It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

PBSO Plans To Draw Blood At DUI Checkpoints

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Sorry, refuse it all, lose my license for a year and if by some fluke a judge actually signs that warrant the state better be ready for a serious lawsuit because I am DEATHLY afraid of hypo's. To the point of panic attacks and other symptoms. I can guarnatee that not only will they be looking for alcohol content but also a general tox screen will be run. They had better taser me to the point of knocking my a$$ out.




posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tentickles
What you dont hear is that you can refuse the taking of your blood. I know I would ask for a warrant for my blood.


Police be damned you cant take my blood without getting a warrant or shooting me!
Refusing to submit to a breathalyzer or a blood test can result in an automatic revocation of your license and driving privileges in most states. I'm not saying it's right, but you might want to re-think your intended response.

In Kentucky you can't even question a speeding ticket on the grounds of the radar equipment not being calibrated properly or the officer not having training in it's use. That's a separate charge just for asking..



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I thought that blood is always drawn in order to determine BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) to see how far over/under the legal limit you are. Breathalizers aren't exact. A buddy of mine got a DUI 2 months ago and admitted to being drunk while doing the field sobriety test. He was able to say his ABC's but when it came time to walk the line, He said "you got me" in a drunken stupor.

Afterwards, he was transported by the police to a local hospital where nurse's drew blood to determine the exact BAC.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
It is amazing how so many seem to be crying over absolutely nothing. Why is it nothing to be crying over?

Its so simple a pre schooler can figure it out.

If you plan to drink, get a designated driver. If you cant find a designated driver, then dont drink.

It is so freaking simple. I think also that some are grippy about it because of the "buzz" driving..people who drink but just get a little buzz and still think its ok to drive. WELL IT IS NOT OK!

I fully support the law in this situation. Drunk drivers do NOT need to be behind the wheel. I lost a friend of 10 years and he and his entire family were killed by a stupid drunk driver. I was so glad to be at his trial, he got 5 counts of manslaughter and is now in prison for life.

And this guy claimed he was only "buzzed". PFFTTT!!!!

Rack em up, tag em and tank em. Its time to nail this problem right where it hurts and if it takes a poke in the arm for a blood sample, then so be it.

I made it a mission ever since that tradgedy, that if I see an obvious drunk driving on the road, I call 911 on my cell and give them the vehicle description, the plate number, what road he is on, and continue to follow that drunk while staying on the cell to the cops. I have helped nail over 30 drunk drivers over the last 4 years, and I will continue to do so.

So if yo plan to come to my neck of the woods, and plan on going out to drink and think your gonna get behind the wheel..think again. I might just be right behind you calling out your plate number to the cops, or someone else who is watching for drunks on the roads.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 20-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I have no problem with sobriety check points, I have no problem with sobriety field tests, and I have no problem with breath tests being used on suspected DWIs. I have major problems with the cops having access to a blood sample from me, however. I also can't help but think that they'll follow their little "only used if breathalyzer is refused" rule only until somebody they really want to hassle passes a breath test and then they start using the blood test on that person.

I also gotta admit, we're talking about a real blood sample here, not a swab in a bottle. The idea of one of these dept.s pulling a real, honest to God Mark Furman and slipping a mickey into the sample is certainly within the realm of believabillity. Not to mention the severe nightstick beating the first guy who bleeds all over some butterfingered cop who screws up while trying to obtain a sample will get. I've seen episodes of COPS before where a cop has gotten a perp's blood on him, entirely due to the fault of the officer, and yet they inevitably get pissed at the bleeding perp. I don't suppose this would be much different.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   
I think some are missing the point here. Police are finding more and more excuses nation wide to set up checkpoints. You have checkpoints in DC to see if you are carrying weapons or drugs. You have checkpoints in FL to see if your drunk. You see I think they just want checkpoints. I feel they WANT to see whats in peoples cars or trucks. If they cant get them on a DUI maybe they can get them on something else.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
I have seen many people killed by drunk drivers. I also have seen many folks just injured by them. Its not right to drink and drive at all. I believe what the police are doing at the check points is right.

My aunt was killed by a drunk driver that worked for the state. He was actually driving a state vehicle at the time, and was suppose to be working. Yet he was drunk. My aunt is dead and the man only got 6 months for killing her. Yet he is still working for the state even now. So that should tell us something about our laws and our government.

Truthfully I think they should put every drunk driver in jail for 10 years. For a first offense. That way they will learn. Then if they get caught again put them in there for 20 years. Just think about how much safer our families would be.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
DUI is overblown. People die in accidents just as often by people driving while on cell phones. Is DUI bad? Yes. Does it warrant roadblocks, blood draws etc? No. Do they test people for driving while smoking weed? How about driving while popping pills?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by rufusthestuntbum
if you havent been drinking, take the breathyliser

if you have been drinking and driving you are selfish and stupid

if you havent done anything wrong you have nothing to fear....

jesus what is the problem?

I don't believe I have ever intentionally insulted anyone on ATS. I have read many of your posts to just see if you are having a bad day or perhaps a lapse in rational thought. I believe part of your approach is simply to provoke. Part is apparently lack of the ability to broach any subject with an open mind . But more then that you seem to have an intense dislike for the independent nature of most Americans. If you chose to bend over every time your government says so, feel free, but don't expect Americans to have the same sheepish mentality.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by oldgoat
DUI is overblown. People die in accidents just as often by people driving while on cell phones. Is DUI bad? Yes. Does it warrant roadblocks, blood draws etc? No. Do they test people for driving while smoking weed? How about driving while popping pills?


Rally? 17000 people a year die from cell-phone accidents? Actually, anyone who is impaired may be charged with a DWI.

California can forcibly draw blood on anyone they suspect of D/BWI or D/BUI.
It is actually far easier for a competent attorney to get someone off of a DUI if they submitted to a blood test because of chain of custody issues.




top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join