Then they came for the illegal aliens and I did nothing because I wasn't an illegal alien.
Then they came for the drunk drivers and I did nothing because I wasn't a drunk driver.
When they came for me there wasn't enough space in the prisons...
 
I have more of a problem with the compulsory checkpoints than I do with the breathalyzer after probable cause can be established.
 
In UT certain criteria must be met before a DUI checkpoint is even set up. It has to be advertised in papers and/or stated on news, and signed off by a Judge, etc...to give the average person the opportunity to chose a different route on their way home. In order to get a warrant issued for someone's blood you need more then reasonable suspicion, you need probably cause. My guess would be that, as usual, the reporter took certain information from the press release from the department conducting the checkpoint and used that for the story, disregarding the rest of the pertinent info.
 
Boondocksaint27 said:
In UT certain criteria must be met before a DUI checkpoint is even set up. It has to be advertised in papers and/or stated on news, and signed off by a Judge, etc...to give the average person the opportunity to chose a different route on their way home. In order to get a warrant issued for someone's blood you need more then reasonable suspicion, you need probably cause. My guess would be that, as usual, the reporter took certain information from the press release from the department conducting the checkpoint and used that for the story, disregarding the rest of the pertinent info.
Click to expand...

The interesting thing about this point is that I have been through 2 checkpoint along these lines. Both of them on the way to Wendover, both well past Tooele and Grantsville. Hardly any opportunity to choose a different route. I didn't balk too much as I wasn't drinking, but it sure doesn't support the point that they are advertised to you can choose a different route.

Also, couldn't the drunks choose a different route too? Seems counter-productive if they are trying to catch drunk drivers to announce it to the world like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top