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.

 

New law in Washington State starts today

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 

The OP is in error.

Washington law requires you to take a blood or breath test if you are arrested for a DUI. Washington’s “implied consent” law says that if you are lawfully arrested by an officer who has probable cause to believe that you have been driving under the influence, then you consent to taking a chemical test of your blood or breath for the purpose of determining your blood alcohol content (BAC). The test must be taken within two hours of driving and under most circumstances, the officer should offer you a breath test. A blood test will be given only if you are unconscious, receiving treatment in a medical facility, or if the officer suspects you are under the influence of drugs.

dui.drivinglaws.org...
You can refuse a field sobriety test (one leg, etc.)
edit on 7/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
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)


Mate; I'm from Australia and they changed the law in my state recently to do away with blood alcohol test because because drivers were saying things like:

"if you stick that needle into me, that is assult and if you assult me I will seek compensation from you in a court of competent juristiction and your employer nor your emplyers insurance company does to give you immunity from criminal assult."



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   
this is nothing. Give it 10 years. At that point if you refuse anything you'll be put into a work camp on the spot. You'll be fed one meger meal per day and forced to build armament parts, or you won't eat. That will be called the DUI black bag law.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


what happens when people complain about the Breathalyzer test being wrong? Blood is blood imagine the state starts to false positive ex drunk drivers and instead of being falsely charged with a DUI you op for a blood test instead of the breathalyzer its still going to cost you 1000 dollars



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by digital01anarchy


reply to post by Phage
 


what happens when people complain about the Breathalyzer test being wrong? Blood is blood imagine the state starts to false positive ex drunk drivers and instead of being falsely charged with a DUI you op for a blood test instead of the breathalyzer its still going to cost you 1000 dollars



The dangerous thing is specifically for diabetics. Diabetics can come up with false positives on breathalyzer tests, because of the acetone created in the bloodstream if they consume low carbohydrate, high protein diets. The only way to get a true reading on a diabetic is with a blood test. I certainly hope that if a diabetic in Washington chooses to refuse the breathalyzer test that they are not reprimanded in any way.

See the link below on EHOW to read about diabetics and false-positive breathalyzers:

www.ehow.com... ml


False Readings Ethyl alcohol molecules, which are found in alcoholic beverages, are very similar to methyl molecules, which appear in 70 or 80 percent of compounds found in human breath. Acetone is a methyl compound and is commonly found in the breath of diabetics and people practicing low-calorie diets. Those following high-protein diets are especially at risk of having false positive breathalyzer results as the body is producing extra ketones, which are a form of acetone.

edit on 7/29/2013 by InFriNiTee because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/29/2013 by InFriNiTee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

You don't have a right to drive without impaired drivers. You have laws that govern us, so we won't drive intoxicated but there is no right stating that stating that you are protected against drunk drivers.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Sounds cheap to me! The few I know who have blown over any set limit in Texas have been docked around $17,000.Plus loss of licience for 6 months and I think they have to go to a class every week or two for a total of 12 hours?.....



Along Austin’s Barton Springs Road, home to a stretch of restaurants and drinking establishments, we spotted this head-wrencher on a billboard March 16: "A DWI costs $17,000."




A web site listed on the ad, whosdrivingtonight.com, led us to an online video depicting in Twitter and Facebook posts and text messages a Central Texas woman’s Sept. 17 arrest for driving while intoxicated. The video suggests the incident resulted in 12 hours in jail, two years’ probation, 100 hours of community service, drug and alcohol education classes and the loss of her driver’s license. The person, identified as Jessica, also loses her significant other and then her job after her boss requests a meeting about recent absences.


The police in a bar district wait until closing time and make allot of money for the state. Of course some claim it is just a revenue racket and it is however unless they plant drugs on you or say you blew whatever the number is when you didn't then...... Simple don't drink and drive.

There were some great clubs for dancing in Houston and when we went out I always made sure we left before 1 am....Around 1:30am the cops were thick as theives....I never was a drinker unless you call 2 beers in 4 hours or so drinking..?... and even at that the last hour was always just water....I know totally boring, but I never have gotten a DWI



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   


I never was a drinker unless you call 2 beers in 4 hours or so drinking..?


Yea, that's drinking alcoholic beverages but not heavy drinking.

If the police want to find drinking and driving, watching the bars is going to find much of it. Better hit rate than a check point.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I disagree with this law. Its just another way for the state to pull in income. what you must understand is a breathaliser is inaccurate at best. A breathaliser can be out of calibration, does not consider size or weight and will fail you for certain cough medicines and breath freshiners. My guess is people got smart took a hit on driving for a bit in exchange for a more accurate test that kept them from failing when they were not drunk. Now they will lower the legal limit to .02 which you can exceed with out drinking half a 12 oz beer.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I don't drink and drive. I don't drink in public. I sometimes have a drink with pain meds to put me to sleep.
I am a diabetic and a "cripple".
I could never pass a field sobriety test on my best day due to scoliosis and a variety of back and gait issues that severely impact my ability to balance.
A blood test is really my only option.
Since my driving is generally unimpaired I haven't ever had any issues with the law - BUT - if there's a new, easy source of revenue that can be generated by traffic stops, I and many others like myself may become victims.

ganjoa



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I said no such thing.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I do not drink alcohol at all. Ever. And I have an aunt who was killed by a drunk driver when her children were still very young. So I understand some people's sentiment when it comes to this thread.

However, I actually do know the laws where drunk driving is concerned, mainly because of my aunt and I understand why there is a legal reason that people can refuse a breath test. Its because it is not 100% accurate. If someone was to take even a small sip of a hard liquor, even after not having anything else to drink all night, and then go drive down the street a few minutes later and submit to a breath test they would show up as legally drunk. Also, for 20 minutes after having only 1 beer you would show higher than the legal limit.

Legally, if someone is going to be charged with a crime, let it be an accurate charge. It is the inaccuracies within the breath testing that gives US Citizens the right to refuse and opt for the blood test instead. To take that right away for all but the rich, is ridiculous.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
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?



Phage, is it ok to you to give up your rights in the interest of public safety? Is it ok for them to search your house, random checks, random body tests such as hair samples, blood or whatever in the interest of public safety? Is it ok to recognize your rights but threaten you with fines not to give up those rights? Is a blood test at the local hospital after reasonable proof not enough? Is 200k laws not enough that we need one more?

Enough laws and we are all guilty of something, you know we happen to be human....



Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Thomas Jefferson

edit on 30-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
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.


You know that ANY accident with a BAC above .00 is registered as a drunk driver, no matter if the driver is at fault or not. I would bet that fatigue leads to more, but we all just think of the guy that is drunk and can barely drive as our one example to justify anything.

I guess we can all ALL meds and if the driver has not had 8 hours or rest too to put people in prison to fine them until their life is ruined.


edit on 30-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
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.


Define impaired....

I can basically say every driver is impaired to something....



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
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)


Since just about everyone NEEDS to drive for a living, how about a law that says if you live in WA you must consent to a house search?



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by alfa1
 

The OP is in error.

Washington law requires you to take a blood or breath test if you are arrested for a DUI. Washington’s “implied consent” law says that if you are lawfully arrested by an officer who has probable cause to believe that you have been driving under the influence, then you consent to taking a chemical test of your blood or breath for the purpose of determining your blood alcohol content (BAC). The test must be taken within two hours of driving and under most circumstances, the officer should offer you a breath test. A blood test will be given only if you are unconscious, receiving treatment in a medical facility, or if the officer suspects you are under the influence of drugs.

dui.drivinglaws.org...
You can refuse a field sobriety test (one leg, etc.)
edit on 7/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I see no date on your link, the NEW law started yesterday....



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 

Perhaps then you can provide a link showing that the new law does not require a breath or blood test.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I used to think people on here could think. Now I know better. At least on this subject. Most of the posters in this thread have been brainwashed about DUI.

Maybe because I have been around a long time and still have my memory of how things came about and have seen the results of what has happened is my problem. I will attempt to explain step by step first so we might actually have a discussion as to if DUI laws have saved lives or cost a whole lot more of them.

DUI laws were started by a group of grieving mothers who started an organization called MADD. It was an attempt to rid the streets of unsafe drivers. Good intentions but like most good intentions it caused more bad then good.

What DUI laws did was actually relieve the police of going AFTER bad drivers. Laws were already in place, if they wanted to increase the penalties for bad driving I would be for it. Instead, they came up with a new law to relieve the police of doing their jobs. Personally, if someone drives into me I do not care if they have been drinking, were doing makeup, were reading a book while driving, were texting, eating a Big Mac, were on prescription medicine, or just didn't have enough sleep! I have a friend who lost his neice to a truck driver who had not slept in 23hrs. Oh, that is OK, he had not been drinking, right? He was just as much at fault as if he had been drinking but he was back on the road within 24hrs again. Maybe it will be YOUR family member who he kills next? Will that be OK?

ANYONE who drives negligently or recklessly should be removed from the road but that no longer happens due to everyone being brainwashed about drivers who drink. Everyone who drives to close to the car in front of them on an expressway should have their license removed. It does not happen. Everyone who eats while driving instead of paying attention to the road, or for ANY other reason, should have their license removed. That would save more lives then anything else. It would ALSO remove drunk drivers from the road as well! If they are drunk then they will not be driving carefully now will they? Instead the police only go after drunk drivers.

Now why is that? Again good intentions with a bad result. It has ended up about money again. Police departments get extra tax dollars from the Feds for drunk driving arrests, not for bad driving arrests, so they ONLY go after drunk drivers. DUI checkpoints were AGAINST the law but that has changed to chase the boogieman of drunk drivers. Do the DUI checkpoints stop drunk drivers? No! With them though the police get to pull EVERYONE over, check license and registration, are you wearing a seat belt, check car insurance, check for drugs, things like that. The police OT are paid with federal funds, the police get a money maker because they get to stop you WITHOUT cause and cite you on everything EXCEPT drunk driving. Very, very few drunk drivers are caught this way but boy do the police get a LOT of money out of this without doing a thing for people's real safety on the road.

Let's see what else. DUI check points paved the way for the TSA and there is a LOT of money there. lol. It got people used to allowing what were illegal searches to begin with. Breathanalyzer? Come on! No where near as accurate as a blood test. So if you want an ACCURATE test you will be fined and you people are cheering for it? How about a test by a disinterested participant who does NOT make money if you fail? This is wrong on so many levels yet everyone has been brainwashed it is hardly worth talking about any more.

Final say. This is NOT about safety, it is NOT about removing dangerous drivers from the road, this is NOT about getting an accurate result, this is NOT about saving lives, this is ONLY about getting an increased money stream.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
Refusal to take the breathalyzer itself is the fine, regardless of whether any actual crime is being committed.


So is refusing to show your licence, refusing to get insurance, etc etc. You can get fined for refusing to do a lot of things.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join