When the Cops Take Your Urine by Force.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

but driving is a privilege, and when you sign your name on your drivers license you agree to abide by the laws of that state.
and submitting to the test are part of that. also it is my understanding that there are other substances that can be detected faster in urine than blood and vice a versa.

alcohol is not the only thing covered under DUI/DWI laws.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

A star for the Schoolhouse Rock video... I actually first saw that in a "Law and Youth" class. Loved it!

I understand the process for a bill becoming law. I also understand not all laws are truly lawful, and that's when they become laws under color of law.

This docile acceptance of the gross perversion of our rights as well as our further policing and enforcement of those laws is a huge part of the problem. Not only should punishments fit the crime, so should enforcement. There is absolutely no excuse for authorities committing greater violence on a person than they commit themselves. There is no compelling public interest in forcibly assaulting a person for "evidence" -- especially when two other diagnostic tests had been submitted to. Not even for a prosecution and conviction. And especially in a situation where no one was harmed (except by the authorities themselves). If the person won't submit, revoke their license, impound their car, and send them home. Stop the threat.

You can make whatever excuses you choose to justify this violence. I won't.

a reply to: Greggers

ha...unless I'm mistaken, it's for hookin' up words and phrases and clauses

originally posted by: Boadicea
Not only should punishments fit the crime, so should enforcement. There is absolutely no excuse for authorities committing greater violence on a person than they commit themselves. There is no compelling public interest in forcibly assaulting a person for "evidence" -- especially when two other diagnostic tests had been submitted to. Not even for a prosecution and conviction. And especially in a situation where no one was harmed (except by the authorities themselves). If the person won't submit, revoke their license, impound their car, and send them home. Stop the threat.

Whoa whoa--just because I can show justification for what happened via how laws are written and how search warrants are written and enforced does not mean that I condone the act that happened. My entire reason for posting my initial informative (and factual) comment was to show that the samples that were taken were absolutely done in accordance with the existing laws on the books in Indiana, and also to show that the whole three-hour time limit to take the samples may have been exceeded by the time the forced catheterization happened, and that it possibly may have been illegally obtained, adding insult to injury (well, insult to discomfort, as he wasn't injured by the catheterization process at all).

I agree with nearly everything that you said, especially with your second-to-last sentence. This really shouldn't have gone this far, but the only reason that it did is because in the officer's training concerning OWIs and chemical tests, he was told that both should be done because one doesn't always substitute well for the other. That's why he requested both--the training that they received. And that's probably why the judge ordered both--because that is the standard.

Regardless, I think that it could have stopped at the failed sobriety tests, the fact that the guy was speeding and blowing through stop signs, and that he "illegally" refused to submit to the remaining chemical analyses. They should have just temporarily revoked his license until the court date where the judge could have determined that he was guilty of OWI and for failing to comply with ordered chemical analyses.

But again, all I've been arguing is that, according to current Indiana law, the officers seemingly did nothing wrong, unless the timeline can be proven to have exceeded the three-hour mandate in the law.

But I'm not making excuses to justify anything, as the law was seemingly followed by the officers and the judge and the doctor and the nurse, and there was no "violence," just a very, very uncomfortable, but professional, medical procedure used to extract the urine.

Like I said, the law should be updated since the law is the issue, but there's nothing I can do directly, as I live on the opposite side of the Ohio River from Lawrenceburg and can't affect change via voting or petitioning anyone to do anything.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Fair enough -- thank you.

I guess my question/issue is that such laws -- and I use that term lightly -- should never be implemented to begin with. And as courts have already ruled, there must be a compelling public interest in order to do so at all, and I'm sure this case doesn't meet that standard. I'm not sure what circumstances would. And while the authorities are quite quick to bring down the long arm of the law on any and all transgressions by the public, there is no such standard for them. So how do we stop such actions from being implemented and executed to begin with? I don't just want the "law" changed; I want the whole damn corrupt system changed so this cannot happen.

Rep Matt Salmon (R-AZ) has introduced a bill every congressional session for decades that would require each and every bill presented to Congress to include the constitutional foundation for that bill... maybe something like that? The burden of proof (so to speak) for the legitimacy of any/all laws should be established BEFORE implementation and execution. In other words, it is up to THEM to justify the "law"; not up to US to prove it's not legitimate.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I guess my question/issue is that such laws -- and I use that term lightly -- should never be implemented to begin with. ... So how do we stop such actions from being implemented and executed to begin with? I don't just want the "law" changed; I want the whole damn corrupt system changed so this cannot happen.

Man, all I can say is that you have the steepest uphill battle to change the corruption (intentional and negligent) in the legal system. When I was a paralegal, I was amazed at how many things lawyers (and more often than not, the defense councils, surprisingly enough) would try and sneak into trial that they KNEW was inadmissible or downright incorrect when judged against the facts of the case.

While in my current job, I had to fly into Riverside, CA, in order to consult on a RICO case (Mexican Mafia...everyone ended up taking a plea agreement), and the agent and I had to meet with the AUSA in Los Angeles--I was amazed at how openly and honestly they discussed the amount of corruption in the legal system, talking about lawyers and judges and law enforcement who are knowingly paid off by criminals, just to name one point of the discussion. I asked why they don't prosecute these guys for corruption, and they said that it's been tried and nothing ever sticks...part of me knows that the prosecutors and judges have their own skeletons in their closets, too, and I bet that they don't want to put themselves in danger of extortion.


So, with those personal experiences in mind (and the many things about which I have no idea but are even worse that those examples), I'd be willing to bet that Sisyphus would rather keep his job than to try and change the American legal system.

Or, for the TL : DR answer--I have no idea how to fix the system.

It wouldn't hurt, though, to have legislators that have a procedural rule in place where an approved bill must be reviewed and approved by an appointed judge in order to ensure that it is not in violation of the Constitution (state or federal). But even then, mistakes would happen or judges would be ideological in nature, so forth and so on.

Rep Matt Salmon (R-AZ) has introduced a bill every congressional session for decades that would require each and every bill presented to Congress to include the constitutional foundation for that bill... maybe something like that? The burden of proof (so to speak) for the legitimacy of any/all laws should be established BEFORE implementation and execution. In other words, it is up to THEM to justify the "law"; not up to US to prove it's not legitimate.

Like I just noted (and typed before reading the rest of your comment), I think that we agree in this regard. I like your approach better, though--not just prove that a law does not violate a constitution, but that it is expressly noted that the governing body that approves laws has the constitutional authority to implement such a law.

I think that we agree more than we disagree, I just think that something was lost in translation at the start of our discourse.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think that we agree more than we disagree, I just think that something was lost in translation at the start of our discourse.

Yes, I think you're right about that. And my apologies for contributing to the confusion. But I'm also glad we pushed through and got to this point!

I really like Matt Salmon's approach to the issue; I've also thought about some kind of public referendum procedure -- perhaps triggered automatically somehow in at least some cases, whereby the public has the opportunity to overturn such laws passed by authorities before implementation. But I'm not sure how to determine which such cases, or even how. But we need to find a way to make the people the final authority -- NOT our would-be masters. Especially lately, I'm seeing a very sadistic trend in our authorities towards the public. That has to stop. I'm pretty sure the founding fathers saw the same in their would-be masters (witch trials, for example), hence their efforts to put the power in the hands of the people.

a reply to: Boadicea

You know, "the public" owns some culpability in this as well--apathy permeates the American public right, and too many people are willing to just roll over and play dead than to actually try to change something.

Honestly, you can't blame those in power for taking more power when the public whines for a minute but then lets it happen anyway. A public like that doesn't deserve much retention of power over themselves when they don't even care.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You know, "the public" owns some culpability in this as well...

Yes, I do know. And I don't like it one bit. It's not just apathy either. Some I blame on "garbage in, garbage out" -- in that too many folks just don't know any better. Their heart may be in the right place; but they don't understand the fundamental principles being violated, or they have too much trust in the wrong people, or they don't see a better way... and some folks are just downright sadistic and like seeing others suffer. We have been, and continue to be, dumbed down and conditioned to accept this crap. And at this point, both major parties are guilty of perpetuating and escalating that dumbing down in increasing power grabs. Anyone who tries to educate and the public and actually offer real Constitutional solutions are attacked unmercifully.

And we desperately need solutions.

It's an ongoing battle, but one that has to be fought. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
a reply to: Spider879
Expect to lose more right's if Trump is elected. The next supreme court judges are vital to liberty, a right wing court is detrimental outright hostel to freedom.

I agree very whole heartedly!

2nd line.