Cops Forcibly Take Blood From Drivers Suspected of Drinking

Originally posted by kneverr

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by kneverr

 

Oh please - Have you watched the whole video? Everyone of those people was there for 2 reasons, namely they were suspected of driving DUI and then refused to co-operate with the Police by the roadside.

The reason the guy is kicking and screaming is because he has had a drink, is not fit to drive and he knows he is about to be caught for it, not because he is a "patriot", so you can stop your bleeting about "traitors".

Who are you to decide that the guy is "not fit to drive" or if he had a "drink"?

Just because a cop pulled him over in a DUI check point or other and just because he asserts his rights means guilt to you? You have no proof but base his guilt on your own personal feelings, assumption and agenda.

Asserting one's rights (not "co-operating") can not be used against an American as guilt or suspicion of a crime.

Americans have the right not to consent or co-operate with police, that does not mean guilt or does it give the police the right to abuse you. Freedom haters always use the "if you have nothing to hide or guilty, why not consent to a search or "co-operate" excuse, as if it means anything to those who honor and respect American rights.

Now, mind your own country's affairs... go back to your crown worship and bend your submissive knee to anyone you like but do not preach to me about what I should or should not defend as treasonous in America.

A lot of rights are generally limited when under arrest, ie the right to freedom. That said if it can be shown that the arrest its self was illegal then the suspect is fully entitled to compensation for the actual arrest and any limitation/ breach of rights. I think people are missing here that in order to force blood samples the cops need a warent.

That said the forced samples do seen unnecessary, if a person refuses a sample the burden should shift on him to prove that he was not drink driving, which would pretty much be impossible and a conviction secured regardless.

I don't understand why this thread keeps going on and on about this hooey.

The laws already in place are sufficient to remove the suspect from the road if they fail to consent to being tested.

Ok, the question is how far are the authorities going to be allowed to go past the point of actually achieving the goal of the law?.

Most states have a mandatory revocation/suspension for refusing a breathalyzer, so I suppose if one refuses that they are off the road for awhile, eh?, why get a warrant to draw blood?, the purpose of the law has been served, why take it further?.

In Texas, every holiday weekend is a "no refusal" holiday. As such, you can't refuse testing, and the police have pre-signed warrants to take blood. I suspect July 3-7 will be an all inclusive no refusal period.

However, the famous "sobriety check points" used in many states are currently illegal in Texas. They used to use them and there is a push to get them reinstated, but as for now, it's just random stops.

reply to post by jude11


This process has been going on for some time now.
Check out Admin Per Se.

When a person agrees to a driver's license, they agree that if they are arrested for DUI, that they will submit to a test of breath/blood/urine. If they refuse, a warrant is drafted and the test is taken by force.

I personally have done hundreds of these when i was in LE. Most, like 80% basically were the person refusing, me getting the warrant and giving the person an option, either submit or me and 5 other big cops will take it.
20%, if not less refused. So, they were strapped down to a cement slab, and I administered the warrant and took blood samples.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by jude11

 

This process has been going on for some time now.
Check out Admin Per Se.

When a person agrees to a driver's license, they agree that if they are arrested for DUI, that they will submit to a test of breath/blood/urine. If they refuse, a warrant is drafted and the test is taken by force.

I personally have done hundreds of these when i was in LE. Most, like 80% basically were the person refusing, me getting the warrant and giving the person an option, either submit or me and 5 other big cops will take it.
20%, if not less refused. So, they were strapped down to a cement slab, and I administered the warrant and took blood samples.

Why do they need to agree with drivers license. ie what if they don't have one? This don't sound right. Like in the UK a drivers license don't bind you to the Road Traffic Act, simply driving does regardless if you have a license or not.

Originally posted by jude11
Police have the JOB to collect evidence from what is available. Not to break the law and forcibly TAKE evidence without a search warrant nor to take evidence from a person without charging a person with a crime first..

It was my understanding a warrant was required though?

Now, explain you're logic to me:

The person is arrested on suspicion of DUI because they have refused a roadside breath test when asked, they are then taken back to the station and, under warrant, a blood test is taken to test their alcohol levels.

You're banging on about "rights" and me jumping to conclusions, but everyone of these people in the video, had they been innocent, could have avoided the whole process by giving said roadside breath sample and then been on their way.

The ONLY reason someone would refuse a roadside test is because they know they will fail - what other reason could there be, other than sheer stupidity? It is certainly not people "standing up for their rights", it is however most certainly people trying to evade Justice, or buy time in the hope their blood alcohol levels drop by the time they have the test.

Again, you have failed to demonstrate what the problem is? People being caught drink driving? Do you condone it? You say it's about rights, but what about the rights of all the other citizens to not be a victim of a drink driver? Is it not the obligation of the Police to challenge people suspected of breaking the law and obtain evidence?

Personally, it seems to me your only issue is some warped notion of "rights", which boils down to the "I'm alright Jack" mentality and sod everyone else.

Originally posted by Bedlam
I have no problem with it, if the cop is a paramedic or RN. Otherwise it seems like he's unlicensed personnel performing a medical procedure.

Around here, they can take you to an ER but no way can they do it themselves.

way to actually watch the report...

they strap them down so a NURSE can take the sample.

doesn't make it any less f**ked up though....

why are you ok with the idea of a forced blood draw? do you have any idea what kind of a liability that is to the person who's blood is being taken? not to mention the grievous offense to one's constitutional protections?

Originally posted by Redarguo

Originally posted by yourmaker

Originally posted by beezzer
These are police-state tactics!

How many times are people going to say this before they just finally admit we actually live in one?

The hopeless are still clinging to the idea that we're still headed in that direction when it's painfully obvious we hit that threshold around 9/11.

What is, gathering evidence? Is the same standard applied to taking DNA from a murder suspect?

and collecting a DNA sample from a murder suspect, when you have probable cause to believe they were involved with the crime, is one thing....completely ok...murder is a serious offense

we're talking about drunk drivers....still dangerous, don't get me wrong...but there's a big difference between driving under the influence, and purposely killing someone. surely, you can see that.

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by Redarguo

Originally posted by yourmaker

Originally posted by beezzer
These are police-state tactics!

How many times are people going to say this before they just finally admit we actually live in one?

The hopeless are still clinging to the idea that we're still headed in that direction when it's painfully obvious we hit that threshold around 9/11.

What is, gathering evidence? Is the same standard applied to taking DNA from a murder suspect?

and collecting a DNA sample from a murder suspect, when you have probable cause to believe they were involved with the crime, is one thing....completely ok...murder is a serious offense

we're talking about drunk drivers....still dangerous, don't get me wrong...but there's a big difference between driving under the influence, and purposely killing someone. surely, you can see that.

The law applies equally, every one is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. The fact they were arrested shows probable cause, else the arrest its self is unlawful. What about something relatively minor, ie taking DNA when investigating a theft or a common assault?

Originally posted by Redarguo
You (collectively) have that right at every election. That said my opinion on how the government is run will always differ from the next guy, so we end up with a government that not every one wants but satisfies a slight majority. Revolution wont fix that. The US should have a bigger sample of political parties tho.

if you believe elections actually still decide who does what, and that your vote counts...well, let's just say there's this lawyer in nigeria, who has a large sum of money for you..

there are also a wide range of political parties...ranging from libertarians, and greens, to communists, nazis, and everything inbtween.....

Problem is NONE of the other parties get sufficient media exposure....but then again, it doesn't much matter anyway..the whole system is rigged.

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by Redarguo
You (collectively) have that right at every election. That said my opinion on how the government is run will always differ from the next guy, so we end up with a government that not every one wants but satisfies a slight majority. Revolution wont fix that. The US should have a bigger sample of political parties tho.

if you believe elections actually still decide who does what, and that your vote counts...well, let's just say there's this lawyer in nigeria, who has a large sum of money for you..

there are also a wide range of political parties...ranging from libertarians, and greens, to communists, nazis, and everything inbtween.....

Problem is NONE of the other parties get sufficient media exposure....but then again, it doesn't much matter anyway..the whole system is rigged.

Yet my country will have a vote for Independence next year from the UK. You have a two party system because they encompass the most votes, that's why they end up almost identical and you have center right, center left.

That said far too much money goes into US politics, most places have a cap on spending and have much more independents. At the same time tho the US is the only state I know of that has true separation of powers, so at least you got that.

I'll agree to disagree, cheep dis is not rational debate, what you have put forward is a strawman. Conspiracy like this makes me sad, the west is far from perfect but a hell of a lot better than most places. Democracy an all that.

Where does the jury system fit in, in your world view? Bare in mind that they can nullify unjust law.

reply to post by Redarguo


That be the way in many states.
Don't know why, just know it is the way it is.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Redarguo

 

That be the way in many states.
Don't know why, just know it is the way it is.

What is?

Originally posted by Daedalus
and collecting a DNA sample from a murder suspect, when you have probable cause to believe they were involved with the crime, is one thing....completely ok...murder is a serious offense

we're talking about drunk drivers....still dangerous, don't get me wrong...but there's a big difference between driving under the influence, and purposely killing someone. surely, you can see that.

The severity of the crime should have zero bearing on whether Police should gather evidence. Besides, being DUI might seem trivial to you, but to many it is a serious offence which often leads to some poor innocent person having life changing injuries or even being killed. A zero tolerance of it should be applied and anyone suspected of it should expect a rigorous prosecution of the law.

Originally posted by stumason

The ONLY reason someone would refuse a roadside test is because they know they will fail - what other reason could there be, other than sheer stupidity?

So pride is stupidity now?

submitting to a constable's every desire, however ridiculous, is ok to you?

I would refuse one on principle...i don't drink and drive, and i shouldn't hafta submit to some random test, to prove i'm observing common sense.

Originally posted by Redarguo

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by Redarguo

Originally posted by yourmaker

Originally posted by beezzer
These are police-state tactics!

How many times are people going to say this before they just finally admit we actually live in one?

The hopeless are still clinging to the idea that we're still headed in that direction when it's painfully obvious we hit that threshold around 9/11.

What is, gathering evidence? Is the same standard applied to taking DNA from a murder suspect?

and collecting a DNA sample from a murder suspect, when you have probable cause to believe they were involved with the crime, is one thing....completely ok...murder is a serious offense

we're talking about drunk drivers....still dangerous, don't get me wrong...but there's a big difference between driving under the influence, and purposely killing someone. surely, you can see that.

The law applies equally, every one is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. The fact they were arrested shows probable cause, else the arrest its self is unlawful. What about something relatively minor, ie taking DNA when investigating a theft or a common assault?

if applicable, i could see collection of elimination samples...but only under limited, and specific circumstances..

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by stumason

The ONLY reason someone would refuse a roadside test is because they know they will fail - what other reason could there be, other than sheer stupidity?

So pride is stupidity now?

submitting to a constable's every desire, however ridiculous, is ok to you?

I would refuse one on principle...i don't drink and drive, and i shouldn't hafta submit to some random test, to prove i'm observing common sense.

OK, so you don't drink and rive. Then this really doesn't apply to you. Why would you be pulled over on suspicion of DUI if you are completely sober?

Originally posted by Redarguo

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by Redarguo
You (collectively) have that right at every election. That said my opinion on how the government is run will always differ from the next guy, so we end up with a government that not every one wants but satisfies a slight majority. Revolution wont fix that. The US should have a bigger sample of political parties tho.

if you believe elections actually still decide who does what, and that your vote counts...well, let's just say there's this lawyer in nigeria, who has a large sum of money for you..

there are also a wide range of political parties...ranging from libertarians, and greens, to communists, nazis, and everything inbtween.....

Problem is NONE of the other parties get sufficient media exposure....but then again, it doesn't much matter anyway..the whole system is rigged.

Yet my country will have a vote for Independence next year from the UK. You have a two party system because they encompass the most votes, that's why they end up almost identical and you have center right, center left.

That said far too much money goes into US politics, most places have a cap on spending and have much more independents. At the same time tho the US is the only state I know of that has true separation of powers, so at least you got that.

I'll agree to disagree, cheep dis is not rational debate, what you have put forward is a strawman. Conspiracy like this makes me sad, the west is far from perfect but a hell of a lot better than most places. Democracy an all that.

Where does the jury system fit in, in your world view? Bare in mind that they can nullify unjust law.

edit on 1-7-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

So you're not from here then....that explains a bit..

all you know is how it is SUPPOSED to work..on paper, and in theory....and the way it is SUPPOSED to work is great...

What you don't know is how it ACTUALLY works...in practice, and in reality...the way it ACTUALLY works is significantly different from how it is SUPPOSED to work.

Juries are supposed to be able to nullify unconstitutional/illegal laws, but it never holds up, it's always deemed to be a thing that's not to be done, so it never stands.

there's plenty of election fraud/theft here, not to mention presidents more or less ruling by executive order, SCOTUS judges being blackmailed, congress taking kickbacks in the form of campaign contributions, to vote for or against things that are against the interests of the american people....

does that sound like separation of powers, and fair elections to you?

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Daedalus
and collecting a DNA sample from a murder suspect, when you have probable cause to believe they were involved with the crime, is one thing....completely ok...murder is a serious offense

we're talking about drunk drivers....still dangerous, don't get me wrong...but there's a big difference between driving under the influence, and purposely killing someone. surely, you can see that.

The severity of the crime should have zero bearing on whether Police should gather evidence. Besides, being DUI might seem trivial to you, but to many it is a serious offence which often leads to some poor innocent person having life changing injuries or even being killed. A zero tolerance of it should be applied and anyone suspected of it should expect a rigorous prosecution of the law.

i agree, zero tolerance is the way to go with it. if you are obviously drunk, and you refuse, you get arrested, your car impounded, you go to jail for the night, you lose your license, and you have your day in court.

strapping people down, and taking their blood, because they did not want to comply with the request, it taking it too far.

there's no longer any need to collect evidence, because they're off the road, and won't be back on it legally for a long time.

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by stumason

The ONLY reason someone would refuse a roadside test is because they know they will fail - what other reason could there be, other than sheer stupidity?

So pride is stupidity now?

submitting to a constable's every desire, however ridiculous, is ok to you?

I would refuse one on principle...i don't drink and drive, and i shouldn't hafta submit to some random test, to prove i'm observing common sense.

OK, so you don't drink and rive. Then this really doesn't apply to you. Why would you be pulled over on suspicion of DUI if you are completely sober?

at checkpoints, they check EVERYONE.

as in, EVERYONE is assumed to be guilty...