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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
I never was a drinker unless you call 2 beers in 4 hours or so drinking..?
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?
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
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.
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.
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)
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)
Originally posted by eNumbra
Refusal to take the breathalyzer itself is the fine, regardless of whether any actual crime is being committed.