Your right to a fair trial, privacy, and transparency has already been taken away and none of you batted a lash; now it looks like your right to your own "blood" will be gone by the end of the year.

How can we talk about "identity" when the vast majority of Americans have none? We live in a country that needs a consolidated majority to lead a path....these blind sheep have gained the majority, stuck together, and are/have been pulling us closer to the slaughterhouse.

If he refused to take a breathalyzer, charge him with the DUI. I have no idea why the officer would have a right to take the man to the hospital when he didn't need medical attention. If this is our future, I think I'm gonna stay home more often!

ThinkingScientist,

You clearly haven't kept up on the abuses since 9/11. The Patriot Act stepped all over the constitution. And since the 80's, the DEA has been seizing property and auctioning it off or holding it indefinitely if you're even suspected of being a drug dealer. Things have been scary for some time now.

Next case is anyone that is a rape suspect because they live in the same building will get a mandatory J-off by the Cops in the parking lot. Bad law for the blood draw, opens too much up later.......

What's really at stake here is whether or not a state legislature can pass a law saying that if you're driving a car you automaticallly consent to a blood draw. That's what the trooper relied on. People get confused about when and why search warrants are required and what's required to get them. In this case the suspect has already been arrested for DUI based on probable cause. The officer sought to gather more evidence of imparement by gathering blood (properly drawn in a hospital). Under these circumstances, qualifying for a search warrant would be easy. The sad fact is, legislatures, attorneys, and courts have so muddled up our DUI laws that it would be difficult to prosecute the case without blood, breath, or urine... even if the suspect was falling down drunk and everyone knew it.

Winder testified that he had read a journal article about the change and said he made a "conscious decision" not to seek a warrant "due to the law changes."

LOL....yea, right. Unless this trooper was specific DUI enforcement, I doubt he read the law he outlined above.

Rights only are only given or taken on how much justice you can afford. Cop could have used Patriot act, car is a weapon of mass destruction. The case is in the news why?

If they accept the implied consent nonsense then what is to stop them from saying that by installing a phone in your home you are consenting to a wire tap, etc. Bad law. The only way someone should be compelled is by court order and even then I have issues with it as you are being forced to incriminate yourself. Also, what else are they doing with the blood - are they going to store information on you for further use? More overreach by the government into your private business. How about this - they run a blood test on you and determine that you were over the legal limit, but at the same time they run a pregnancy test and determine you are pregnant - something you did not know. Now assume the state passes a law that states that it is illegal for pregnant women to consume alcohol - that it is considered reckless endangerment of the fetus. What then? Slippery slope when you start letting the govt get pieces of you - fingerprints, blood, dna, etc.

Having worked in Law Enforcement for over 14 years here is something to think about. If you get pulled over for a DUI, you refuse to take a PAS/Breath test. You will then be asked to give a blood sample as evidence. If the Supreme Court sides on the Plaintiff side can you then be charged with destroying evidence by not giving a sample. Can't wait to see what happens. You will see all state adopt a law that states if you receive a drivers license, you automatically give consent to a blood draw if your stopped for a DUI.

I'd be willing to leave a stool sample in the back of your squad car, but leave my blood alone. I get light headed and tunnel vision when they draw blood sometimes. If I fall and accidentally hurt myself, I'll be the first one suing the @!$%# out of your ass.

"Implied Consent" is one of the worst lines of BS that the State has invented yet. Where does it end? Does walking down a public sidewalk imply that you consent to random pat-downs by the police? Does attending a public school imply that you consent to random drug testing by the police? Does having children imply that you consent to weekly visitations by the police to make sure that you're not abusing them? I smell frogs boiling... *ribbit ribbit ribbit*

Welcome to 1937 Germany....... Just watch what happens on a lot of issues, in the next couple of YEARS.......

Welcome to 1937 Germany....... Just watch what happens on a lot of issues, in the next couple of YEARS.......

Oh I get it, because Obama is Hitler right GHOST? *eye roll*

And I agree, implied consent is pure B.S.

im wondering why all the talk is about the fourth amendment! what about the fifth amendment, states that we as citizens of this ONCE great country are not compelled to testify or provide evidence against ourselves! yeah i ve heard it before, driving is a privelidge not a right!! well, that being said, the 5th amendment , last i heard, was a right! and a guarenteed one at that!! law of the land huh. driving is a priveledge that is fine and dandy but nowhere on my DL does it state that by accepting that priveledge am i waiving my fifth or fourth or third or any other right that used to be guaranteed to all of us by our constitution! put that disclaimer on all state issued DLs and see how high the cost for prosecuting those caught for simply driving without a liscense will cost us! just like gun control people, another way to fill the coffers and back the average in a corner! wont work! well it might ! like banning drugs works LOL!!! good luck my fellow americans our liberties are on the endangered species list!!! god bless you all and this nation!

In California you give law enforcement the right to take your blood when you get your Driver's License. With out giving them permission you would not get them. The problem is when you are from out of state it has no right to take your blood but does. Even if this is deemed unconstitutional the DMV is not part of the police force and they have their own rules not laws that you agree on when you get their Driver's License. It will just be a matter of each state telling you if you want to drive in your state you give other states the right to draw your blood if you are stopped in states other than the one you reside in. Problem solved!

drug test them

RTypo: I don't know in which cave GHOST-1325176 lives, but where I live driving is a privilege, not a right, and the statutes indicate that by obtaining a driver's license I consent to any DUI test. Yes, The driver did not cause an accident because he was stopped for speeding, but would your position be the same if he wasn't and he caused the dead of another individual?

At the bottom of my driver's license (FL) there is a legend that reads, "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to ANY sobriety test required by law." A$$hole drunk wants to skip paying the fine by arguing about the 4th amendment? 10,759 people were killed by drunk drivers in 2010 because of idiots like this.

The police need to be careful on this. I can see them getting training and taking the blood on the scene. I can also see an ocean of lawsuits for punctured veins, hematoma, etc.

Marriage is a privelege not a right, so if that falls others should also fall. Driving is a right.

Bob, where did you get that driving is a right? If it is a right then the government has the obligation to give you a car or a truck? It is a privilege, and if you don't want to follow the rules to drive, then take the bus, train, subway, cab or bike. But if you want to drive a motor vehicle you have to comply with the statutes, and one is not to drive while intoxicated by alcohol. What I found astonishing is that most of the postings here rant about the 4th amendment this, 4th amendment that, but they fail to see that the blood test revealed that he was over double the legal limit. Now, what would have happened if the officer didn't stop him and he killed someone?

No, Bob. Your Rights are defined in the Constitution.

"Earlier in 2010, the Missouri Legislature changed the state's "implied consent" law, which says that if you drive on Missouri's roads, you've automatically consented to take a sobriety test. "

If this can fly Whats next? If you own a home you "implied consent" to a search by police "just to make sure" you aren't doing anything illegal inside? If you walk on the side walk you've implied consent to be searched if some cops thinks you look odd?

They will also be using this to claim you may be high on Pot even though it remains stored in fat and you may not have smoked any for several weeks, mark my words.

We are slowly but surely becoming a police state with no rights other than do has "the man" says.

There were two sentences. A comparison to the vote to recognize marriage as a right. Supreme Court? Law? What rights? After the Patriot Act and others were passed, rights have become arbitrary. P.S. Do not assume knowledge when you misunderstand the message. Had I put a ? mark on the end would that have helped?

justiceforall ( only if you think its right )...... Yes driving is a privilege.... But that doesn't give you a right, to force me in taking a blood test, if I refuse...... Yes, I agree in refusing any sobriety test, means a loss of your driving privilege .......... Like the Second Amendment...... I HAVE A RIGHT TO BARE FIRE ARMS, ( ANY TYPE OF FIRE ARMS )...... That's not a privilege, that you cave dwellers have a RIGHT to take away from me......... Do YOU, see the difference between a " Right " and a " Privilege "..............................

Actually the argument could be made that due to the structure of our society, and the fact that virtually all us reside and work so far apart, (and so many of our communities are no longer locally structured, thereby forcing us to travel such long distances just to get by) needs to be taken into account in any argument. Unlike the majority of the rest of the world, where people are for the most part locally oriented. Add that to the fact that the vast MAJORITY of us live in areas with extremely limited mass transit options, and YES you could make the argument that driving is tantamount to owning and riding a horse in its basic necessity as a means of living a normal life in this country. Therefore it is a right and not a priviledge. It is only the overbearing state and its desire to unequivically control the people in all that they do that has made this assertion. The fact that they compel you to sign any consent prior to receiving a license is a violation of your rights to begin with, since the ONLY reason we are compelled to even have a drivers license was originally to generate revenue, hidden behind the ruse of certifying a persons ability to operate a motor vehicle properly. I mean hey, they never required anybody to license a horse, they just made it against the law to ride a horse in the basic daily operation of your life. And yes people died a lot from horse accidents. It may be coincidental that tyhe advent of the motor vehicle coincided with the rise to prominence of the progressive government movement, but it is NO coincidence that the laws requiring a "license" to do anything happened with greater regularity as the progressive movement took greater hold.

The constitution states that the government CANNOT compel you to give evidence against yourself for any reason whatsoever, (this is a clear case of compelling you to give evidence) and that included giving evidence in instances as severe as 1st degree murder, let alone something like DUI. There is no exception, it does NOT say except in the event that a better technology comes along. It was written based on the eons proven observations of human nature, that shows that man will and does subjugate his brother for the aphrodesiac which is omnipotent power. That is why they came up with the whole assertion that driving is a priviledge. It allows them to circumnavigate a very basic right as laid down in the original unadulterated constitution. Any ruling otherwise is against the constitution, whether it be by the Supreme Court or not. The founding forefathers did however give us the means by which to change this, it is called an amendment, and the process requires that there be a super majority in both houses of congress, AND that there has to be a yes vote of 2/3 of the governors of this country, as well as a signing into existence by the president. The only reason that this does not happen, is because everyone in our government has become so over impressed with their own self importance that they can't seem to remember that they are their to represent us and not their beliefs or interests, (again a facet of the progressive government movement). Not to mention that it would require a work of collective agreement and they can't get that done either.

The fact that they talk of the exigency of the loss of evidence due to the body's ability to oxidize alcohol is no excuse. After all, a drug dealer can flush his drugs before a search warrant, and a murderer can dispose of evidence as well. You folks who support this, only do so because it is such a scary scenario because so many of us use the roads and highways, and you think it will make you safer. All it will do is make it that much easier for the government to log your DNA, and to slowly erode your right to not give evidence against yourself. Ever heard of the gulags of russia? It isn't that far from one to the other.

For those of you who think that we should just give up our freedoms based on your opinions and the scary proposition of driving on our highways, I say go @#&% yourselves. This life you lead never came with any gaurantees, and the constitution only gauranteed you the right to life, liberty, and the pursuitof happiness based on a very distinct and inviolable set of rights. It does not gaurantee a long and successful, nor a safe and secure life. Just merely the right to not have your life or your freedom taken from you arbitrarily by any tyrannous government entity, and that by having those two things taken care of then you would be free to pursue your own happiness.

Face it folks, death is just a byproduct of living, and yes it is coming for all of us. No amount of legislation can change that. It just can't,,,, FACT. So quit worrying about it. The key isn't when or how you die, because it is happening no matter what you try to do about it. The key is how you live, and I prefer to live free. Which by the way, there has been ALL KINDS of legislation which takes your freedom. HMMM, maybe we should think about that.

Sorry, I have children who drive these highways to get back and forth to school, and their part time jobs, and their sports events. I would rather that they all be killed by a drunk driver than be subjugated by a overbearing government which disregards our rights as laid down by the constitution. There are ways to prove DUI without compelling anyone to give up their fifth amendment rights. Especially in todays world of dash cams, and yes there are devices which can detect alcohol through your sweat, which could be justified through the whole "probable cause" ruling on personal search procedures. Besides, what are we trying to accomplish by drawing blood? The refusal to blow is supposed to be enough to convict, although that is also against your rights. Now, the mandatory suspension of your license for a period of 1 or 2 years is perfect for this scenario, as it does not present the threat of loss of freedom by an overbearing government through incarceration due to a conviction without evidence. You merely don't want to get caught driving during that period, as it will cause you to go to jail, and the sentence should be stiff, as it should be horrifically stiff for a DUI first offense. The way to deal with this issue is not to require that you give up your rights, but make it so stiff as to preclude even a thought of commiting the crime. Our system is skewed to produce revenue and take your rights, and that is WRONG, as it is designed to control not serve.

You have ALL GOT to remember that freedom is the most important thing we have. Life without freedom just isn't worth living. I can not for the life of me understand how anybody can just readily agree to do so.

contra: many points for an eloquent post.

So when will they pass a law saying that if you breath the public air you have consented to whatever we say, and be done with all this "rights" nonsense for good?

Again, I want to iterate that it is very reasonable to assert that driving may meet the criteria of a right on a national level. The fact that the overwhelming majority of us live lives which virtually require us to be able to drive is the greatest indicator. We live so far away from our work. The great majority do not have adequate access to functional mass transit. And the fact that to deny the right to drive is to deny ones right to the pursuit life, libery and happiness, as it arbitrarily hinders our ability to do so. Todays car is tantamount to being the horse of old. The horse was vital to virtually every person who lived in the greater American landscape. Ther of course were those who lived within a few blocks of every need in their lives, but most did not. Therefore no one would have ever though of restricting ones right to a horse. The only reason for requiring a "license" was to generate revenue and a base of control motivated rule. Being able to marry is not required to provide for ones life. Being able to quickly transport oneself is in todays modern society. Therefore resorting to coercian through the threat of losing ones ability to provide for ones self and ones family, to get you to forfeit your rights is unconstitutional and should NOT be allowed. Just use the same methods as those used to prove other crimes and punish the violator severely. Why should we have to giuve up our rights, when the majority of DUI penalties are nothing more than slaps on the wrist anyway? This nothing more than another power grab. Start PUNISHING the drunk drivers and leave our rights ALONE!

If this can fly Whats next? If you own a home you "implied consent" to a search by police "just to make sure" you aren't doing anything illegal inside? If you walk on the side walk you've implied consent to be searched if some cops thinks you look odd?

If you look Mexican you imply consent to show your papers proving citizenship, right Arizona conservatives?

RTypo:

The 5th amendment was written so as to protect the citizens of this country from arbitrary incarceration and the loss of freedom through coercian and draconian practices. This does not necessarily apply to anything which does not carry a threat of loss of freedom, since the whole constitution is all about freedom.

If you are a citizen of this country, then you have nothing to fear, since your freedom is not at stake. If you are an illegal alien then you have no protection by the constitution, and deserve to be deported. Again, not a threat of arbitrary incarceration.

So, the whole Arizona comment is just plain assinine.

Simply because certain rights and privileges have not been specifically included herein, does not mean that they were meant to be excluded.

That's the final sentence of the Constitution, which makes no differentiation between rights and priveleges. It guarantees both. Using the phrase"it's not a right, it's a privilege", merely signifies ignorance.

Can one really give implied consent to simple assault? Could someone file assault charges and hold the officer for abetting in assault in this case?

I love how the same people who are screaming about government intrusion into our lives are the first to scream law and order and think police should be allowed to run roughshod over our lives. The idea that driving should be a privilege is BS, you cannot work without mobility and no one should be required to forced blood test or other sobriety measure with forfeiture of license is you refuse

Does anyone on here railing against this idea of drawing blood ever know someone who was killed by a drunk driver? I, unfortunately knew 5 people who were killed by drunk drivers. One was a friend and a mother of 2. Her husband is all alone now since the a-hole drunk killed her and her 2 kids on their way home from a school play. He would of been with them as well if he wasn't deployed overseas for the military. The drunk crossed over the double yellows and hit them head on. Seat belts and airbags did nothing for them.

The other 2 folks I knew were also innocent victims when a drunk ran a red light while speeding and broadsided their car causing it to erupt in flames burning them both alive. The drunk didn't even get a scratch on him. Those 2 people were my brothers fatherinlaw and motherinlaw. They were driving back home after watching the kids for my brother and his wife so they could go to a funeral for a friend of theirs who died from a drunk driver. A sick irony... Huh?

So feel real good about yourselves protecting drunk drivers. I don't normally side with the cops but for drunk drivers I say shoot them on the spot if they kill someone else.

dirp..... I don't 100% agree that you should be forced to submit to a DNA test as that too could be used against you. If is is obtained in a way other that forcing you to have soemthing incerted into your body that is not invasion and would be ok IMO.

As for forcing a blood test for DUI I am of the opinon that that is an invasion of our rights. If anything a way to force a breath test woud serve well. this could be done without induding on the body with a needle.

Don't get me wrong I absolutely hate it when people choose to drink and drive and I think if caught we should have much stricker punishments. At the same time I don't wish to grant too much search and seizure power too our government because they most certainly will abuse it.

davefromdanapointca ... I too have seen the pain a drunk driver can and will cause. However if given this opportunity many inncent people will be subjected to blood tests just because the cop "suspects " them of being drunk and they either refuse the breath test or pass the field subriety test. Some police officers will over step thier authority and this is the problem with mandatory compliance of blood tests.

davefromdanapointca, who the heck is protecting drunk drivers? In most states, refusing to take the breath test or the blood draw is considered the same as an admission of driving while intoxicated, as it is in the state mentioned in this article.

This is one issue that conservatives and liberals should agree on. Why do politicians on both sides seem to love the idea of a police state soo damn much?

If you don't think an automobile is a necessity and therefore a right in this country, then you have either lived your entire life in a large city and kept yourself oblivious to the way the rest of the country lives or you just plain have your head up your ass!

I voted dem this last election because I think robme was the most dangerous candidate since ross perot but looking at the way things keep going, I see myself sliding more and more to the libertarian side every day.

What the @!$%# ever happened to common sense?!?!?

I have the right to drive Period. As long as I go through the procedures to obtain a driving lic. And knowing that violations of the state driving laws can lead to it's suspension or even taking it away from me. But I have a right to have one like anyone else does. You that question that fact are playing word games with rights and privileges. Implied consent like said above, is pure bull@!$%#. If my lic is from IL and I drive through KY because I simply drove through KY would mean that I gave consent? And if I am on a US Highway? Where do we draw the line on consent implied? For me ? No where. I give no implied consent. I give consent by signing my consent. And you would be violating my rights to drive by trying to force me to sign an implied consent in order to get a drivers Lic. States and the Federal government have and are taking us further every day towards a system that they will ultimately take away all our rights , be it but law, decreed, or implied consent if we sit back and let them. The Patriot act and ALL it encumbers needs to be revoked and fast. It infringes on all my rights that are given to me by the constitution.

Welcome to pre-Nazi Germany. This is the growing Police State for which you have all so happily voted. In exchange for a few crumbs, you are forfeiting more of your liberty and freedoms everyday. Whether they are Democrat or Republican, the next Hitler, Stalin, or Mao has already been elected into the political system (if not the Oval Office) of this country.

We can also play the implied rights game that the constitution gives us. Many of our rights are not written in cold blood in the constitution, but the rights are implied based on RULINGS by the Supreme Court. The problem with all this is that on a particular issue a group says it's a right that the Constitution gives us and the other side says no it's not. It is not in the constitution, then the topic changes and both sides switch side on the arguments. My rights are written in back and white or implied ( as interpreted by the Supreme Court) And yes my rights are the same as everyone Else's. But there is no implied consent unless I authorize it by signing a document that says I do.And no state or Federal government can write a law that is Constitutional that states that I have given up any right by implied consent.

In most states that I know, the DUI law states refusel to take a breath test, is an admition of quilt.

#1.45 I take it then that you have never voted then ? Or you went 3rd party and don't feel you are responsible for any of this then? Just a question,because, you throw around the

you have all so happily voted for

very freely, so I asked didn't you vote? or voted 3 rd party so you have no responsiblity with what is going on.

So when will they pass a law saying that if you breath the public air you have consented to whatever we say, and be done with all this "rights" nonsense for good?

They already have. It's called ObamaCare. Just wait and see to what you have 'consented'.

Contrarian, What are you doing adding logic and reasoning to a online message thread. Well thought out and written.

The irony of a deadbeat causing a Supreme Court hearing that regardless of the outcome, he will still be found guilty of DUI and lose his license for failure to comply. Slobbering drunk, failing all tests, and refusing to cooperate with an officer of the law... then one silver lining of this loser's actions will be to hear from our top court a clear, rational decision for all States to follow regarding the legality of obtaining blood samples for evidence of a crime.

Count Dracula: "I vant to drink yo blood!!"

-sorry!

Well said Night Hawk !! The power hungry Goverment will do anything to keep that power !!! The police have a badge so they are above the law, the fifth amendment is for your protection like in court I PLEAD THE FIFTH AMENDMENT that is to protect you, This is not Russia or Nazi Germany This is America! The little sheep who voted these wolfs into office don't have a clue to what is about to happen to them, The Goverment has a firm grip on the power and you will comply or die the choice is yours LIVE FREE or die.........................

And people want to know why some of us want assault rifles. You can have my blood from my lifeless body.

If he fails a field sobriety test, that alone should be enough evidence to take him off the street. If he can't complete the test because of a medical issue (no legs) then a breath test at the stop and again at booking should be enough. Leave my body alone!!!

Cops have been doing blood tests in Idaho for years. If you refuse the breath test, they haul you to jail and take your blood. If you pass their breath test but they think your eyes are too glassy, they bring a nurse to the scene and draw your blood. They are obviously looking to bust pot-heads...

Laws are only for the "law abiding". Do you think that they will forcibly take blood from a member of Congress or their family?

and another freedom getting trampled on....

I think the writer meant "may" police take your blood. Whether or not they "can" is another matter.

It also DESTROYS one of the Cornerstones of The Constitution, that being "THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE" and "THE BURDEN OF PROOF" being on the Prosecution and the Fifth Amendment against SELF-INCRIMINATION and being COMPELLED ,in this instance, to do so; UNconstitutionally incriminate oneself.

It is beyond "MADDENING" that these questions even exist and keep having to go to The Supreme Court!

Okay, a whole lot of crazy and good going on here.

Here's a few things to think of:

The 4th Amendment is not checked at the door of a car. Cops must have either "reasonable suspicion," which they would have to prove was valid afterwards in court (most often by planting evidence), or a warrant, to search your car. If a warrant is required to search your car, it should be required to search your person as well. If a sobriety test (not a search) is not enough to gain evidence of probable cause at the very least, then you need to change your sobriety tests. I know, work and all, but that's what it takes, @!$%#s.

We had a case down here in Texas of a state trooper performing a cavity search on 2 women. On the side of the road. He pulled them over, asked them if there was any dope in the car. The driver replied that it was her boyfriend's car, so she didn't know for sure, but she was not aware of any (mistake #1 on her part, never ever say you don't know to a cop). The trooper called for a female officer, and the officer performed the search right on the spot. Without changing gloves, going back-to-front. If an officer is going to be licensed to perform a cavity search, that officer better damn well know the proper procedures, and better damn well do it in the correct location, and in a medically sound and safe way. I hope those cops both fry, and no, that's not an exaggeration, that's abuse of power.

The whole idea of "reasonable suspicion" has been taken way too far, IMO, in the "War on Drugs." That war needs to end. It supports horrors upon horrors. Politicians are either too scared of the cartels to stop it, or too steeped in the money to want to stop it. Yes, I'm calling them drug lords and pushers, get over it. Hell, half the counties known for drug production have the police, judges, politicians, attorneys, and other officials on the payroll. The cops run protection for them, so if another grower (or blender, or whatever) tries to open shop, they get arrested, the DEA gives the cops a bunch of money, and the real pushers get away. It's a total cluster@!$%#.

The "stop and frisk" idea is bull@!$%#. You don't give implied consent to search by being in a public place. If you act strangely (and here, strangely would be defined as the scientifically observed and recorded behaviors shown to be common to those breaking the law, not whatever ruffles a cop's feathers or any @!$%#ing 85% failure drug-sniffing dog), then that could be grounds for suspicion, or not. But we need better definitions. Letting cops make their own rules leads to things like them seizing $10,000 cash from a guy who was going to buy a car, or a house, with cash instead of credit or check or whatever. Carrying cash isn't against the law, but if you carry enough of it, the cops will want a bite, or just take the whole thing. And keep it, because that's what the DEA does.

Frankly, the whole situation just sickens me. If a sobriety test shows he's impaired, regardless of the cause of impairment, he can be taken off the road, period. Doesn't matter if you proved he's intoxicated, you've shown he doesn't have the capability to drive safely. Done. No need for blood or breath tests.

Focusing on the more practical, are they going to make police officers take some kind of medical training? Anyone who's ever had to perform an IV knows how delicate the procedure can be. I don't want no one trying to "fish" for a vein on the suspicion I might be intoxicated. Hello Breathalyzer!

I have no problem with a) driving is a privilege granted by the citizens to those who are willing to conform to the rules of civility, and b) the refusal to take a breathalyzer test is admission of guilt. Where I disagree VEHEMENTLY with the supporters of forced blood sampling is, we all know that far too many police are power trippers and exercise arbitrary measures, including the summary execution of those they MISTAKENLY think are committing a crime. I would fight tooth and nail to avoid a blood test if some cop decided for whatever reason that he had a right to exercise arbitrary testing based on his opinion of whatever. What if I just think he's an a**hole and he doesn't like my attitude? I had the experience many years ago where a cop decided my friends were the Bowery Boys because they liked to work on their cars in side parking lots, and displayed their displeasure with being harassed by Dirty Harry Wannabe, and he was going to clean up the streets, so he began an agenda of harassment, threatening us at one point that he would shoot us for running away (from a harassing bully).

It is NOT about self-incrimination, it is about the UNWARRANTED invasion of a person's security.

ItIs...

They use paramedics to draw the blood...

When are we going to take responsibility for our actions and stop trying to find ways to circumvent the law. I'm no angel but when i brake the law or the rules then I'm man enough to own it and accept the punishment because there has been so many times I didn't get caught. Like the old saying, you wanna play you have to pay.

Winker...

That is not the issue. The issue is...do the police have the right to take your blood without consent? Manning-up is not the issue.

So now there are two ammendments( the second and the forth ) they are trying to revoke/suspend. How long before the first and the fifth are gone too?

As a current law enforcement officer, I have to agree that this is a slippery slope. I am all for getting drunk drivers off the road, but the parameters for determining intoxication are very arbitrary. When I started in law enforcement, the officer had to "make the car drunk." (i.e. you had to follow the vehicle and show impairment to operate) I now see officers stopping vehicles for equipment violations and then arresting people because they smell alcohol. It is not illegal to drink and then drive, it is illegal to be intoxicated and operate a motor vehicle. I see too many blood draw warrants that all read the same - subject has bloodshot watery eyes, moderate to extreme smell of alcohol, unsteady stand, slurred speech, but very few driving indicators. DWI or DUI seems to have the lowest threashold for probable cause I have ever seen and I believe that it is to make prosecution easier. Why should we bend over backwards to assist in the prosecution of this one offense, but make it harder to prosecute others? Either you have the facts to make the arrest, or you don't. If I want a warrant for DNA on a murder case, I must outline my specific evidence and probable cause to get a warrant, but with DWI/DUI we accept boilerplate warrants.

I also know that DWI/DUI is a big money maker for counties and states. The accused have to pay for vehicle breathylizers, councelling, high court fees, and other assorted fees. The argument that driving is a priveledge is ridiculous. I pay taxes to fix and maintain the roadways so I should have the right to use them. Also, if I consent to submitting to a breath or blood sample then I guess I would be submitting to an automatic search of my vehicle anytime I am stopped. According to the Supreme Court in Gant v. Arizona, the police do not have the right to search your vehicle due to complied consent. (Actually Gant v. AZ deals with search incident to arrest, but if the argument is implied consent allows police to take blood, and you are in the vehicle, it amounts to a search of the vehicle)

What might be in Law enforcements Favor is Probable Cause. There are people who have been convicted for DUI just by an officers testimony. If one fails the field sobriety tests. And smells like booze. That would give and Officer probable cause.

Then no warrant would be needed. Like if an officer hears gunshots in your home they can break down the door. Without a warrant.

I say no way. I personaly would have to be very well restrained in order to have them draw blood, irrational fear of needles, but beyond that what gives you the right to stick my arm and take my blood. BS legislature drawn up by BS lawmakers to control a BS society. May as well just get rid of the Constitiution and create a dictatorship.

Winker-2891142

So Winker, your saying you got punished for getting caught not for the crimes you got away with.

Hey Winker there is another old saying, " Two wrongs do make a wright as long as the second wrong is done wright".

To many people are missing the point its not about privileges or driving its about the police taking your blood against your will and you have to stand up to them on this issue, its about weather or not you believe in the constitution , its about your right to not incriminate yourself, its about your right to not be forced into something against your will, to give up one thing starts a chain reaction that takes away everything, we already have a law to deal with noncompliance for drivers if you don't comply you loose the privileges for six months to a year, about the same as if you were found guilty of driving under the influence, its time to tell the liberals that are hell bent on dismantling the constitution and controlling everything from what you eat to how you behave in your own home to kiss off and find a nice little corner of the world like North Korea to go live in and leave America to the free. I say the government has no right to forcefully invade any ones body without due process that's not asking to much. its down right un American to see it any other way, I'm tired of people trying to dismantle this Nation just because they think its a good idea, if you don't like America the way it is then get out. go live in the Sudan or N Korea or someplace where they think like you think. take the rest of your kind with you and your leader of change and your yes we can attitude with you. I put my life on the line for that constitution, I took a oath to defend it, that oath is something I will take to the grave with me, I back the constitution in its entirety not selectively like some kind of warped degenerate that lives in the US but does not believe in it. our constitution is for all of us all the time not just some of us some of the time.

pretty much every story today (not just) is about some legislator taking something away from you that you once had at birth...whether its a right or a body part....they want to legislate every second of your existence for the sake of giving you a perfect life (from a glass cube)...its rather disturbing. I knew that under this president we have surrendered more rights that were given to us than most other presidents, but i think we just switched the entire book out for something way more aggressive and vial.

Had such technology existed then, I can only imagine the founders of our nation contemplating the notion of the British Crown having the right to examine our blood whenever it so chooses. What do you suppose their opinion on the matter would be?
...your mind will tell you!

As long as it is done by trained medical personnel, I have no problem.

davefromdanapointca

Does anyone on here railing against this idea of drawing blood ever know someone who was killed by a drunk driver? I, unfortunately knew 5 people who were killed by drunk drivers. One was a friend and a mother of 2. Her husband is all alone now since the a-hole drunk killed her and her 2 kids on their way home from a school play.

Well now he can join an entire country who has to stay locked in their homes for fear of, themselves. I am sad for his loss, but why should the entire rest of our human existence pay for it?

dave, the differense in this case is the fact there was no accident. the court has already ruled you can draw blood in the event of an accident. this case there was no accident and getting a warrant is a simple solution. the cops claim its hard to get warrants and takes time but the reality is it can be donw by phone in a matter of minutes. anyone who is significantly over the limit is still gonna be over the limit for the time it takes. heck the time it takes to drive him to the hospital is more than enough time to call a judge and get a warrant

REALLY simple solution.

Check your state laws. If obtaining a drivers license provides the state your agreement to any DUI testing, be they "field sobriety tests", breathalyzer analysis, or blood being drawn, deal with the laws as they are written until you GET YOUR EMPLOYEES, the State Legislature and Governor to change the laws they imposed on you. If they don't, change those legislators to someone who agrees with you at the next election.

Personally, I wouldn't be concerned and would actually want to be brought to a hospital if I was stopped while driving "erratically". I don't drink and drive, hell, I hardly drink at all, so any erratic driving would likely be caused by a medical condition.

But, driving is a privilege. If you don't want to agree with and abide by the rules regulating that privilege, you have the option of NOT using the privilege.

Sorry...... MSNBC duplicate post.

While I support stiff punishment for impaired drivers, I oppose the notion police have the authority to randomly stop drivers to see if they may be breaking a law. Such stops negate the probable cause requirement of the forth amendment. I also oppose the unwarranted mandate for breathalyzers and blood extractions from possible impaired driving suspects which are in violation of the fifth amendment's ban on requiring a suspect to bear witness against him, or her self.

Although such tactics may serve well to get many impaired drivers off the street, they are nonetheless in violation of constitutional law.

To those that say, "To heck with constitutional law", I ask, "If we do not adhere to the supreme law of the land, then what, or who's laws and rules do we govern by, what limits do we apply to government intrusion upon rights to privacy or liberty ?"......It is a slippery slope !!!

It should even be illegal to force omeone to take a breathalizer without a warrant that is a violation of the 5th ammendment but we have groups of people who do not care about the constitution once you scare them enough. I don't drink and drive I don't condone it, on holidays like New Years I stay home. But ripping up the constitution because someone got killed due to drunk driving is wrong. What they need is to gather evidence with a court order, a court order can be issued for breathalizers by calling a judge and he could fax one over to the police station even at 3:00 a.m.!

On a brighter note, the War on Terror should be ending soon. GWB said they attacked us because they hated our freedoms...since those freedoms will soon be gone, there's no reason to hate us any longer. Full circle.

XDm & Frank,......States may not mandate conditions for obtaining a driver's license which negate rights protected by the US Constitution. By forcing a suspected impaired driver to provide a breathalyzer or blood sample for evidence, it is the same as mandating a suspect bear witness against thyself.......It is a fifth amendment issue, and I do not believe such mandates are even constitutional with a warrant........It is the same as requiring you to admit guilt,is it not ?

A few years back at a Washington state DUI check point, a nephew who wasn't drinking refused to take a breathalyzer and he received a notice a week later his license was suspended before he even went to court and was convicted on the officers testimony alone. The officer testified my nephew stuttered and slurred his words while talking to the officer. My nephew has a lisp and has always stuttered when he gets excited.......The cop just gave him a ticket and let his wife drive home, but it cost him nearly $2000 and some lost work going to DUI school.

Big frigging deal. It doesn't matter. If you refuse it's considered a automatic admission of guilt. You're had either way.

So this means I could have my blood drawn every time I am pulled over for any reason.
How many times do you law and order types have to be pricked with a needle before you feel violated?

Once a week?

the govenor of New York stated he had no problem seizing peoples guns and now the police want to seize your blood.... and then they'll charge you for the medical supplie to do it.

Just saying..........

They might as well test my glucose and cholsteral and send those results to the insurance comapany also.

Also, by one of a token, in this article, why wouldn't "stringent limit" and "exigent circumstances" apply for use by The Police in them being able to "record" the vehicle they're about to stop if it is moving erratically, ie, crossing the center line, etc with the recording device on the Police Car, AND, once in conversation with the Driver, advise that they're turning on their "recording" device to record exactly what is being said by the Police Officer and what what is being said by the Driver. STRINGENT LIMIT AND EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, ONLY!!!

Something really has to be done about Police Arbitrariness, notwithstanding their "sometimes" absolute and outright LYING! (it happens, really. OH-MY!)

The Cop in this Article seems like one of those Cops that would not have backed down to this "Underling-Civilian" for any reason, at all. Just like with the Occupy movement. They should have cited them for whatever they were claiming that they were doing wrong and taken it to Court before laying even one single hand or show of force on them, even in thought!

The statement "driving is not a right it is a privilege" is one thrown out by law enforcement and the legal community to muddy the situation. The constitution does not guarantee driving privileges, it does however guarantee the right to withhold evidence if it is self incriminating. Most states have enacted "administrative rules" ( If we issue you a drivers license, you must submit to anything we ask of you whether you are guilty or not, whether it violates your constitutional right to withhold information or not) that are now widely accepted. The issue at hand has less to do with alcohol and driving. It has more to do with the manipulation of laws, creation of "rules" (in dui situations and potentially any part of your life) that violate your constitutional rights. Does the MADD community realize that they are assisting the government not only in DUI instances, but in potentially every aspect of our lives to have our rights reduced or eliminated entirely?

Yes, put away drunk drivers. But you have to follow the constitution, If you don't, the government will continue to take our rights away in every aspect of our lives if it suits their agenda.

"the issue is groundless, because — as he testified himself — the arresting officer ordered the blood test because he thought he could, not because of any "special facts."

There you go, why is this such an issue ? obviously the officer was not whithin his duty or authority to have the blood test taken. Now on the other hand, in my opinion anyone who refuses a breathalyzer should automatically get a DUI or even a DWI if he fails sobriety tests. Under no circumstance should anywone ever have the authority to force blood tests unless there is an accident involved or some type of crime or felony. the last thing we need to do is give these yahoo cops more authority to abuse.

Anyone who has worked with the police force or has family\friends in that industry knows that most of those people abuse their authority (not all of them but I would say most). Just about anyone can become a city or county officer, and I know many that should not be working on that capacity, whether it has to do with their attitude or the ability to control themselves and leave their ego at home. I know some guys that I went to school with that I just can't believe are working in these type of positions, scares the crap out of me. It seems that most of them that went that direction had some type of Napolean complex, I've heard one of them, who is an acquaintance through a friend, he said on his way to work one day "well who do I get to beat up today", yeah real cool man, you are so tough, loser.

My question is this. If the court states that police can draw blood without a warrant for whatever reason (because if it starts with DUI suspicion it will evolve to anything they see fit), are the going to transport the suspect to a medical center every time? Imagine the price tag that would have for the tax payers. Or are they going to be authorized to do it on the spot? If that's the case, I will not allow an untrained individual to invade my body to retrieve a sample. Breath and urine are different because they are expelled from the body as a normal function. To draw blood, the skin is punctured to take the sample. It's not a normal function to expel blood. And if the police take the samples, will they be liable for any infections or other injuries that may stem from the intrusion?

They should never be able to take your blood without consent. EVER.

On the flip side, refusal to consent to a breathalyzer, or a blood test, should be enough for a DUI conviction.

what is more important? Making sure people who drive drunk are found guilty or the protection of the 4th amendment? I choose the Bill of Rights while many blind ignorant fools working in law enforcement have tunnel vision and will side with making sure the guilty are punished. This is often my biggest disagreement with right wing groups and the vast majority of law enforcement personnel. I understand its frustrating to see a criminal go free but is it worth the cost of a constitutional right to make sure they do not? Never! especially for a stupid DUI.

Someone needs to inform SolaristheWay that the supreme court ruled in the 50s that driving is a "Right" and not a privilege. A lot of uninformed people repeat this type of misinformation.

Brighteyes, Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579, and to the rest of you who think by not giving blood is automatic guilt, this is why our fore fathers wrote a bill of rights to protect the individual from you majority ______.

Sure you havent I bet your were an alterboy when you were young.....

ROCKY, seems to me you could have raised nine kinds of hell about that, the arresting officer was suffering from what I would call "over-enthusiasm" to make a conviction. They didn't have to have done a blood test on YOU, they could have had the powder analyzed a lot quicker, easier and cheaper.

You must have done something to P.O. that cop something fierce. Not saying "sir" at the end of each sentence can be enough, sometimes, or not obeying their commands fast enough. No idea what you may have done.

Do the police have the right to take your blood?

Do I have the right to take their's?

Get real people. There is very clear immunity for LE in these matters. As made clear by LE people on here the responsibility is passed on to the hospital if a mistake is made or injury or infections happen (HIV, HEP C, etc.). You can't sue the hospital because you did not enter any agreement with them, the police did. The cops made the action, only they can shoulder responsibility and they, and the state, have laws to protect them from prosecution.

Here we go......again. First, was ruled that if a cop "smelt" "drugs" during a traffic stop, it was probable cause to search. Interestingly enough, it seems every cop became an expert on the smell of weed and their first words are: "Smells like drugs, you boys been smokin' that wacky weed?? You just lay there face first in the gravel while I have me a look through your car"........ Now it'll be... "Boy! I smell booze, put out yer arm."

The SC already ruled a "wizz quizz" was ok , because it was a wast product and not invasive, but said a blood draw WAS invasive and required a court order or consent. Would not the same apply here? Or, like wizz quizzes, will this become a multi-billion dollar industry for a few?

No one on this thread is defending drunk drivers, get off that sh*t, We're defending freedom, something some seem to give very little thought to.

Much Love n Peace,

Da (FREE) Pup

>:o): PurRrrRrRrRrRRrrr

(I'm an American Dog, I have the RIGHT to Purr if it makes me happy, and it does.) >:o):

Some cops are on power trips we need to have laws to protect us from them, not give them more power so they can abuse us more, due process is necessary, we need to protect that, our fore fathers saw fit to write that into the constitution for a reason, we need to defend it and only a IDIOT would contest it. some of them are showing up with their twisted reasioning today whats sad is I have to defend their right to vote and all the rights they have while they think they should take mine away, while keeping theirs but they don't understand if my rights go so do theirs. their not verry smart, if you give the police the right to envade my body then you give them the right to invade yours or your childs where will it end.

The Supreme Court no longer upholds the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. If Obama and his minions want this to pass, then his Supreme Court stooges will pass it regardless of what is written in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. People would be shocked if they knew how much these documents have already been violated.

Did you know of the day

You imply consent by merely engaging in conversation with an officer even if (s)he initiates contact, first

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand how do you enforce DUI laws if the suspect refuses a breathalyzer? The police can still charge him/her, but it would probably be dismissed for lack of evidence. On the other, having the government take your blood without your consent is scary and seems draconian. It seems as though you are being compelled to provide evidence against yourself, which is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment. The law and order buff in me thinks the government should be able to do what is necessary to prevent DUI, even when the suspect is uncooperative. The civil libertarian in me recoils at the idea of the government having this type of power. This should be an interesting case.

Seriously: I don't know where you live, but in Florida it is in the statutes, and if you want to drive, you consent to the test. Now, having said that you still can refuse to take the test (unless you were in an accident, in which case your alcohol level becomes evidence), but in that case you automatically lose your privileges to drive in the state of Florida.

Vince: It is not difficult. In Florida (and I know I may sound redundant because I have said it 3 times already), you consent to any sobriety test required by law. Let's talk hypothetically here. If you are driving drunk and the police stops you, and you refuse to take the sobriety test, the police don't have to force you here, your refusal automatically revokes your privilege to drive a motor vehicle.

Now, if you're driving drunk and you cause an accident, you need that evidence, because the prosecution needs to prove that you were actually over the limit, even more if the accident you cause left people wounded or dead, and that evidence will be destroyed with each minute that passes.

If you ask me about this particular case, I wonder whether the statute in Missouri had the provision of the automatic consent at the time of the incident.

Justice for all:

Where I live, they have judges who are on call 24 hrs. a day for warrant signings, and I am sure they do in most areas. The judge may not like it, but it does provide for this situation. The fact that it may take 2 hrs. should not be of any consideration, since if you knew the slightest bit about alcohol oxidation you would know that alcohol would still be very prevalent in the persons system. All they would have to do is detect ANY alcohol and make it law that you are prosecuted to the full extent that the law allows. Police are in reality the most powerful person in an average day walking the streets of any society. They have the power to strike fear in the hearts of criminals and the average law abiding citizen at any given moment. To provide them with this type of power is just plain stupid.

Again, I want to iterate that it is very reasonable to assert that driving may meet the criteria of a right on a national level. The fact that the overwhelming majority of us live lives which virtually require us to be able to drive is the greatest indicator. We live so far away from our work. The great majority do not have adequate access to functional mass transit. And the fact that to deny the right to drive is to deny ones right to the pursuit life, libery and happiness, as it arbitrarily hinders our ability to do so. Todays car is tantamount to being the horse of old. The horse was vital to virtually every person who lived in the greater American landscape. Ther of course were those who lived within a few blocks of every need in their lives, but most did not. Therefore no one would have ever though of restricting ones right to a horse. The only reason for requiring a "license" was to generate revenue and a base of control motivated rule. Being able to marry is not required to provide for ones life. Being able to quickly transport oneself is in todays modern society. Therefore resorting to coercian through the threat of losing ones ability to provide for ones self and ones family, to get you to forfeit your rights is unconstitutional and should NOT be allowed. Just use the same methods as those used to prove other crimes and punish the violator severely. Why should we have to giuve up our rights, when the majority of DUI penalties are nothing more than slaps on the wrist anyway? This nothing more than another power grab. Start PUNISHING the drunk drivers and leave our rights ALONE!

Yes you are subject to the laws of whatever state you happen to be in. Ignorance is not a defense.

Here in Arizona, if you are suspected of DUI and you refuse a breathalyzer, you automatically lose your license for a year.

I believe I can travel freely, without intrusion from the government, I call this liberty. It's what has made our country great and what separates us from the rest of the world. If the government detains me, then it's their duty to explain to the courts why, not mine to explain.

"Rule of law contemplates governance by laws and not by humor, whims or caprices of the men to whom the governance is entrusted. The term arbitrary describes a course of action or a decision that is not based on reason or judgment but on personal will or discretion without regard to rules or standards. An arbitrary decision is one made without regard for the facts and circumstances presented, and it connotes a disregard of the evidence. In many instances, the term implies an element of bad faith, and it may be used synonymously with tyrannical or despotic".

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So what the Supreme Court is really looking at is traveling using a vehicle protected property for purpose of life and liberty or can the state deprive a person of use of said property without reason other than lack of consent without due process of law?

In the medical world, complied consent usually means the patient is unconsent.

Contrarian: The problem is that the chances of you killing someone else riding a horse while drunk are dim. The chances of you killing someone with a motor vehicle while drunk are not.

Love my country...Fear my government.

Contrarian:

Again, I want to iterate that it is very reasonable to assert that driving may meet the criteria of a right on a national level.

It is not a right. You are not born with the right to drive a car. This is a priviledge, no matter how essential it might be to some. If you can't pass the driving test, you can't drive. If you get too many speeding tickets or DUIs, the priviledge of driving is taken away. Do you feel if someone is not intelligent enough to operate a vehicle safely, he should be given a license anyway because it's his "right" (and I'm talking about someone who has severe mental problems)? How about someone who has killed many people because of DUIs? Should he get to keep his license because it's his "right" to still be able to drive?

I don't agree with police being able to take blood samples without consent, but if you refuse, you should be hit with the maximum penalty allowed for a DUI.

But driving is not a right.

I think Contrarian has a good point, but MagnoliaSimms is correct, presently driving is considered a privilege, not a right. But I think that Contrarian is definitely on the right track since driving really is a necessity in most places today thanks to the vast suburban sprawls and inefficient placement of residences relative to urban centers, exacerbated by poor planning, inefficiency and availability of mass transit.

My major concern with the implied consent is that it basically opens the door for a state to arbitrarily force you to waive certain rights just for the convenience of the state.

Imagine if Texas decided that as an individual living or visiting in the state, that you automatically agree to binding arbitration instead of civil trials for all civil matters. Or that you automatically waive your rights to sue for negligence over any medical claims. Or that residents automatically waive their protections under the ADA or OSHA when working for a business in Texas.

Implied consent could very easily be a slippery slope for governments to entirely circumvent federal protections.

Magnolia do you have trouble sleeping? Set aside the issue of Rights versus Privileges and focus on the issue should the police have the right to forcefully draw blood from anyone they want any time they want or should Due process be required? that is the bare bones issue there is no ifs ands or butts, should they have the power to molest you at will or not. I personally feel that a higher authority then a traffic cop is necessary, it won't be letting people off the hook, it only controls possible abuse, what if a cop makes a deal with a lab and gets a kick back on every blood test that his victim is obligated to pay, and said police officer spends his days having people tested so he can get his kick back rather then doing his job making the streets safe which they are doing a poor job of because they spend all their time looking for big ticket items like DUI's instead of taking care of the little things, in the old days we used to take care of the little things because if you take care of the little things the big things take care of them selves and that is true. fore instance the police hang around bars and pull people over as they leave the bar a waste of time if the driver is sober as many are designated or the person was drinking pop as many people due, versus the cop out in traffic pulling over people who tail gate, don't stop at stop signs, or don't know what a turn signal is fore and randomly find genuinely drunk drivers that never go to bars but live on the bottle 24/7. law enforcement now days is business, its geared for revenue, personally I don't care for them to have more tools then they need to extort us better then they already do. you can't allow your rights to be sold off and trampled on over weather or not its a right or a privilege, its still your rights that are in question. there is nothing wrong with due process, there is nothing right about the lack of due process, bad enough that innocent or not they impound your car and disrupt your life cost you a small fortune in the process of finding out they made a mistake and $500.00 later you learn that you can't do a damn thing about it. Driving a vehicle may be a privilege but what does that have to do with my rights? does the bill of rights say in the event you are arrested because of a suspected abuse of privilege your rights are null and void.

Dbuck:

Magnolia do you have trouble sleeping?

No, I don't, but thank you for your concern.

Set aside the issue of Rights versus Privileges and focus on the issue should the police have the right to forcefully draw blood from anyone they want any time they want or should Due process be required?

I was addressing what Contrarian was saying that driving could meet the requirements of a right in this country. It doesn't. However, at the end of my post, I said that police should not be able to draw blood without someone's consent. But that doesn't mean those that drive drunk should just be able to refuse all testing and get away with drunk driving. If you're pulled over for drunk driving and you refuse all testing, you should get hit with the maximum penalty allowed. However, that doesn't give the police the right to draw your blood without your consent.

So I'm not sure what you're arguing with me about. I agree, they don't have that right.

How about just leaving the alcohol alone if you are going to drive? There are too many alcohol related traffic deaths. Leave the booze alone, and you won't have to worry about drunk driving traffic stops.

@ Sonya in Tx, I agree, but the real question to me is, since I don't drink yet I get detained and the majority doesn't seem to mind that I'm detained does that make it right?? And if so, do I have to provide information to my innocents, (Surely would be smart) would that please the majority?? After all in a world of drunkerts, it's a small price to pay, right?? My liberty for your serenity!

wantnot: Let me ask you this question then. What if the driver is drunk and the police officer lets him go since he cannot compel him to take the test, and he goes and kill someone. Is the police officer liable for not performing his duty?

@

@Sonya in Texas, that does not always work a friend of mine had a nightmarish day a couple of years ago. it started when she went to work at a quick stop that was in the same lot as a bar and she parked her car between the doors of each establishment, a out of uniform police officer marked the headlights of cars parked in front of the bar with red felt pens giving the lights a partial tint so his buddy could pull the cars over if they were on the road a few hours later, she had nothing to drink but she was pulled over, she asked why the cop said she was crossing the center line, she said BS he said she needed to be tested, she was taken in for a blood/breath test, they took her to the Sheriffs station in Coeur d' Alene Idaho her car was impounded and towed to some place in Post Falls and the Sheriffs station was about 26 miles from where she was pulled over she lived about 16 miles the opposite direction in Washington state. after she passed the test they told her she was free to go she was almost 50 miles from home on a Friday evening her car was in a impound lot in a different city about 18 miles away and she was on foot, everything about this situation stinks she had to wait till Monday to get her car she lost a days work over it paid three days storage plus the tow bill plus she had to hire a cab to drive her home, over $500.00 damages to her and that is about half a months pay for a convenience store employee not to mention she had to hire a cab to get to and from work for two days costing more then she was making and you people want to let a cop decide to add a hospital visit and a blood test to it screw that. who is the victim and who is the real criminal in this picture. tell the extortionist where to go.

Justiceforall,

Why is it when people like you do not have a legitimate argument you always refer to the "what ifs, or it is not a matter of 'if' but when"?

@Justiceforall: I wonder how far apart you and me would be on the question of an officers duty? An officer doing their sworn duty to up hold the law, doesn't mean they have a crystal ball for future events. I suppose if the officer did not site a person they detained then they must of felt they did not have the evidence needed to further detain and to hold the officer accountable for unforseen events, simply based on stats, of his/hers gut feeling is simply hog wash.

Clang Clang, go the jail guitar doors. Bang bang, go the boots on the floor. Cry cry, for your lonely mother's son. Clang clang, go the jail guitar doors.

RIP Joe Strummer!

JohnWW1: You know what is the saddest part in all this? The guy was double the legal limit, so he was drunk...

The refusal should be honored, but with the loss of priveledges for an extended period of time, as you do not have to give evidence under any circumstance, nor do you have to face jail time for not doing so. Any driving violation during that period should carry a severe penalty as should your first DUI. The forfeiture of our rights as delineated by our constitution should be illegal, and jailing someone for refusal is wrong and against our rights outlined in the 5th amendment.

As to the issue of right vs. priveledge? There is a huge argument to be made of the necessity of being able to drive for the greater majority in todays society, which is the equivelqant of requiring a horse to survive. Therefore, much can be said for it being a right.

Conviction for DUI carries little more than a slap on the wrists, and should carry a horrific penalty, as it is a threat to the general welfare of all, but it should not be cause to usurp our rights for any amount of death or destruction. After all, Life is just a prelude to death, and it doesn't matter HOW you die, but rather HOW you LIVE. I prefer to live with my freedoms intact as they were intended by the forefathers

Contrarion- One state has no jurisdiction over another state's DL. They can not suspend it or anything else. THe most they will do is report it to the issuing state and if their laws address it, they will suspend it or whatever. So not giving evidence under any circumstances? So even with a court order/search warrant the suspect can refuse to submit to a DNA test? fingerprints? How would we ever convict anyone of a crime?

Rights or priviledges, there are always responsibilities. There are always legitimate limits to rights as well. Do you want someone with uncontrolled diabetes or epilepsy driving around? You can argue rights all you want but what about the very real consequences to everyone else while you, and no one else, gets to exercise their rights? Really one sided there aren't you.

Jody P

The last state in the lower 48 to not honor another states revocation of a license was, (drum roll please) Missouri. That is right folks, every other state does so. I guess that argument just died. Huh? How can anybody defend that states authority to do this if they don't respect the authority of the other states of this union?

As to the whole rights versus responsibility question? There are certainly massive responsibilities that come with our rights. You don't have the right yell fire in a crowded theatre, or to yell obscenities on a street corner. You don't have the right to shoot someone arbitrarily just because you have the right bear arms. And you don't have the right to drive impaired in any way. However, you do have the right to speak out against injustice and to carry a gun. You also have the right to provide for yourself and your family, and arbitrarily deciding that driving is a priveledge in this day and age, so as to circumnivigate the constitution and coerce you into agreeing to implied consent, is nothing more than using the threat of the loss of your ability to get back and forth to work to coerce you to give up part of your rights. It goes agaisnt the constitution and should be illegal.

Instead of taking your rights they should just make the punishment so sever that it precludes even the thought of driving under the influence of anything, and then use standard police procedure to prosecute instead of heavy handed tactics of tyrranny. I detest drinking and driving and the threat to the community that it creates, and as such it should be a 5 year minimum for the first offense, rather than a slap on the wrist. I personally know of one guy who has had 11 of them, (YES 11 OF THEM!) and got 12 months in work release for the last one. He will surely offend again and one day he will kill someone, because he gets sloppy drunk. It infuriates me. He should be put away for 20 years by now. But no, we have to continue to use this crap as a means to convince the people to give up their rights for their safety, yet no one is any safer. Drawing blood will do nothing to stop this, it will only be another step to the erosion of our constitution. Otherwise the elected "representatives" of this great land would have stopped this decades ago. No, they just want to slowly gain omnipotent power. After all, it is the greatest of ophrodesiace it is said. Of course, I don't care to be caught on either side of that game.

You know how to get around the whole blood alcohol content dilemna? Make it zero tolerance.

Don't set us up for even more requirements of having to give evidence against ourselves in everything, which goes against the 4th and 5th amendments.

It is only a short distance from the loss of rights to the gulag.

And yes I am really QUITE one sided in this, and any issue regarding the constitution. I am a direct descendent of people who fought alongside the forefathers in the revolutionary war for our freedom, and my family has had people who fought in every war since then. As such have I been educated about the real meaning and purpose of the constitution. (it's a family thing) So for those who really have no inking of how it is meant to work, I say start learning.

Wrong! If the state that suspends your DL IS NOT the state that issued your DL you may very well get to keep your license. I know of 4 cases where people I know personally,living in PA, were DUI in NJ. The most the NJ courts could do was impose fines, community service and suspensions in NJ only! They had NO RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER in PA where their licenses were issued. They better not get caught driving in NJ ( as mandatory jail would be next) for at least 6mos. I have to believe that if it were possible to revoke their privileges in the issuing state NJ would have found a way.

If you empower the police to much they will walk all over you that is a fact.

Dead wrong. They should not be able to enter your body with a needle ever: Illegal search, and self-incrimination. Besides, it is not necessary since every state I know of says that you are guilty of DUI if you refuse the test. You will end up subject to the same penalties, with no intrusion.

Besides, who trusts cops any more? Not me.

I know them pesky cops out trying to keep the knuckleheads from killing us....What the heck are they thinking?

The public has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as delineated in the constitution. PERIOD! The constitution DOES NOT gaurantee a long life, nor a successful life. It DOES NOT gaurantee that you will be safe in your daily life, nor any of those you love. It plainly provides you the protection against tyrranous and draconian government practices that would strip you of your rights to life and liberty which affords the pursuit of that which makes you happy. That is all and nothing more.

There is a strong argument to be made against implied consent as well, since the argument can be made very strongly that in todays society, in this country, that for the majority, the neccessity for driving could make it a right based on the requirement to travel so far for so much, and the lack of adequate mass transit in the majority of the country causing undue hardship for so many.

I know that so many of you think that we should just forfeit our rights for YOUR safety, except of course when it interferes with YOUR rights. To you I say go to hell. Life never comes with any gaurantees of length or success, but we are gauranteed our freedom. Stay AWAY from my rights.

To those who are willing to just give over all of our rightts to be safe? I say just hurry up and die, because it isn't how you die, but rather how you LIVE. i prefer to live free, because life without freedom is no life at all.

And yes, I think DUI's should carry a sentence so stiff as to be draconian in nature, since it is a threat to society, but that doesn't mean give up our rights. There are ways of proving DUI using standard police procedures. What about dash cams? Or the devices which now exist to detect alcohol in your sweat? How about we just make the penalty and guidelines so stiff that it scares any reasonable social drinking person away from driving drunk? Many european countries use the method of heavy punishment and low tolerance quite successfully. Why must we have zero tolerance for pot, but accept this type of tolerance for alcohol? The system is skewed to raise revenue and subjugate us, not to provide justice.

If you really want to make it constitutional and legal, then just make any alcohol consumption before driving against the law and be done with tests to determine level which violate your rights. If you drink and drive, you go to jail for a long time period. these people that we hear about geetting mulitple DUI's should be buried in the jail cemetary. We shouldn't have to forfeit anything for them.

Another excellent post Contrarian! It seems that people have confused the word "government" with the word "Mommy". This is a direct result of people not being held responsible for their actions. This situation is only worsening due to the last couple of generations feeling that they're entitled to be "taken care of" by the government instead of handling things on their own. Until this attitude changes we will continue to see attempts to erode our rights for the supposed "safety" of those too weak in character to stand up for themselves.

ralph5591

You are the type of mother @!$%#er that is just giving up our rights. YOU are a threat to this countries freedom.

"Those willing to give up freedom for safety, deserve neither."

Ever heard of that? I'm guessing not. Ben Franklin

this should be about a five minute case its a no brainer, open and shut nothing to debate privileges have nothing to do with your rights regardless of what some politician says the answer is no you can not molest someone without due process, people do have rights and the people in control have the responsibility to see to it that those rights are not infringed on.

wonder who the idiot is that wants to give his freedom away

The public has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as delineated in the constitution. PERIOD! The constitution DOES NOT gaurantee a long life, nor a successful life. It DOES NOT gaurantee that you will be safe in your daily life, nor any of those you love. It plainly provides you the protection against tyrranous and draconian government practices that would strip you of your rights to life and liberty which affords the pursuit of that which makes you happy. That is all and nothing more.

There is a strong argument to be made against implied consent as well, since the argument can be made very strongly that in todays society, in this country, that for the majority, the neccessity for driving could make it a right based on the requirement to travel so far for so much, and the lack of adequate mass transit in the majority of the country causing undue hardship for so many.

I know that so many of you think that we should just forfeit our rights for YOUR safety, except of course when it interferes with YOUR rights. To you I say go to hell. Life never comes with any gaurantees of length or success, but we are gauranteed our freedom. Stay AWAY from my rights.

To those who are willing to just give over all of our rightts to be safe? I say just hurry up and die, because it isn't how you die, but rather how you LIVE. i prefer to live free, because life without freedom is no life at all.

And yes, I think DUI's should carry a sentence so stiff as to be draconian in nature, since it is a threat to society, but that doesn't mean give up our rights. There are ways of proving DUI using standard police procedures. What about dash cams? Or the devices which now exist to detect alcohol in your sweat? How about we just make the penalty and guidelines so stiff that it scares any reasonable social drinking person away from driving drunk? Many european countries use the method of heavy punishment and low tolerance quite successfully. Why must we have zero tolerance for pot, but accept this type of tolerance for alcohol? The system is skewed to raise revenue and subjugate us, not to provide justice.

If you really want to make it constitutional and legal, then just make any alcohol consumption before driving against the law and be done with tests to determine level which violate your rights. If you drink and drive, you go to jail for a long time period. these people that we hear about geetting mulitple DUI's should be buried in the jail cemetary. We shouldn't have to forfeit anything for them.

John-1680730:

You sir are the one who is the idiot.

To give up ANY of your rights for ANY illusion of safety or security is just plain stupidity.

Face facts pal, Death is just the final by-product of life. It happens to EVERYONE. Our family and friends, our selves and the rest of the world included. Our lives also come saturated with daily threats which MUST be accepted. Giving up our freedoms does nothing more than make our lives less worth living. For it is not how you die, but Rather how you LIVE.

Allowing this will do nothing to alleviate the threat. Human nature is such that there are those who will drink and drive regardless of tests. There would be FAR FAR less though if the tests didn't exist, but breathtaking penalties did. Why draw someones blood to give them nothing more than a couple of days or months in jail? Because it's good for business, that's why. The business of criminalizing the people and raising revenue. It does squat for the people. If they really wanted to so something about this they would give years out to the offenders and leave our rights alone. After all, you would get more time for discharging a firearm in a crowded bar w/100 people than driving drunk on a street w/1000's. Why is that?

If you really think this about SAVING us from the big bad drunk driver, than you got a serious gullability problem and are easily deluded.

John...your the idiot, giving up your rights, start giving up one and they'll take another...

Which is the only thing we have going for us in this fight.

Really Bill.I think you need more foil for your cap.

..and yet you conservatives would be the first to require welfare recipients to have to take a mandatory drug test before receiving benefits.

Government taking any sort of sample from people is wrong in my book except, perhaps, in the case of a major crime such as homicide or murder in which detectives are involved and the sample is relevant to the case.

RTypo...... Yes, especially when they are getting free money..... AND they should have to pay for the drug test on their dime, not mine.....................................................................

Ghost,

But, breaking the law and drinking and driving is perfectly acceptable to you, endangering others. This would only be initiated after the police had probable cause due to your driving erratically. You feel it is ok for others to be infringed upon because of monetary benefits, and have to pay for such test...and then complain about a driver's infringement upon others with the potential for injury or death. Great priorities.

Bill k It is not just Obama that is slowly taking our rights away from us. It all of our leaders in this country Republican or Democrat. Just look at who voted for, supported and wrote the NDAA bill. If you going to lay blame on someone, then lay it where it belongs. Only a handfull in congress are standing up for our rights.

BILL K, I was with you until you said "Obama owns the supreme court". Think Obama was all gung-ho about citizens united or some of the other ultra-conservative decisions? You probably do.

Mike786

Great reply! Couldn't come up with something any more intelligent than one of the standard dumbassed liberal putdowns? I'll bet you're really proud of that one and think it was quite intelligent and whitty don't you. Just go crawl back under your rock you ignorant turd.

For those of you armchair commenters who think that it is OK to just take away our rights for your illusion of safety and security? Grow a set and get a real life.

There is NOT ONE THING in the constitution gauranteeing you a long life, nor a successful one. But it states all over it about my freedom.

You all need to get a grip and come to terms with the fact that death is nothing more than the final by-product of life. We are all going to die, period. Ther is no getting around it. There will also be multitudes of potential daily threats that we all face to the well being of our and our loved ones lives. It IS NOT HOW you die, but rather HOW YOU LIVE that matters. I prefer to live free, without threat of tyranny or oppression. That means stay the f-ck off my rights.

You really want to stop this crap? Make it a 5 year sentence for the first offense with a zero level BAC tolerance. The casual social drinker would be less likely to offend and the chronic offender would just be off the streets. Problem solved. The slap on the wrist certainly isn't a deterrent, and doesn't justify any incursion against my rights.

There are many ways to prove DUI. Dash cam film, sweat monitors which detect alcohol and testimony of witnesses and cops. All of which when brought together should be sufficient for conviction.

Why do you want to violate my constitutional rights?

The USA is a police state. Our nations elderly have voted consistently to destroy freedom and liberty because Social Security as we know it cannot exist in a free society.

gcooper -

It was not "W's" disdain for the Constitution. He has a reading and comprehension disability that has left him the hallucination of being a legend in his own mind....and completely ignorant of his ignorance.

@Mark440...loll...good one

Mark440: I stand (well, sit) corrected!

Ah ah, Funy Cooper. thanks for the graphics.

gcooper:

"If you have been cited under reasonable suspicion of DUI and have the means to prove your innocence , then the onus is on you to establish your innocence (submitting to a test)."

W-R-O-N-G! In case you missed the memo; this is AMERICA. Where you are innocent untill the state proves you guilty.

At least that's the way it's supposed to work.

Mark: Miranda is for interrogations, not for the case we're discussing. I think that you refer to the 4th,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I do not believe the court will approve drawing blood . . . Miranda??? but it is a direct invasion into your body...it can not cut your finger off - and I do not believe they will approve drawing blood.....it stops with DNA...fingerprints....audio - vioce samples..........but to carry it one step futher what do you need pooloice for - walk in6to a cubicle and give a drop of blood - - guilty - innocent.....and the place of the courts in society ??? too far............and with too many mistakes

.. at first they came for the Drunks, then the Old, then the Poor and next it will be YOU.

The World is too Unsafe to allow people to freely move about un-supervised by the government authorities.

Accidental death is un-acceptable to the Utopian society. Only properly licensed death panel members are allowed to decide such matters.

Accidents cause police, firemen and medical personnel to leave their comfort zones.

"Only the guilty have something to fear" is a quote by and for morons, and anyone who thinks that statement has any validity whatsoever is a complete idiot, fool, and loser.

So, it is settled. We no longer need the 2nd, 4th, or 5th amendments. OK. The atheists would also like to have the 1st repealed on account of that pesky religion thing.

OK. Any further suggestions on needless RIGHTS?

(Long live the Vine!)

Wow the criminals and the guilty zre really getting scared

Compromise now

I don't normally respond at the same level of intelligence as one such as yourself, but i can't help myself with this one. You really are the prize cow of ignorance aren't you?

Nope, sorry, can't do it. I am compelled to respond with intelligence.

It would appear to me that you see things purely in a self serving myopic way. What makes the defense of our civil rights an admission of any kind of guilt? You are the exact type of person that the forefathers were concerned about, only without the power to oppress anybody.

You must be from Montana, bacause you obviously have sheeps blood in your dumb azz.

Now, since I am getting tired and am ready to go to bed, I am going to just copy and paste an earlier comment of mine.

For those of you armchair commenters who think that it is OK to just take away our rights for your illusion of safety and security? Grow a set and get a real life.

There is NOT ONE THING in the constitution gauranteeing you a long life, nor a successful one. But it states all over it about my freedom.

You all need to get a grip and come to terms with the fact that death is nothing more than the final by-product of life. We are all going to die, period. Ther is no getting around it. There will also be multitudes of potential daily threats that we all face to the well being of our and our loved ones lives. It IS NOT HOW you die, but rather HOW YOU LIVE that matters. I prefer to live free, without threat of tyranny or oppression. That means stay the f-ck off my rights.

You really want to stop this crap? Make it a 5 year sentence for the first offense with a zero level BAC tolerance. The casual social drinker would be way less likely to offend and the chronic offender would just be off the streets. Problem solved. The slap on the wrist certainly isn't a deterrent, and doesn't justify any incursion against my rights. Anything less is nothing more than allowing repeat offenders to convince weak minded people such as yourself to give up my rights, which just gives our power to the government, and helps to generate more revenue.

There are many ways to prove DUI. Dash cam film, sweat monitors which detect alcohol and testimony of witnesses and cops. All of which when brought together should be sufficient for conviction.

5 yrs. minimum, zero tolerance.

Remember, our constitution is capable of eroding just like a farmers soil if not protected.

Why do you want to violate my constitutional rights again?

Compromise now

You are the type of mother @!$%#er that is just giving up our rights. YOU are a threat to this countries freedom.

"Those willing to give up freedom for safety, deserve neither."

Ever heard of that? I'm guessing not. Ben Franklin

So simple and so true.

Remember Patrick Henry? How about this guy?

The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.
John F. Kennedy

You tell 'em Bob!

only 1/3 of all fatalitys are caused by impaired drivers, 2/3 by sober people, what should they be subject too. lets get real.sober people are more dangerous

"The Guilty should be shaking in their Boots"

Warren,Actually it is already here.

Move to Cuba

compromise now

How about YOU move to Cuba you jackass?

Is that seriously the best you can do? Just some lame assed one liner retard crap?

Why don't you really put a little effort into it and come up with a real comment, instead of just trying to jerk the chains of those who are capable of truly contributing?

Like I asked in my previous reply to your previously stupid spew,,,,,why is the fact that we want to protect our rights an admission of any kind of guilt? It is quite specifically the people just like yourself that the forefathers were concerned with when they wrote the constitution. Only you lack the power to be a real threat to any of us don't you? You just wish you could subjugate and oppress all of the people that you hold in contempt as being beneath you don't you? Well, get over yourself. you are not impressing anybody with your ignorant crap.

Yes we can Genetically screen out Liberals from our Society

No they are the Master Race. Pure and clean. They only want whats good and clean.

SolarIsTheWay,

I think you have been assimalated by the Liberal Left Wing Conspiracy

The left wing agenda cannot be stopped, Obama and his flying monkeys will not stop till we are in chains and living a subservient lifestyle. My greatest day will be when it backfires on them. they will be passing out free copies of "Abby Hofman Steal this book" on the street corner.

So, the liberal conspiracy is destroying the constitution through a conservative court? Geez, I knew that some conservatives were dumb, but I didn't know they were 'that' dumb. Care to elaborate Solaristheway and Compromisenow? I still don't understand how a conservative court as the Roberts' court is can fulfill the left wing agenda...

Uh, Obamacare?

LOL KATHY, one of the stranger facts of life is that when some people get just the right degree of drunkenness, they suddenly turn into Perry Mason, or a supreme court judge or something, and will joyfully inform the police or (or anyone else) about their rights, and how the police can't give them this test or make them do this or that.

Seems strange to me how someone who has had no legal training suddenly knows more about the Miranda act and law then the police, but there you go.