I have a hard time believing that forcing people to have their blood drawn when a policeman stops you to get an alcohol reading is legal/constitutional here in the US. But, it appears to be happening in Oregon.
At the "no refusal" checkpoints here they have a judge on site to sign orders.
I don't drink and drive, I rarely drink and I see a huge issue with this.
Brad
I see a huge problem as well... Especially for those of us who have a tendency to pass the **** out when pierced by needles. That's a case for a medical malpractice suit if they don't listen, as there are certain things that have to be taken into consideration when performing such actions on those of us that are afflicted.
They can make me blow into a breathylizer any time they want. I've got no issue with that as long as the check points are stopping everyone (there have been quite a few that target bikes only). Getting pricked by a needle is something completely different. Judge onsite or not, if it happened without probable cause, it's going to court and I WILL win.
I thought that checkpoints had been found unconstitutional, which they dam well should be and I believe they are.
Here they got around it by placing them 'after a cross road' and 'well marked ahead of time' so that you can pull off if you like and avoid it... I'm sure that wont raise suspicion...
I see seat belt checkpoints all the time. ( does anyone else remember when they first started with the mandatory seat belt talks? ' we will never use it to stop you, its just to keep you safe'.. now we have f-ing checkpoints )
I always wear my belt as i dont want to go flying thru the windshield if some moron hits me, and have since i could get in a car... But i still dont like what is going on.
[This message has been edited by Nurb432 (edited 06-29-2014).]
They can make me blow into a breathylizer any time they want. I've got no issue with that as long as the check points are stopping everyone (there have been quite a few that target bikes only). Getting pricked by a needle is something completely different. Judge onsite or not, if it happened without probable cause, it's going to court and I WILL win.
I have a problem with presumed guilt, in any situation.
They can make me blow into a breathylizer any time they want. I've got no issue with that as long as the check points are stopping everyone (there have been quite a few that target bikes only). Getting pricked by a needle is something completely different. Judge onsite or not, if it happened without probable cause, it's going to court and I WILL win.
Actually, you can refuse. You will forfeit your license but you can do it.
I may be wrong or things might have changed but the last I heard of a court ordered blood draw it had to be done at the hospital and then only in case of a death or injury accident.
In NC they side stepped the issue. Refusal a sobriety test, breathlyzer or blood test results in a 1 year revocation of your driver's license. You're not charged with being impaired. The charge is refusal to submit to the test.
No, you won't. There's plenty of legal precedent where people have challenged it and lost. Not saying you shouldn't fight it anyway if you found yourself in that position - just understand you will lose in the end.
Actually, you can refuse. You will forfeit your license but you can do it.
I may be wrong or things might have changed but the last I heard of a court ordered blood draw it had to be done at the hospital and then only in case of a death or injury accident.
Not sure if that would apply for a checkpoint since there is no stated suspicion. If you were stopped individually, sure..
Do you trust some unknown to stick needles in your arm? Pretty damned invasive to me, just for going about your daily business...
As long as they're a trained phlebotomist, it doesn't matter. They've been trained not only how to draw blood but how to observe sterility rules. I get blood drawn by an "unknown" every 3 months.
No, you won't. There's plenty of legal precedent where people have challenged it and lost. Not saying you shouldn't fight it anyway if you found yourself in that position - just understand you will lose in the end.
Yes, I will. If there's no probably cause, they CAN'T draw my blood. If they say I was weaving or crossed the center line or any of another million things that may or may not indicate impaired driving, that's a different story. If I get stopped at a checkpoint and, just because they want, they decide to draw my blood, I'll refuse. I won't lose my license and I WILL win a lawsuit. It would be the same as a cop stopping you as you were walking down the street and telling you he was going to draw your blood.
What is the major difference between the police asking you to consent to a blood drawn alcohol test, breath analyzer test and the field sobriety test?
It's all about proof and, assuming I'm NOT under the influence, it's in my favor to have a breathalyzer and/or blood test. I'm diabetic. If my sugar drops too low, I might exhibit signs that are similar to being intoxicated/high. So, let's say my sugar gets low (unexpectedly...it could conceivably happen in a matter of seconds) and I run a stop sign. A cop stops me (legitimately) and wants to do a field sobriety test which I would fail. If it stopped there, I could be charged with a DUI and I wouldn't have any evidence in my favor. I could SAY I wasn't drunk but just that my sugar was low. Who's to say I'm right or wrong? On the other hand, if I fail the FST and they draw my blood AND it shows I haven't been drinking or using drugs, they won't charge me and I get to go home.
In NC they side stepped the issue. Refusal a sobriety test, breathlyzer or blood test results in a 1 year revocation of your driver's license. You're not charged with being impaired. The charge is refusal to submit to the test.
And, when I go to court, I'll ask why they decided to check me/my blood. When they say, "just because we wanted to", me and my license will be going home. If I get stopped and the officer says he thinks I was weaving, crossed the center line, driving too slowly, etc, I'll be more than happy to submit to a FST. TBH, unless you have a lot of money to throw at a lawyer, it's probably the better bet to take the refusal charge rather than the DUI charge. That's just my opinion and I've never been charged with either so I could be wrong.
The big difference here is that driving is not a right, it's a privilege. If I had the time and money I'd fight too but odds are I would submit to that damn breath test just because I don't want the hassle. They will piss off enough people that sooner or later someone will fight this gestapo crap.
As long as they're a trained phlebotomist, it doesn't matter. They've been trained not only how to draw blood but how to observe sterility rules. I get blood drawn by an "unknown" every 3 months.
Yes, but that is due to your job, part of the 'agreement'.. We are talking 'regular' citizens going about their daily lives..
The big difference here is that driving is not a right, it's a privilege.
Technically yes, but i personally think its a grey area since you do have a right to move around as you please without being questioned. Just because technology has advanced and we no longer have to walk, it shouldn't change things.
Technically yes, but i personally think its a grey area since you do have a right to move around as you please without being questioned. Just because technology has advanced and we no longer have to walk, it shouldn't change things.
I believe this has been settled already. Not 100% sure though. Operating a motor vehicle is considered special so you need a license, etc. I agree it's simply another mode of travel but think the courts have already decided.
I believe this has been settled already. Not 100% sure though. Operating a motor vehicle is considered special so you need a license, etc. I agree it's simply another mode of travel but think the courts have already decided.
I was talking from how i feel, not the courts.
They make us get a license to carry my handgun, and that is a right. I have to register as a lobbyist to exercise my right to political free speech.... so the precedent is there.
And i have no issue with the concept of registration/licensing for driving, as if you dont meet a level of competency, you are a danger to others. At least as long as its not designed to prevent most people from being able to be registered, either by cost or complexity. But i do have an issue with the other 2 examples.
[This message has been edited by Nurb432 (edited 06-29-2014).]
