Best
121 Comments
Post
  • #5
    !
    Your civil liberties have been being violated for so long,in so may ways, why would anyone think its going to stop.
  • #68
    !
    You have that one right on the button! It is time that we do as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (or was it Monroe?) had said, that the govt should be [rechecked] every 20 years or so, by the PEOPLE, to verify that the governing are governing "correctly" for the PEOPLE. Basically that if the Democratic process is "not working," to change it to the way that is most beneficial to the ppl. It is, unfortunately, not put in the Constitution though; it was in ltrs written between the two. Our primary "rights" and redresses, allowances, etc., are obviously in amendments 1st, 2nd, and so on... We always need to keep our elected officials doing what WE put them in office to do! We should have a law, similar to Australia's, that if able to vote, you must vote, or be fined (unless you have a "professional's" note of some sort).
  • #120
    !
    Well because in this case, its also a matter of health and/or personal safety. I mean...cops are not doctors, they are not nurses, they have no medical credentials to speak of...The last thing that anyone should even consider is some burly cop, on some late night beat---looking for drivers vein on the side of some dark road or highway...Just the thought of it, makes me cringe with all sorts of health issues...Just NOT a good idea!
  • #4
    !
    This is a tough one. So many variables. There are crimes being committed all around in this scenario. Who are the bad guys? Who are the good guys? My feelings is this would be a judgment call.
  • #13
    !
    It kinda makes me sad to think of it. Sad that the driver was driving drunk, sad that police violated his rights and took the blood sample and sad that although the guy was drinking and driving that he should get off because of the police misbehavior. Sad indeed.
  • #15
    !
    @PNWest - Finally you've become American and are sad for the condition of the country. I'm a little less sad today knowing that we've won over one more person for the fight.
  • #50
    !
    It could be considered unlawful search and seizure. I am not. Lawyer so basicly I am sort of fishing in the dark
  • #24
    !
    Don't think this adminastration isn't leaning towards communism? Think again. Just look at all the things Obama has tried to pass in the last 4 years. Now he has no election to worry about WATCH OUT!
  • #32
    !
    You're confused. Busting drunk drivers is done by highway troopers and local cops enforcing state laws. What the hell has Obama got to do with it? Next you'll tell how he's planning to rig the Super Bowl. And if you've got commies hiding under the bed and whispering to you I suggest you call 911, shoot them yourself, or seek help to make them just go away.
  • #93
    !
    @RoyFloyd The only people I want to go away is this adminastration and the people who back it. For the last 4 years I have watched this goverment sqandering money like theres no tomorrow and stripping me of my rights while giving them to people that aren't even citizens of this country. Don't be pointing fingers at WHOS confused!
  • #9
    !
    Police pull you over for a reason. If you refuse a breathalizer you are admitting guilt. This is the law in many states, and having a CDL sometimes you waive those rights to have a CDL licenses. I say yes-keep the drunks off the road.
  • #25
    !
    @russ

    since most of the accidentsbetween cars and semis, like over 90% of them, are caused by the car driver, what do you think about holding all drivers to those same standards? mandatory drug tests and physicals and vehicle inspections....?
  • #30
    !
    @woodtick57 I'm actually ok with that. Far too many people take a cavalier attitude about their responsibility on the road. For those concerned about protecting civil rights, bear in mind the officer will still have to provide probable cause.
  • #34
    !
    I agree with that, but probable cause is often usurped by greedy cops who, by the actions of their union, get paid time and a half for case that gets drug into court, because the arresting officer needs to be there. The system is rigged now that its virtually impossible to defend against a DUI, as it comes down to your word against the cops.
  • #40
    !
    Yes the Truck driver (And I am presuming we are talking about a CDL driver here) Did in fact give his implied consent, when he received his D.L.
    However every State also has implied consent laws, meaning when EVERY driver on the road who has a drivers license, implies their consent to blood draws....
  • R Load more replies

  • #1
    !
    I would rule in favor of the driver. While he had no business driving, leo have no authority to invade someone's body. They obviously were unable to obtain a search warrant, or they would already have had one.
  • #36
    !
    Performing a blood draw is not invading one's body. If it keeps a drunk off the road, then by all means do it!
  • #47
    !
    He was given the option of a breathalyzer and he refused. The cops had reasonable cause to believe he was intoxicated. They probably saved someone's life. Not only do I say let them draw the blood if someone refuses a breathalyzer, I say a DUI should be a felony and the blood can then be sent to the national database and have his dna ran throught the system. His right's end at the point where he makes a choice to endanger the lives of other people for his own selfish reasons. and gets behind the wheel intoxicated. Easy answer, don't drive drunk or blow in the machine.
  • #80
    !
    @frigginhell I'm sorry but your post makes you seem ignorant. First, "the cops had reasonable cause to believe he was intoxicated." How do you know this? A cop is a person, are they not?( Which means they CAN make mistakes)Second, "I say a DUI should be a felony and the blood can then be sent to the national database and have his dna ran through the system." DUI in and of itself should not be a crime. If a person goes to a bar and has 6 beers, then drives home with no problems, ie. accident, speeding or other infraction, there is no injured party, therefore no crime has been commited. Third, you are on par with the rest of this troubled nation, "his rights end" a RIGHT can NOT be taken away, only a priveledge can.
  • #83
    !
    @PositiveChange "If a person goes to a bar and has 6 beers, then drives home with no problems, ie. accident, speeding or other infraction, there is no injured party, therefore no crime has been commited." That's like saying the child that goes behind his mother's back to get a cookie and doesn't break the jar shouldn't be punished.
  • R Load more replies

  • #71
    !
    I would make him take the blood test. He has no business on a third DUI arrest to have any rights where this is concerned. He should have his license revoked, and put in jail then to rehab. Too many people die by the vehicles of drunk drivers.
  • #42
    !
    Missouri vs McNeely.....currently being deliberated...The Supreme Court is probably not going to allow it. According to the defense attorney Stephen Shapiro, " the issue here is whether the government has the right to stick a needle in the arm of EVERYONE who is suspected of drunk driving...The government is asking for too much." Forgoes the 4th Amendment...also cruel and unusual punishment BEFORE conviction (the govt is not "entitled" to a conviction, it must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," with the operative word being "reasonable")...the govt must use a "reasonable (and constitutional) means to achieve a legitimate interest" at the rational basis level...The suspect is protected against providing "material evidence" that will lead to a conviction. It could also set a precedent allowing the govt to completely disregard the entire Constitution because of this 5th Amendment violation (which also outlaws "coercion")...which is what this is... as is "implied consent"...driving privileges are not contingent on "consent"...they can only be taken by providing probable cause for restriction...there are so many directions the ACLU can argue this case that the Supreme Court will kick it out because substantive appeals could mean a revolving door at the district level...officers are not often actually qualified to be officers (especially the sheriff.."never fought a duel and not a convicted felon" is the only requirement), let alone "certified" nurses (could easily lead to personal injury litigation)...the medical facilities cannot be "required" to do the testing...they have constitutional protections too... the police can't just do whatever in hell they please, even though they have most people passively subjugated to that illegal premise...and now they are asking for THAT power too. Illegal invasion with impunity. Just exactly what the Founders feared. And they are taking your guns too.
  • #37
    !
    Look at this this way, the driver's civil liberties stop when his actions endanger public safety. I'm 100% for it having two family members and 3 friends killed by drunk drivers, one of which was a repeat offender. These people CHOOSE to consume alcohol, then CHOOSE to get behind the wheel of a death machine.
  • #43
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix No! It's the person, not the car. Just like with the mass shootings; it's the person, not the gun!
  • #27
    !
    If a person is pulled over, it is for a reason. If then the officer thinks this is a DUI situation and the driver refuses a breathalyzer test, then yes, that person should have his/her blood drawn to find out. The officers ask for a breathalyzer test if there is good cause. They usually try a field sobriety test first anyway. If they fail, then breathalyzer. If refused, blood draw. Police are allowed to do certain things without a warrant when there is just cause. I have SLE lupus, I would actually ask for the breathalyzer first. If not for special consideration in the field sobriety test. The only part that Gould give me problems is walking heel to toe in a straight line. There are times I would be physically unable to do it. I could do the rest.
  • #33
    !
    I was with a friend who was pulled over, passed the field sobriety test and blew a 0.0 on the breathalyzer and still charged with a DUI. He asked repeatedly for a blood test. They didn't give him one until the next day. How irrelevant is that? It was negative of course. The police said the breathalyzer wasn't working right. He was actually convicted! If they had done a blood test that night, he could have proven his innocence.
  • #111
    !
    "It is for a reason"
    That's the worst sort of reasoning. With that line you can justify anything.
    Of course everything is for a reason, that doesn't mean it is a just reason.
    In this case why not force the breathalyzer on the person rather than a blood test? They can force the blood test but need consent for the breathalyzer? That doesn't make any sense.
  • #112
    !
    @CommonSense
    You can't force a person to blow for five seconds. You can force a blood draw through restraints.
  • #113
    !
    @BelinKS
    It would be preferable to just make the sentencing equivalent to a positive breathalyzer when someone refuses a breathalyzer demanded under probable cause. That would solve the problem.
  • R Load more replies

  • #26
    !
    The consequences for refusal to permit blood withdrawal in conjunction with probable DUI are such that they are sufficient to protect the people. Refusal usually means loss of license, subject to arrest, and refusal to consent to draw is admissible in Court as evidence of DUI.

    However, according to article it is not the blood draw itself that is in question, but the forcible obtaining of it and without due process.
  • #6
    !
    A driver who is visibly drunk may also be intoxicated with drugs that do not show up in a breathalyzer test, and the visible intoxication should be considered probable cause for further investigation without a search warrant.
  • #18
    !
    Wasn't there an article on this site about some rogue cops in Texas that pulled a couple of women over and were administering a very invasive bodily search for drugs? I find no easy answers here. Police can't always be trusted, yet a motorist should not be able to take the lives of law abiding taxpaying citizens into his own hands.
  • #75
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix I would not advise roadside blood draws any more than the roadside body cavity searches that you reference that happened in Texas. The blood test should be performed by trained medical personnel. The 4th Amendment requires the means and procedures employed in taking a blood sample from a DUI suspect are reasonable.
  • #3
    !
    the way i understand the law,you either take the test or lose your cdl. it has been a awhile yet think it is right in the handbook.driving again is a privileged not a right.
  • #66
    !
    Re CDLs and DLs, you are correct, they are earned priviledges, not rights. LEOs do have to have probable cause, but unless the CDL truck driver takes a breathalizer, in the 1st place, said driver forfeits their license. I only believe that blood should be drawn, however, if the CDL, or licensed driver requests it. Then again, it all goes back to one's refusal to take a breatalizer=automatic loss of driving priviledges. Regarding another's comment, I DO NOT agree that, unless one has a 2nd DUI that they should be given felony convitions. A class I, or is it III, misdemeaner is bad enough. I am for laws but, as another brought up, over the governing? What do they gain? Again, I am very leary about a 1st convition felony. A 16 year old's life could be destroyed, er even an 18 year old's due to a potential stupid act. You could get a felony conviction then by being over a state's legal limit, you get into your vehicle, put your key in the ignition, and a police officer seeing you stumble, waiting till you get into your vehicle and, given the stumbling=probable cause, arrest you the minute that they hear your car start up (even if just to warm yourself up). A felony for that? It would be possible, seen it almost occur! The person was "arrested" and charged with a DUI, having taken the breathalizer and having a BAC of .09, I believe. A felonious act? I don't think so. Btw, the judge was "kind enough" to drop the charge, being .01 below the former law, but a very "close one" for my friend. Today he'd have been .01 OVER, for going out to his car to warm himself up? In any case...
  • #121
    !
    Wow this is a huge violation of civil liberties. I am curious as to what signs the trucker showed the police officer that gave the him probable cause that the driver had been drinking? If the officer has no probable cause then any evidence obtained from the arrest can not be used in court.

    If the driver as in fact convicted, then this case has 'appeal' written all over it. Although the criminal appeals process may be lengthy ( http://www.wklaw.com/areas_appeals_step_by_st... ), it is definitely worth it. My brother-in-law recently had his wrongful DUI conviction successfully appealed and we couldn't be happier.
  • #119
    !
    If I were forced to provide a bodily fluid against my will I would feel extremely violated this is a form of rape and some idiot wants to make it into law....
  • #109
    !
    The trucker was under arrest for suspicion of driving while intoxicated, he forfeited his right to search/seizure protection. It should be a law that if you refuse a breathalyzer you are then subject to blood test. Give the drunk driver a choice before they kill an innocent. But it should not be mandatory.
  • R Load more comments...
Post