incendium 0 #26 July 17, 2009 Well as mentioned,having worked with LEAs for a bit, they usually don't have or want to just on a crazy whim go searching people's attics. As for being similar, I would disagree since cops don't troll the neighborhood looking for drunk people in their homes.... as for drawing your blood and searching your attic, I would also disagree, you have shown propable intent or cause by your actions when you were pulled over or stopped at a checkpoint. I haven't seen too many attics show probably cause, but I am intereted in learning about it....... 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
Andy9o8 0 #27 July 17, 2009 QuoteIsn't this like forcing someone to testify against themself, something which is unconstitutional? I think it is. As a matter of fact, one of the earliest briefs I wrote and submitted to a court as a rookie lawyer was one taking that very position: that forcing a DUI suspect to provide a BAC sample was a violation of his constitutional rights - primarily his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, and secondarily his 4th Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure. I lost. But I still think I was right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #28 July 17, 2009 Quote Well as mentioned,having worked with LEAs for a bit, they usually don't have or want to just on a crazy whim go searching people's attics. As for being similar, I would disagree since cops don't troll the neighborhood looking for drunk people in their homes.... as for drawing your blood and searching your attic, I would also disagree, you have shown propable intent or cause by your actions when you were pulled over or stopped at a checkpoint. I haven't seen too many attics show probably cause, but I am intereted in learning about it....... Blah, blah, blah ... if you have nothing to hide than you have nothing to fear, submit to authority where you are guilty until proven innocent. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #29 July 17, 2009 Maybe the police could just test the blood on the end of their baton (.)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
rushmc 18 #30 July 17, 2009 Quote Maybe the police could just test the blood on the end of their baton Ouch!! "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
quade 3 #31 July 17, 2009 Typical JR poll filled with hyperbole and only giving binary options. It's completely justifiable in certain circumstances. There is a world of grey, it's not just black and white.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #32 July 17, 2009 QuoteIt's completely justifiable in certain circumstances. Please give an example of circumstances under which it is completely justifiable to forcibly extract blood from a suspect--someone who has not been arrested nor convicted of any crime.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #33 July 17, 2009 QuotePlease give an example of circumstances under which it is completely justifiable to forcibly extract blood from a suspect--someone who has not been arrested nor convicted of any crime. The fact that you've had to put qualifiers on the question proves the point. The programs aren't in place for random stops, but to facilitate those cases where there is a legitimate need to know if the person is or is not above the legal limit based on justifiable suspicions.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 1 #34 July 17, 2009 The real issue is that the laws are not enforced. If people new they would loose their license without a doubt if they were drunk driving for any reason (like in germans) then people wouldn't do it. However, I can be hit by a drunk driver who had 5 previous DUI's and it still took my insurance company over 2 years just to get thier money back from him. He also never lost his license. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #35 July 17, 2009 QuoteThe real issue is that the laws are not enforced. I disagree. The bigger issue here is what else the blood sample could be used for. While I'm for using it to determine if the person is or is not over the legal limit, I would be completely against it also winding up in a DNA database.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuotePlease give an example of circumstances under which it is completely justifiable to forcibly extract blood from a suspect--someone who has not been arrested nor convicted of any crime. The fact that you've had to put qualifiers on the question proves the point. The programs aren't in place for random stops, but to facilitate those cases where there is a legitimate need to know if the person is or is not above the legal limit based on justifiable suspicions. What qualifiers? A suspect is a person who has not been arrested nor convicted for this presumed crime. So answer the question - when is it completely justifiable to, as Andy writes, force the person to testify against himself? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #37 July 17, 2009 >Please give an example of circumstances under which it is completely >justifiable to forcibly extract blood from a suspect--someone who has not >been arrested nor convicted of any crime. A person who who has agreed in writing to such a procedure under certain circumstances. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #38 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotePlease give an example of circumstances under which it is completely justifiable to forcibly extract blood from a suspect--someone who has not been arrested nor convicted of any crime. The fact that you've had to put qualifiers on the question proves the point. The programs aren't in place for random stops, but to facilitate those cases where there is a legitimate need to know if the person is or is not above the legal limit based on justifiable suspicions. What qualifiers? A suspect is a person who has not been arrested nor convicted for this presumed crime. So answer the question - when is it completely justifiable to, as Andy writes, force the person to testify against himself? Well, the quibble is whether or not you consider it "testifying" against yourself. If you want to go down that path, then you're also fighting fingerprint and DNA evidence. It's a fight you're just not going to win.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheBachelor 5 #39 July 17, 2009 Field sobriety tests are ridiculous. There is no "baseline". How do they know if I can walk a strait line even completely sober, so I'd never take such a test. The accuracy of breathalizers are now being questioned more than ever, and I don't think they should force someone to take a blood test. But before you civil libertarians cheer, read on... I do believe that the states should have you sign a document (implied consent) that says that if you are stopped, and suspected of being under the influence, and refuse a blood / breath test, then you lose your license. 6 to 12 months for the first offense, and up from there. If you don't like it, then don't drive. Driving is a privilege, not a right.There are battered women? I've been eating 'em plain all of these years... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #40 July 17, 2009 Quote>Please give an example of circumstances under which it is completely >justifiable to forcibly extract blood from a suspect--someone who has not >been arrested nor convicted of any crime. A person who who has agreed in writing to such a procedure under certain circumstances. I don't believe the CA DMV statement includes this - it just says you agree to be tested by one of 3 means. It also says 23612. (a) (1) (A) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. If a blood or breath test, or both, are unavailable, then paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) applies. Note it says "lawfully arrested." (C) The testing shall be incidental to a lawful arrest and administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable cause to believe the person was driving a motor vehicle in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. Again highlighting that the arrest comes first. (D) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, and (i) the suspension of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of one year,.... So you can refuse, you just get punished for it. This line is the crux of the question, really, since it appears that in the article in question for this thread, they're being force to submit to the blood test. (B) If the person is lawfully arrested for driving under the influence of any drug or the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug, the person has the choice of whether the test shall be of his or her blood, breath, or urine, and the officer shall advise the person that he or she has that choice. (C) A person who chooses to submit to a breath test may also be requested to submit to a blood or urine test if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person was driving under the influence of a drug or the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug and if the officer has a clear indication that a blood or urine test will reveal evidence of the person being under the influence. The officer shall state in his or her report the facts upon which that belief and that clear indication are based. The person has the choice of submitting to and completing a blood or urine test, and the officer shall advise the person that he or she is required to submit to an additional test and that he or she may choose a test of either blood or urine. If the person arrested either is incapable, or states that he or she is incapable, of completing either chosen test, the person shall submit to and complete the other remaining test. somewhat contradictory lines, but still has choice of urine versus blood if the officer claims the breath test isn't good enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 July 17, 2009 still no answer, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #42 July 17, 2009 >I don't believe the CA DMV statement includes this . . . I agree; I was not saying it did. Tom just asked for a case where it was justifiable, and prior agreement is the only case (IMO) that it is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #43 July 17, 2009 QuoteIsn't this like forcing someone to testify against themself, something which is unconstitutional? It sounds that way. I wouldn't be surprised if a prosecution is successfully fought on those grounds.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #44 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteIt's completely justifiable in certain circumstances. Please give an example of circumstances under which it is completely justifiable to forcibly extract blood from a suspect--someone who has not been arrested nor convicted of any crime. Judges sometimes issue search warrants to forcibly extract blood from uncooperative DUI suspects on the grounds that (a) there was probable cause to arrest the suspect (the usual: erratic driving, indicia of intoxication, etc.) and (b) the evidence - the level of alcohol in the blood - is very time-perishable. The rationale for the above is that (a) the search warrant covers the 4th Amendment (search & seizure) requirements, and (b) the 5th Amendment does not apply, since bodily fluids are not "statements" or "testimony". Again: I happen to disagree with this; but most judges in most US jurisdictions tend to rule with the police and prosecutors on this issue. N.B- Most US states now have laws that require DUI suspects to provide breath or blood exemplars, and in several states, refusal to submit to BAC testing is a separate criminal offense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #45 July 17, 2009 QuoteTypical JR poll filled with hyperbole and only giving binary options. It's completely justifiable in certain circumstances. There is a world of grey, it's not just black and white. Personally, I couldn't vote. I don't think the blood should be drawn forcibly, without consent, so I can't vote yes. However, if consent is given, I think DWI/DUI suspects should be allowed to give their blood samples (e.g. they believe the results of the breath analysis to be faulty) if they choose, so I can't vote no.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #46 July 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteIsn't this like forcing someone to testify against themself, something which is unconstitutional? It sounds that way. I wouldn't be surprised if a prosecution is successfully fought on those grounds. From being in the business, my understanding is that the prosecution tends to win more often than the defense does, both at the pre-trial stage and in post-trial appeals, when the defense tries to get the BAC evidence excluded from the trial on those grounds. See my posts #s 27 and 44. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #47 July 18, 2009 QuoteThe real issue is that the laws are not enforced. If people new they would loose their license without a doubt if they were drunk driving for any reason (like in germans) then people wouldn't do it. . Sorry, not true. We (U.K) have very tough Drink Drive laws and yet people still do it .... nature of the dick-head, I'm affraid. (.)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
AggieDave 6 #48 July 18, 2009 John, Have you read the fine print when you signed for your DL? It says that by signing that you are consenting to chemical tests. With that said it depends on the judge for the no-refusal drives. Even with the guidelines set out on the DIC paperwork, hospitals will many times refuse to do a forced draw with out a signed warrant. So those drives are usually coordinated with the local CA and a JP.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #49 July 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe real issue is that the laws are not enforced. If people new they would loose their license without a doubt if they were drunk driving for any reason (like in germans) then people wouldn't do it. . Sorry, not true. We (U.K) have very tough Drink Drive laws and yet people still do it .... nature of the dick-head, I'm affraid. Do people serve jail time for repeat offences?Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #50 July 18, 2009 Doesn't have to be a repeat offence (Nor should it).. clicky (.)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
