Posted on 12/30/2010 12:49:32 PM PST by RikaStrom
Harris County law enforcement agencies will again crack down on drunken drivers during Christmas and New Year's, but the expanded operations no will longer be limited to holiday weekends.
The "no refusal" initiative — a countywide program that expedites search warrants for blood samples from drunken driving suspects who refuse breath tests — now will be in effect every weekend for the next three years due in large part to a grant recently issued by the Texas Department of Transportation to the Harris County District Attorney's Office. The initiative, which also includes funds from the District Attorney's Office, will total about $750,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
If it has an implied consent statement under your signature that is it.
Prohibition didn't begin with a Constitutional amendment. Individual states had laws on the books prohibiting the sale and use of alcohol. When they got sufficient in numbers, there was sufficient legislative support to amend the Constitution.
I read this detail while reading Cab Calloway's autobiography this week. He looked at the newspaper headlines from the day he was born (Christmas day, 1907). Georgia had just ushered in Prohibition. He said that prohibition would go on to play a role in his career.
No just for DUI and breath testing. That is how if you refuse to incriminate yourself ala the 5th. they get you for the refusal. Same if you want to work in Area 51 or Black Ops. You sign a waiver of the constitution. In fact I even heard it is like that when you sign up for social security and taxes. It is all a voluntary waiver of the constitution. That is how they get away with it. I know that once in social security you can not cancel it.
At least in Harris County, they do not stop every car. They don’t have checkpoints (there are checkpoints in Tampa).
I live in Harris County, and have never been stopped on a “no refusal” weekend.
SnakeDoc
Remember that the prohibition movement was joined at the hip with the women’s sufferage movement, anti-tobacco movements, social security movement, and a whole bunch of other so-called social-reform movements that also brought into existence the professional social worker (missionaries without religion) and sociologists (anthropologists who were not content to study “primitive” societies but who wanted to retrofit them for the modern paradise).
All depends on how the meaning of "intoxicated". And the standard is whitling down to 0.03.
Up in North Texas, they were enforcing "Public Intoxicated" charges (especially on visitors). There is no BAC for "Public Intoxication". Officer makes a determination. Not sure, but I've heard the standard includes witnessing a patron drinking 2 beers in an hour.
In Dallas, when they were doing it, they'd ask a patron to step outside a minute, which would clarify any "doubt" that the man was "in public" rather than in a private establishment. Didn't matter if you weren't driving anywhere.
One guy in a report on it was drinking a beer in a hotel bar, he was a guest of the hotel and the restaurant was closed but the bar was open and serving burgers. The arresting officer said that the man may have later driven somewhere for more food or something.
We are talking about "pre-crime" here. Charge someone before they've even done anything.
There were 2,000 of those 500 PI charges before they put them on hold. 2,000 * 500 = $1,000,000.
When Houston lost out on Red Light Camera Money during the power outage from Hurricane Ike, they started issuing PI tickets (easier than trying to charge EVERYONE who was violating curfew or even the bars that were open and serving).
Follow the money.
"No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."
If there is sufficent evidence to warrant a judge to authorize the STATE putting a NEEDLE IN YOU against your will, then there is sufficient evidence to convict the person on that evidence later on in court.
What they're admitting is that without compelling the suspect to provide the prosecution evidence, the STATE could not otherwise put on a compelling case later on.
I always get a kick out of people like you who complain about defendants "getting off on technicalities."
THE LAW IS A COLLECTION OF TECHNICALITIES.
It's like saying carrying the one in long division is just a technicality. IT'S PART OF THE RULES FOR A REASON.
There are efforts to give children social security numbers. Since the children do not sign into such contracts by law, they cannot be bound by such "agreement".
But, we already have had cases where blood obtained from babies has been used for purposes that were explicitly forbidden.
So, you are ACCUSED of driving drunk. Maybe you are, maybe you are stone-cold sober and a cop wants to mess with you. Now, someone you don’t know is going to jab a needle into you - and you have no choice in the matter? Not based upon guilt, not based upon any action you may have committed - but based upon an ACCUSATION!!
Now, personally I’d have no problem blowing into a tube any time - I would volunteer that. I don’t drink. So, for me this is a non-issue. What I object most strenuously to, is the presumption that someone has the God-given ‘Right’ to violate my person. That includes collecting skin, blood, hair, spit or urine without my express permission.
What else are they going to use the blood for? Is it going to be destroyed? Let’s say they screen it and find that you have a genetic pre-disposition to cancer. Now, you your company see’s you as a liability, as does your insurance company. You are ‘laid off’ or ‘fired’ because of whatever reason someone wants to trump up.
Now, a prospective company interviews you - but then sees that cancer pre-disposition ... good luck.
We are entering an age where your DNA can literally destroy your life - through no fault or inaction of your own. Simply having the ‘wrong’ genetic sequence can mean the end of your career, your livelihood, your ability to getting medical insurance, your ability to adopt, buy a home - every aspect of your life is potentially out of your control.
You seem to feel that you are a SUBJECT and that the law can do whatever they want to you. You are apparently willing to let them collect blood - based on an accusation alone. You have the right to silence - but who needs civil rights when they can disect you at will? Now they can take blood - what about spinal fluid? Liver biopsies? How about brain material? Can they take your eyes? Where do you draw the line?
My line is clear - my body is MINE. It does not, has never, and will never belong to the state.
As for refusing - I have no problem with the state throwing the book. Refuse a breathe-alyzer or blood test; forfeit your right to traffic court, automatic guilty plea entered. Maximum fine, maximum sentence - possibly forfeit your car. No problem at all. I have no love for drunk drivers - heck, as far as I’m concerned make drunk driving a capital offence (let’s be realistic as to the BAL - 0.10 is drunk; 0.03 is just one beer).
But, never allow the state to take you body. Your body is sacred. If you give them this ‘right’ you are no longer a person - you are property of the state.
This is a new federal program. The no refusal program being encouraged nationally is stop and check all.
thats the problem here these are states doing something on their own...these are states adopting a new “federal” policy on stop and check all.
It’s my understanding that an experienced male drinker between the ages of 40 and 60 is not impaired at .08 and is less risk than the average driver due to caution.
Do you also object to fingerprints? DNA evidence? Warranted property searches?
Requiring tests for intoxication is not requiring someone to be a “witness against himself” — it is physical evidence in a crime, not witness testimony. The Constitution does not protect you from providing physical evidence, under warrant, against yourself.
In drunk driving cases, juries expect proof ... a blood or breath test showing intoxication. Circumstantial evidence is often insufficient to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why warrants are permitted to gather evidence.
Criminal law is ultimately about justice ... and justice is not about technicalities. When someone drives drunk, they risk the lives of many innocent people with whom they share the road. For justice to prevail, they must be held accountable for doing so — and it is insufficient to hold them accountable only after they have killed someone.
You can argue the technicalities of the law, even though those technicalities do not appear to be on your side.
The Constitution is satisfied by the warrant, and justice is done when a conviction is obtained from the evidence gathered. Justice is also done when the evidence gathered exonerates the driver. In either case, justice is served.
SnakeDoc
“It’s about getting “easier” convictions. More revenues. More wins on paper.”
Yes you are right its about revenue collection. The fine for a DUI in GA is I believe over $2,000.00 not to mention the lawyer fees so its a racket for the lawyers also.
Its also about control and loss of rights. The roadblocks and the mandatory blood tests are unconstitutional and people need to let their local and state politicians know they don’t want it.
Why? Because your DNA can be used against you, for purposes totally unrelated to drinking.
But, let's follow your train of thought. We have an officer's sworn statement, we have video of the car weaving, we have video of the person staggering, we have the person refusing to comply with sobriety tests. Pretty open and shut case. The person refusal alone, is grounds of assumed guilt. As driving is a priviledge, not a right - by refusing to provide any sobriety metric, he forfeits his license for a year, automatic guilt, and generally - the maxinum fine and sentence allowed.
As I have stated repeatedly .... incarcerate, confiscate his car, seize his license - that's all fine and dandy with me. But, NO ONE may take my body by force. We are citizens, not subjects; no matter what Jughead may say or do.
And more people “in the system” (fingerprints, and now DNA samples as well).
But there is some backlash brewing that people “with otherwise clean records” are getting a single (no repeat offender) charge and blemishing that history with a misdemeanor.
Meanwhile there are drunken judges, DAs, police officers, and legislators. So while they talk a game of protecting the public, they are guilty of the infraction too (but don’t always see their cases come to prosecution). If they are going to be protected from assault, etc because of their position of authority, perhaps they should also face stiffer penalties for infractions such as this one.
To really serve justice, you should admit that anyone who walks out of a bar toward a parking lot should really be the target here.
I mean, why allow these people one millisecond behind the wheel where they could hurt someone by irresponsibly exercising their freedom of movement?
What do they charge you with?
1. The smell of alcoholic beverages is not prima facie evidence that the driver is above .08 or otherwise impaired.
2. The Right to Freely Assemble implies the right to unimpeded travel unless there is probable cause to believe some other crime has been committed.
3. The refusal of a roadside "search" in not prima facie evidence that a crime is committed baring evidence to the contrary.
Unless impairment can be shown, there is no cause for "search".
I don’t care for technicalities ... I was simply pointing out that your argument even fails on the technicalities. Justice is the priority ... but justice must be served within the confines of Constitutional governance. In this case, it is.
I would have no problem with cops watching bar entrances looking for drunks getting into cars. I can’t think of any Constitutional reason why that would be problematic. Actually, I’m not sure why they’re not already doing that (if, in fact, they aren’t).
SnakeDoc
Ok. Let's just leave it at that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.