New law in Washington State starts today

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   
So we have a new law that increases DUIs from 1000 to 5000 dollars, ok I can live with that, BUT they also included that if a person refuses a breathalyzer test they will be fined 1000 dollars on some newly created civil law.

The troubling part to this is that none of us are actually required to do a breath test, OR to do a sobriety check, as in walking a strait line as example. What we can not turn down is a blood test at the hospital. This new civil law basically suggests that if you elect to exercise your rights you can be fined 1000 dollars. So you turn it down and end up .00 on the blood teat you will still be fined 1000 dollars. I can see this go the direction that if you elect to not allow the cop to search your vehicle then they can fine you.

NOT a good direction in protecting your rights.


edit on 29-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



+2 more 
posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   
What are your rights when it comes to using public highways and byways?
Doesn't your right to privacy end where my right to have unimpaired drivers on the road with me begins?



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Driving is a privilege not a right.

As someone that lost a best friend to a drunk driver (19 year old college freshman walking home after studying) I would say harsher fines the better.

Take the car as well, If you drive drunk you deserve everything you get.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:21 AM
link   
I've personally seen a lot more people killed by stupid drivers than drunk drivers.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by WP4YT
 

How about stupid drivers that were drunk?

Does it really matter how many? You have no right to drive while impaired. I have every right to expect you to be driving unimpaired.


+1 more 
posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
OP is not protesting the DUI fine, he's protesting the breathalyzer protest fine.

You can be fined for being completely sober and not doing anything wrong.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by WP4YT
I've personally seen a lot more people killed by stupid drivers than drunk drivers.


Yea we should take them off the road too.

It should be like Germany, something like 5000 to even get your license, driving on public roads is not a right by any stretch.

Its a responsibility, you get behind the wheel of a several ton projectile, you better be capable of operating it properly.

NO excuses.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
OP is not protesting the DUI fine, he's protesting the breathalyzer protest fine.

You can be fined for being completely sober and not doing anything wrong.


and every Drivers license application says that by accepting the license you are agreeing to take these sobriety checks if asked by a cop.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Can we get a source on this? It seems highly unfair to fine a person who refuses a breathalyzer because they want to do the blood test instead. If they fail, they'll pay a DUI fine, okay, but if they're totally sober they shouldn't be penalized for refusing a breath test and having a blood test instead. Doesn't make sense.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 


You can be fined for being completely sober and not doing anything wrong.

Yes. Because in using public roads you are expressing implied consent to testing.

In Washington State, DUI penalties are enhanced for drivers who refuse to take a breath test at the police station. Under the Implied Consent Law, a person who drives within WA State is considered to have consented to a blood or breathalyzer test if he or she is arrested for DUI.

www.tacomaduilawyerblog.com...

I have not been drinking officer. Let me prove it to you by taking a breath or blood test.
edit on 7/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   
I utterly despise the idea of intoxicated people driving under the influence and endangering everyone else around them. IMO it is the intoxicated person who is violating my rights, by endangering my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Having said that... this fine is troubling to me in a very real way. It sets a very, very bad precedent. As I understand the current law, I do have the right to refuse a sobriety test - but in doing so I would forfeit my driving privileges automatically for a protracted period of time. That seems fair enough. By monetizing this it simply created a new revenue stream for an already greedy animal... one that uses law enforcement as their muscle.

This law treads dangerously into both the Fourth and Fifth amendments IMO.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   
I'm with phage on this one.

As to the concern for the monetary charge; Well unfortunately it is perhaps the best way to persuade someone. I don't think it is so much a ploy to make more money, but enforce the laws already there. I can tell ya, the people that are driving drunk don't give a crap if they lose their license. They will just keep driving anyways. Charge them 1,000 on top of it however, they will soon likely have a warrant, and then perhaps after racking up some more charges and warrants, they may even actually go to jail.

The problem is that irresponsible, drunk drivers kill people. If you haven't been drinking, than you should have NO problem proving it. If you are...well, than take the test and face your mistake, or refuse and pay for it. You choice. I would be happy to see them all sit in jail for awhile AND lose their cars.
edit on 29-7-2013 by westcoast because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   
double post
edit on 29-7-2013 by westcoast because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   
I like the Idea of establishments that serve alcohol being required to take all persons keys and ID as a requirement for service where then one would need pass a breath screen to get ID and keys back from the service establishment.

This bypasses any quibbly bits about 5th amendment rights violation arguments in being forced to testify against yourself with a blood test, or breath test by police officers.

To comply with having a liquor license, service establishments as private businesses would then supply a layer of enforcement by keeping keys and ID until sobriety is verified.

It's messy, and it puts pressure on private businesses to keep idiots off the road, but, businesses could earn a profit through mandatory cover charges to cover cost of breath testers, and "coat check" for keys and ID.

This does nothing on the police end of enforcement, or the judgement side, but, such an engineered social requirement could curb some instances of irresponsible drivers getting loose on the roads.



edit on 29-7-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Don't want a fine?

Don't drink and drive!

Phage said it better than I could.

The right of safe passage on roadways paid with taxpayer funds trumps the right of those who wish to drive while impaired.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by benrl

Originally posted by eNumbra
OP is not protesting the DUI fine, he's protesting the breathalyzer protest fine.

You can be fined for being completely sober and not doing anything wrong.


and every Drivers license application says that by accepting the license you are agreeing to take these sobriety checks if asked by a cop.

And they can forcibly take a blood sample if they're that sure you're intoxicated, but there is a serious problem with being fined despite having done nothing illegal, because that's what the new law is asserting. Refusal to take the breathalyzer itself is the fine, regardless of whether any actual crime is being committed.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:18 AM
link   
I got a DUI about a year and a half ago in WA state. I completely support this. It was too easy to just drop your license for a year. Let's be real about this, cops don't want to charge you with a DUI. It's a pain in the ass, but if you get popped it's worth it because the majority of people that get caught go on to do it again, and the majority of fatalities are caused by drunk drivers.

If you refuse everything, you shouldn't get a free pass. It's been pointed out up thread that driving is not a right, but a privilege. Someone who has just endangered everyone else on the road and themselves should be charged with something, and should be held accountable.

I was really lucky. I didn't kill anyone. I got a day in jail, a huge fine, and my car insurance is now $400 a month.

The cop that arrested me drove me home, and on the way asked me what I would do if the curb I hit had been his daughters. That's what got me. If I f____d up and hit a child, that's what really got me. It still does.

I love you guys, don't drive drunk. Sorry I got off topic.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:32 AM
link   
I would like to say.. that not one person in this thread has advocated for driving while drunk. Traveling used to be a right, until it was restricted. Now you must pay for insurance, licensing, fines, ect. Some trafficking laws are genuinely there for your safety, while most are for revenue. I don't believe in fining people for exercising their last remaining rights. As far as the increased fines... its a clear sign that fining and jailing people is not working...



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by tigershark1988
 




Traveling used to be a right, until it was restricted.

You think driving should be unrestricted? Unregulated?
Driving is not a right. Want to travel? Take a bus or a cab.
edit on 7/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
The troubling part to this is that none of us are actually required to do a breath test, OR to do a sobriety check, as in walking a strait line as example. What we can not turn down is a blood test at the hospital.



Sounds like one of those "empty" laws then, because I cant see that such a situation could ever occur, or has ever occurred in real life.

Seriously, you're proposing a scenario where a sober driver says:
"no, I wont do this 10 second breathalyser test,
I want to go to the hospital and get a blood test done."


Does anyone know of a situation where this has ever actually happened?
You'd have to be drunk to want to do that.





new topics




 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join