San Antonio: 'No Refusal' every day of the year

Draconian, in my opinion:

The Link

 

Typical San Antonio. Less than a year ago DA Susan Reed was complaining about the number of DWI's and reducing the charges to reckless driving.

 

I fail to see how "no-refusal" is not a violation of the constitution.

Submit yourself to big brother or else!!

 

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

POlice are taking the blood by having a judge sign a search warrant. The search warrant is being based on the same probable cause that was used to arrest the driver. The same way they would search and seize evidence from a house or car. It just happens in this case, the evidence is in your body, blood. POlice right warrants for DNA the same way.

 

I'm with Herm Cain on this: allow unfettered blood drawing, but raise the legal limit to .15.

 

What exactly would be the reason for refusing the breathalizer? There won't be any blood draw if you just exhale some air, and if you aren't a piece of **** who I hope burns in hell drunk driver, you shouldn't have a problem.

 

Don't forget the concept of "implied consent."

---

 

TXST

1. I am not sure how the calibration is done but I do not think I have ever seen a case thrown out on grounds the machine wasn't calibrated. Not saying it hasn't happened but i would wonder how often.

2. The arrested person can consent to having their blood drawn. That way it is not destroyed and it can be retested if they feel the lab was wrong.

3. They use a new mouth piece to blow in for every arrested person.

4. Then you should have no problem with the Police securing a warrant for the seizure of the arrested persons blood.

Of course I still believe it is just easier to not drink and drive.

 

In fact, these days, it's even more than "implied," for minors, at least. All drivers license applications in Texas contain this clause:

Excellent point, comrade.

As long as the state takes the time and effort to publish their intent to search on drivers licenses I guess constitutionality issues just magically disappear.

 

Implied consent has been held Constitutional for nearly 50 years. I see nowhere in the Constitution that states that driving an automobile on a public road is a right. Do you have a right to fly an airplane? That's why it's called a "license." It's a grant of privileges by the state.

You don't want to be subject to a breath or blood test, don't get a drivers license. It's very simple.

Like a previous poster noted, the blood draws require a warrant. If you want to refuse a breath test, then be prepared to lose your drivers license for 180 days.

 

If the person requests that their lawyer or legal advisor be present do the police have to comply with that request?

If the suspect says sure I'll blow or have my blood drawn, but I want my attorney here to advise me while it's being done. How is that handled?

It is easier to not drink and drive, but as you can see in the case of Jeff Ward over memorial day weekend, you can be arrested for having one or two beers over the course of a few hours, and if you don't blow they haul you off.....that is not right!

 

The reason you don't blow, is the most obvious, 3 beers and I am over the limit.

You are automatically guilty if you blow and you are at .08.

If you don't blow, suspend my license, less of a penalty then a DUI. Get a warrant take my blood. When it comes to the police investigating or accusing me of anything, they are going to meet as much resistance as possible(not physical). While I may have done something wrong, I am going to try and get out of it any way that I can.

While some of you may think of me as the Devil, my good friend was pulled over for, you know what, his license plate frame, dealer frame, covered up to much of his license plate. He had three beers, I was with him that night, he blew a .08, he contested everything, the judge even said it was BS why he was pulled over. Probation interlock community service and the liquor license he was trying to secure for the bar he was opening, gone.

For every sad story, there is an injustice story.

Should you know your limits, yes and it effects each person differently.

I also believe that the tests and people allowed to drive in this country should be much more difficult, there are tons of people out there that should not be allowed to drive and they are allowed.
.
Don't even get me started on Texting and Cell Phones and driving.

 

I have an idea. Aren't those searches they do at airports illegal? I mean, I'm innocent, they have no reason to search me. If I refuse to submit to search, I get arrested, or at the very least taken to a back room and interrogated by the FBI. Why aren't you drunk drivers up in arms about those searches? Oh that's right, cause it benefits you because otherwise all of our planes would be blown up with you onboard. But if a cop whos seen you swerving or come out of a bar and get into a car and has reasonable suspicion wants you to blow into a breathalyzer, suddenly the constitution comes into play. I hate when people selectively choose when they want the constitution to apply so that it benefits them the most.

---

 

Your friend was driving drunk. That isn't a sad or unfair story. He got off way too easy.

 

Your friend was driving drunk. That isn't a sad or unfair story. He got off way too easy.
__________________________________________________

3 beers is a criminal to you? you must be for the death penalty for manslaughter.

 

general,
What happens when 3 beers becomes 4? Or 5?

 

But the three beers did not become 3 or 4, and the guy above thinks the police pull you over for swerving. That is one of the biggest fallacies of people who are at the legal limit. They pull you over for anything and everything, except turning across three or four lanes of traffic.

This guy had his life turned upside down because he drank three beers and hurt no one. His license plate didn't show enough of the horse at the bottom of the license plate, which that was the reason the cop gave in court, not when he pulled my friend over. The reason he was pulled over was because he paused at a light turning from red to green, he looked both ways before proceeding and the cop had to slam on his brakes. How do I know, I was behind the cop.

All you righteous folks out there, a person should know their limits and adjust or make plans accordingly. For my friend to be persecuted and basically his life turned upside down for being responsible, is a joke.

 

dont drink and drive...it really is that simple.

get a mfin cab cheap ***

 

Using a quick BAC calculator, it estimated that a 175lb man drinking three beers in one hour would be at .05. Obviously there are other factors involved that the calculator doesn't take into consideration, but for most men, three beers will not get you over the limit.

 

Msdw

"No refusal" Weekends are not as easy as they sound. After you make the arrest, you have to type the search warrant and have it signed by a judge. This might be easy for large departments with access to a county jail where a judge is pretty much always on duty. Smaller departments have manpower issues and issues finding a judge. While it is not difficult it is time consuming. Then they have to have a blood draw. There are a few departments in North Texas that the jailers are certified Phlebotomists. Not every department can afford to train their jailers to be Phlebotomists. If they can't, then you are forced to go to the local or county hospital and wait in the ER for someone to draw blood. Ever seen a county hospital ER on a weekend or late night? The hospital does not store the blood so the Police department also has to find ways to do that until it can be transferred to the lab. Just like everything else in local govt, it comes down to manpower and money. Now I am sure the DA Office loves no refusal weekend because it probably makes their conviction rates higher.

 

He had three beers, I was with him that night, he blew a .08....

He blew a .08. End of story.

He got stopped, maybe on a chickens*** reason, but the end result is that one more drunk driver was off the road. That's one more drunk that I don't have to worry about plowing into my, or someone elses, family.

 

.08 is nonsense.

That is draconian and beyond the pale. Sop for MAD in the same way anti-marijuana laws became prominent to appease whiny suburban mommies.

f**k that.

No one should have their lives turned upside down, their business plans obliterated, etc., for blowing a .08 under circumstances wherein there was absolutely no demonstrated problem with the way they were handling the vehicle. That's ********.

.08 is ********.

 

While you may not agree that .08 is a reasonable level it is not draconian.

You now sound like a UofH fan saying that UT is scared to play them, i.e., you're way overstating your case.

 

No one should have their lives turned upside down, their business plans obliterated, etc., for blowing a .08 under circumstances wherein there was absolutely no demonstrated problem with the way they were handling the vehicle. That's ********.

Not so fast, my friend. I'm afraid that it is your statement which is bulls***.

Just think about what you're saying. You can post later when you're sober if it helps.

What standard then do you wish to employ when it comes to drunk driving? You say there must be a "demonstrated problem with the way they handle the vehicle". Does that make sense? Is it fair? Is it enforceable?

First, this would eliminate any set level of bac by which one could be deemed driving drunk (unless one arbitrarily picks a very high number). You may be able to "handle your vehicle" ok at a .10 while I may be affected at a .08. Now you've just eliminated an objective measurement and replaced it with a subjective "I thought he couldn't handle his vehicle" rule.

What if a drunk person temporarily drives better when he sees a cop, but 5 minutes later bags it and crashes? That person, should he be pulled over for another reason, should be cited for drunk driving. I don't care how well he pulled it together temporarily.

You, my friend, should look at what some other countries do for their bac limits. Then tell us how the US is draconian.

I think MADD is a bunch of worthless shrews, for the most part. Zero-tolerance, neo-prohibitionists who would make the world a better place if they all died. I also think .10 is a better limit. But .08 is within the realm of reason, and is a much better standard to use than "not handling their vehicle".

 

We need to rethink how we handle drunk drivers in much the same way we should rethink how we handle the drug war. Rather than having MADD get their panties in a wad over whether someone was drinking before he or she drove (or even worse over whether there was an open container in the vehicle), why not focus on the actual driving and the harm done? After all, it's the recklessness of the driving that injures others, not the fact that the driver was drunk.

By focusing on the drinking, you have to craft what are ultimately arbitrary guidelines to determine intoxication. You also have to deploy a very oppressive and costly police force to apprehend drivers and gather evidence (through breath tests and blood draws). (It also hacks me off that MADD is willing to use the Constitution as toilet paper to enforce its agenda, but that's an argument for another day.)

A better alternative would be to simply punish drivers who disobey the rules of the road and cause personal injury, death, or destruction of property. You could make intoxication an aggravating factor to be considered in determining punishment, but make the failure to obey the rules of the road and the harm done the basis for criminal liability, not the mere presence of alcohol.

Regarding the TSA argument, if we'd start respecting the Second Amendment on aircraft and appropriately screen who we let into the country, I'd have no problem with scrapping the TSA. Nevertheless, even if I wasn't willing to do so, the comparison is weak. The consequences of letting terrorists on a plane are much more severe than letting a drunk person on the road. Accordingly, the interest in keeping terrorists off planes is far more compelling than keeping a drunk off the road. Because the interest is far more compelling, the argument in favor of restricting the normal constitutional protections is stronger.