Posted on 12/30/2010 12:49:32 PM PST by RikaStrom
While I have no problem with giving a drunk driver a nice fine - jail time, suspension of their license and even up to confiscation of their vehicle (multiple charges) - I have a problem with anyone taking ANY body part, fluid or DNA without permission.
We are individuals, with rights - not property of the state.
Catch us, try us, punish us...
If a person wants to refuse the test - that’s fine. Throw the book at them - maximum fine, automatic plea of guilt, ect.
But, under no condition should ANYONE be held down, and their personal body violated against their will.
We do not do this to convicted rapists - just to let the victim know whether she has been exposed to AIDS - yet a state can do this under the guise of collecting evidence?
Heads up Joe!!!!!!
Why bother with a judge rubber-stamping a warrant then? If the officer has reason to think you should pony up, then why bother with a judge?
I do not object to a warranted collection of evidence of intoxication when the crime at issue is directly related to the intoxication of the defendant. If we cannot collect evidence of the crime, we cannot prosecute ... and intoxicated driving needs to be a crime.
We are Constitutionally protected against warrantless searches, but States are free to legislate such searches based on warrants without running afoul of the Constitution. They are also free to make such searches illegal. Since the Constitution is silent on the issue of warranted searches, the issue is open for debate in Statehouses ... so lobby away.
SnakeDoc
You are absolutely correct. I phone in drunks whenever I see them.
People better wake up to the fact that just because we agree to a license or something else like TSA it should never mean we give our individual rights and due process.
HUGE MISTAKE.
These roadblocks are creepy and a really bad idea and it won’t stop at this.
We just have to take a hard look back at Wilson and Roosevelt and see some of the same things they were doing and it is going to begin to happen now...
This is just inviting trouble for everyone involved.
That is because you waived your rights when you signed your driver lic. They can do anything they want to you.
I just pointed that same thing out to my wife. I told her a warrant may only be issued upon presentation of evidence of a crime. What is the evidence, a use of your fifth amendment rights? Furthermore, except in felony DUI, all DUI first offences are misdomeanors. Seems this is using a sledge hammer to kill a fly.
Now then, if they can run check points for DUI, and have a judge handy to sign the warrant compelling evidence, why can they not do the same thing for illegal aliens i.e. do you have proof of citizenship or legal residency, no, OK, we will hold you for the judge to issue a demand you prove you are here legally.
This is nothing more than the same thing the Nazi’s did, except now rather than requiring papers, the police state is requiring your blood.
I am beyond upset by this and will not be responsible for how I may act if confronted by this tactic. Since our judiciary does not seem to have a problem with this blatent violation of free passage on the roadways, I wonder what form of protest is available, barreling through the road block? I would hate to become a martyr but somethings just have to stop.
I know that; but we can keep at them.
Doc. Read your driver lic. You waived the constitutional protection when you got it. There is no bill of rights when driving. None Zero Zip.
The involvement of the judge is Constitutionally required to satisfy the 4th Amendment. A warrant is simply a judicial recognition of probable cause — it is an independent review of the impending search. The officer doesn’t need to prove that the guy is drunk ... he simply needs to show that he has good reason to think the guy is drunk. If the officer sees probable cause, and the judge agrees ... the search is Constitutional.
Despite the activity of the ACLU, the Constitution is not exclusively intended as a list of technicalities for people to get away with criminal activity.
It is a control on government activity. When the government meets the criteria set out by the Constitution, the government has an interest in enforcing the law.
SnakeDoc
There is no WILL to do so. A generation of scofflaws permitted by a corrupt establishment.
Subhversion of government.
A teen with a fake ID will be prosecuted more harshly than an illegal immigrant with falsified identification. And that includes those who've stolen social security numbers, and committed other federal offenses.
That goes for no right to carry a gun in your car too?
My driver’s license doesn’t say that ... and the Supreme Court disagrees. Drivers have rights. They don’t have the right to prevent a warranted search — but they have rights.
SnakeDoc
The problem is they stop every car. The assumption is your guilty and have to show proof your not...if they think your guilty from that point they force you into this draconian procedure where your rights are trampled and you are not allowed proper representation or due process.
Why are people so willing to give up their invidividual rights to the progressive ideas?
That goes for no right to put any bumper sticker you want (excepting obscenity and death threats which are not protected speech)?
And you don’t think they will have a camera there recording everything, your plate info, etc...etc...
they have no right to invade your private property - your car is no different than your home.
The presumption is that if you are out and about from 10pm-6am, you are up to no good. Adult. Minor. Makes no difference. Unless you're the mayor's kid.
bttt
No disrespected intended but nurses drawing blood is they are not as properly trained as a what Lab Tec is as far as finding vains goes.Many nurses just fish for vains and they will stick, restick.
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.