posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:04 PM
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
The Common law is law made by the decisions courts on a case by case backs, setting precedence, either in non statutory areas or by statutory
Cause no harm is not a good basis for all law, conspiracy to commit harm is also, as is reckless or negligent actions. Ie it would be illegal for me
to leave my new born kid at home alone while I when out to the pub, even if no actual harm came to him. As would driving the wrong way down the M8,
regardless of any one is harmed and that's just basics.
Once you get in to competition and employment law in many cases there is no injured party, ie I can sue an employer for failing to meet minimum
safety requirements, even if no accident occurs, I am still at risk. The right to not incriminate your self extends pretty much to the right to
silence or not submit evidence in the absence of a court order, evidence can be taken from you against your consent by court order, ie DNA can be
taken if suspected of murder.
edit on 2-7-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-7-2013 by Redarguo because: (no