It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
According to common law or natural law there must be a injured party before it is considered unlawful. In this case they will force a blood draw if refused consent happens regardless if there is an injured party. If there is no accident resulting in injury or property damage than technically they shouldn't even be arrested to begin with.
As far as the 5th goes you are correct about the right not to testify against yourself, but it also includes the right against self incrimination. By giving the driver a choice to consent or not is also giving the driver the choice to self incriminate or not. However, by forcibly drawing blood one way or the other than unfortunately it matters not
Not true and a common misconception used by those wierdo's in the Freeman movement.
Common law is Law set by case precedent. It has nothing to do with whether there is an injured party or not.
The Freemen often like to confuse this up with statute law, by claiming that one is different from the other, but in reality statute law is that made by the legislature (could be regarded as raw law) which is then interpreted (refined) by the courts which then becomes case/common law.
Originally posted by Daedalus
reply to post by stumason
sorry mate, you seem to have missed the bit where i said "if you are obviously drunk"
as in, you know, slurring, reeking of booze, falling down...obviously drunk.