JohnRich 4 #1 July 17, 2009 News:No refusal anti-DWI operation "Harris County District Attorney Patricia Lykos reported that prosecutors and law enforcement teams combined for 337 total DWI-related charges in the latest No Refusal operation targeting area DWI “Hot Spots". "The operation was especially successful in continuing to reduce the rate of suspects who refuse voluntary intoxication breath testing. No Refusal teams gained warrants against 68 of those intoxicated drivers — about 20 percent of the total arrested — to draw blood samples for mandatory testing. "That rate is down significantly from earlier No Refusal operations. Drivers are getting the message: With this program, you can’t beat a DWI by refusing to ‘blow’..."Source: http://www.hcnonline.com/articles/2009/07/17/pasadena_citizen/news/070909_no_refusal_pc.txt This seems to be a new trend sweeping the country. Laws are being passed which take away your right to refuse to provide samples for law enforcement to use to convict you of drunk driving. These are called "no refusal" laws. It means that if you refuse to give a breath sample, the cops obtain a search warrant from a judge, authorizing them to take a blood sample from you instead, by force if necessary. Do you think that suspected drunk drivers who refuse to give a breath test should be forcibly held down by burly men in government uniforms and have blood drawn from them by a needle, to prove their guilt (or innocence)? Isn't this like forcing someone to testify against themself, something which is unconstitutional? Is sticking needles in people against their will more like something that Nazi Josef Mengele would do, rather than something we should do in America? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #2 July 17, 2009 I know it's not my fight .... but Drunk drivers are a serious threat. If an accident has occured then samples should be required... otherwise, I'm not so confident. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #3 July 17, 2009 I think it should be illegal to do so unless that person is in the hospital for medical treatment or a serious accident has occurred. Field sobriety tests and breathalizers are good enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
incendium 0 #4 July 17, 2009 actually Field sobriety tests and breathalizers are not enough. In some cases they have been thrown out in court. Hence why when most DUI/DWI are booked they are given another breathalizer with a seperate machine at the station that is more precise or blood is drawn at the hopsital because they wrecked their car or killed someone doing it. I would say that if drawing blood to prove guilt becomes the norm, and it keeps people from killing others off the road, I'm fine with it. It's bad enough people talk on cell phone, do their makeup, listne to Ipod's etc. Sticking a needle in someone's arm is just another "method", no different than making your blow into something. I am sure this will bring up a thread on AIDS and other diseases due to unsafe needles, should be good....As for cell phones ask Ken Ates about that one, he was in a bike accident casue some dumb woman was using a phone in her left hand instead of watching traffic and pulled out in front of him without looking, which she admitted to later.....Cheers! Let the games begin...... v/r Paul "Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level and beat you!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdfreefly 1 #5 July 17, 2009 When considering laws like this, you need to consider what it is you are trying to do but what is it you are NOT trying to do. Are you trying to give police cart blanch to pull blood from a suspect in any crime? Because that is how this will be used. Figure out a reasonable way to take care of this and not further erode my rights. Methane Freefly - got stink? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CornishChris 5 #6 July 17, 2009 QuoteIs sticking needles in people against their will more like something that Nazi Josef Mengele would do, rather than something we should do in America? Take the exact same statement and now think about capital punishment, something you do so very well in America. Well done. CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #7 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteIs sticking needles in people against their will more like something that Nazi Josef Mengele would do, rather than something we should do in America? Take the exact same statement and now think about capital punishment, something you do so very well in America. Well done. One person is innocent until proven guilty, the other person has been proven guilty. Next ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #8 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteIs sticking needles in people against their will more like something that Nazi Josef Mengele would do, rather than something we should do in America? Take the exact same statement and now think about capital punishment, something you do so very well in America. Well done. I'm pretty sure that there are Americans who oppose both. I'm against capital punishment because I don't trust the government with the power of life and death, since it's so obviously screwed up so many other things. I'm against forcing people to turn over a physical part of their body to the government because I think it's an unconscionable invasion of privacy (as well as repellent on other levels--what if the government wants some hair, or some nails, or heck, just a slice of their skin, or maybe a semen sample....). I urge you to get past your stereotypical view of "Americans" and recognize that there are a whole range of opinions belonging to different individuals, even over here.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteIs sticking needles in people against their will more like something that Nazi Josef Mengele would do, rather than something we should do in America? Take the exact same statement and now think about capital punishment, something you do so very well in America. There is more than 10 years of due process for capital punishment cases. I don't think you can justify this for a non accident DUI case. I'd have to think more about the circumstances around injury events. There are contradicting interests there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #10 July 17, 2009 Kane County in Illinois has started some "no-refusal" weekend DUI enforcement similar to what you are describing. But as I understand it, law enforcement will not physically force someone to give a blood sample. So, the problem is that even when presented with a warrant, if someone still refuses, a contempt of court charge is the only recourse. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/dui-crackdown-in-kane-county-leads-to-8-arrests.html To answer the OP's question, I am very uneasy with the idea of cops dragging some guy to the hospital, strapping him down, so that blood can be taken against the person's will. Seems a bit over the top to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #11 July 17, 2009 Shoot, I tried to make the link clickly but I guess I screwed it up. A little help, please. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #12 July 17, 2009 There you go. The slash needs to be at the end, not the beginning.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #13 July 17, 2009 One question : Do you have the right to not give finger prints or DNA if arrested? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #14 July 17, 2009 QuoteOne question : Do you have the right to not give finger prints or DNA if arrested? A suspect has not been arrested yet. And yes, a suspect does have the right to not give DNA or fingerprints. Why would we allow blood to be drawn from a person who is not legally required to allow fingerprinting? Remember that here we're talking about suspects. That's people who are suspected of doing something wrong, but for whom there is insufficient evidence to actually make an arrest.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GaVak 0 #15 July 17, 2009 It's just another revenue guaranteeing tactic like the cameras at busy intersections. Most municipalities don’t want people to stop running stop lights, speeding, or getting DWI’s. They pull a good chunk of their operating capital from the fines for these infractions. The blood tests aren't there to prevent DWI’s; they guarantee income. ~GavLife doesn't need reasons, just participants. D.S.#21 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #16 July 17, 2009 QuoteI urge you to get past your stereotypical view of "Americans" and recognize that there are a whole range of opinions belonging to different individuals, even over here. nonsense - non-Americans are so incredibly diverse and tolerant and sophisticated and well-traveled, that it's perfectly justifiable to take 300,000,000 people and assume they are all exactly some stereotype they once heard Tom - you really need to be more open minded of his thinking ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
incendium 0 #17 July 17, 2009 Good thing we are all about opinions....However I would say that if you are not guilty of DUI or DWI, then what are you afraid of? Usually it's the guilty people that dodge these issues. As for being used in other instances, provide me an example of when your blood can be used to prove guilt? I am curious, other than know substance abusers? then again if you use drugs and they are illegal, are you a law obiding citizen??? One would think that if you know that your will have to give a blood sample that you won't drink and drive. that being said, maybe the best people to ask are the ones that have lost people to others that were DUI/DWI? More fuel for the fire!!! v/r Paul "Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level and beat you!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #18 July 17, 2009 Quote Good thing we are all about opinions....However I would say that if you are not guilty of DUI or DWI, then what are you afraid of? Usually it's the guilty people that dodge these issues. As for being used in other instances, provide me an example of when your blood can be used to prove guilt? I am curious, other than know substance abusers? then again if you use drugs and they are illegal, are you a law obiding citizen??? One would think that if you know that your will have to give a blood sample that you won't drink and drive. that being said, maybe the best people to ask are the ones that have lost people to others that were DUI/DWI? More fuel for the fire!!! The better question to ask, and the one the OP was driving at (I think) was: how do you want the police to act? Do you want the police to have the power to physically restrain someone, haul him or her (presumably handcuffed and/or with ankle cuffs) to the hospital and have their blood drawn against their will? If I was not guilty of DUI and I was treated like that by the cops I would be infuriated. Do you really want the police to have that much power? I would think even people who never drink would think twice about allowing the police to act like that. It's not just the "guilty" who object to this. And anyhow, the cops do not get to decide who is guilty and who is not. Cops just arrest people they think have committed crimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
incendium 0 #19 July 17, 2009 I would agree with you on everything you said. However, the police will always act in their best interest. We all have seen it on the news and having worked with law enforcement agencies from the national to local for over 6 years, they have their own opinions as well. But remember most of all why would they pull you over ??? Most of the time it's because you exhibit a certain behavior while driving. As for random stops on the side of the road ie Prom nights etc, then maybe it is or is not a good idea, most of the time people know these stops are in place, why because most LEAs put it out for our protection. [:) Thanks for the dialogue, its the most I have had to use my noggin in the last 4 weeks..... v/r Paul "Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level and beat you!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
incendium 0 #20 July 17, 2009 Actually you do have to give your fingerprints up unless you don't like to travel..... Great Britain makes international flyers scan their fingerprints going through customs. So in this case you do.... Even if you have done nothing wrong.....Just throwing that out there for fun..... v/r Paul "Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level and beat you!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #21 July 17, 2009 I suppose you have nothing against a warrant less search of your property ... after all, if you aren't doing anything wrong than you have nothing to hide. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
incendium 0 #22 July 17, 2009 Well I do actually have an issue with cops and no warrants so common sense is the word of the day...although if you drive up to a DUI checkpoint and stumble out of the car cause your hammered, screw let him drive home, just hope it's not your loved ones that get hit!!! v/r Paul "Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level and beat you!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #23 July 17, 2009 I think only if the suspect is involved in an acident. Otherwise, no. But, as with a breathalizer, refusal chould lead to implied concent."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #24 July 17, 2009 Quote Well I do actually have an issue with cops and no warrants so common sense is the word of the day...although if you drive up to a DUI checkpoint and stumble out of the car cause your hammered, screw let him drive home, just hope it's not your loved ones that get hit!!! What if you don't have pot growing in your front yard but they want to search your attic without a warrant? PS: This is similar to not stumbling out of your car but they want to draw blood."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #25 July 17, 2009 Quote As for being used in other instances, provide me an example of when your blood can be used to prove guilt? I am curious, other than know substance abusers? then again if you use drugs and they are illegal, are you a law obiding citizen??? We do not yet allow society to check all people whenever to see if they use drugs. We've already gone too far on allowing employers to test. Blood = DNA, so it can be used to identify a suspect, or someone whose blood was at (or planted) at a scene. Go back to the OJ trial. Depending on what other tests are done, it could out you as HIV+ or a few other STDs. So I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe at all in privacy or probable cause. If not, it's a non issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
