And now garage sales are to be under federal auspices...all in the name of safety. See a pattern here? Is there anything the feds do NOT want to get their mitts upon?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/09/18/new-government-policy-imposes-strict-standards-garage-sales-nationwide/

BGFalcons82;624101 wrote:I didn't make it up. Go back to the linked article. What Florida is going to do, is set up a judge along the roadside roadblock. If someone refuses to take a breathalyzer test, then the police will march the accused over to the judge, who will then judge whether or not he feels a blood draw is necessary. If he deems it necessary, then the accused will be strapped down against his will, a needle inserted, and evidence removed in the form of blood. They will test it and if the driver is deemed over the limit, off to jail he/she goes. What they have done, is essentially stated that you cannot refuse a breathalyzer test, even if the machine fails at times to record the proper BAC. The machine is king and the people are slaves to it and their Constitutional Rights do not exist, because they are privileged to drive an automobile (sic). Safety first...rights not so much.

Do you have a link to this story? I'd like to read it.

dwccrew;624263 wrote:Do you have a link to this story? I'd like to read it.

It's post #16 in this thread - Boatshoes - Check out this story about drawing blood from drivers in Florida that refuse a breathalyzer: http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story...5079&catid=250

BGFalcons82;624271 wrote:It's post #16 in this thread - Boatshoes - Check out this story about drawing blood from drivers in Florida that refuse a breathalyzer: http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story...5079&catid=250

Page Not Found

^^^^^^What he said

^^^^ Don't know what to tell ya...it worked the when it was on page 1. I'm no tekkie!! lol

Haha. This is true.

Edit: This was meant in reply to the Ted Kennedy joke.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=165079


BAM BITCHES!

I'm no lawyer, but I wonder how it works when someone signs for their license and agrees to submit to DUI tests and then when they refuse, are forced to get a blood test with a judge on hand. Just sounds like one big mess.

dwccrew;626217 wrote:I'm no lawyer, but I wonder how it works when someone signs for their license and agrees to submit to DUI tests and then when they refuse, are forced to get a blood test with a judge on hand. Just sounds like one big mess.

Well, without the judge on hand, its not like they just let you walk away and go on your merry day if you refuse the test.

Glory Days;627418 wrote:Well, without the judge on hand, its not like they just let you walk away and go on your merry day if you refuse the test.

What's your point? I know that already. But they don't force you to take a needle in your arm either (when no judge is present). Which is why I'm questioning the constitutionality of forcing someone to take a needle in the arm. I can see arresting them for failure to submit to a DUI, but to forcibly draw blood, I am not sure of the boundaries of the law and if it's constitutional or not since I have no background in constitutional law.

No no no, it's okay, the police tell you it's to keep you safe. Therefore you shouldn't question them.

I Wear Pants;627439 wrote:No no no, it's okay, the police tell you it's to keep you safe. Therefore you shouldn't question them.

No no no, in the name of freedom, driving drunk shouldn't be a crime until you hurt someone else.

Who said that?

Just because someone questions the methods used to deter a crime does not mean that they support said crime.

Drinking and driving isn't something that should be allowed. That shouldn't give police carte blanc to do whatever they want to just because they're looking for drunk drivers.

But you probably think that police and other agencies should be allowed to do whatever as long as it's to keep us safe.

I Wear Pants;629535 wrote:Who said that?

Just because someone questions the methods used to deter a crime does not mean that they support said crime.

Drinking and driving isn't something that should be allowed. That shouldn't give police carte blanc to do whatever they want to just because they're looking for drunk drivers.

But you probably think that police and other agencies should be allowed to do whatever as long as it's to keep us safe.

No I am not saying that. But they aren't randomly pulling people of out of cars and taking their blood either. By the time it gets to the judge on the road, the driver will have already given signs and failed sobriety tests.

Haha just think of it as their speedy trial.

But it isn't a trial.

Trial=attorney and the ability to defend yourself. Not "we're going to forsably shove a needle in your arm".

Just do what they do now if they think there is a OVI and they won't blow. Arrest them, charge them and let the courts figure it out.

The sobriety tests are designed to fail people so that the officer can ask them to take the breathalyzer.

Glory Days;630646 wrote:No I am not saying that. But they aren't randomly pulling people of out of cars and taking their blood either. By the time it gets to the judge on the road, the driver will have already given signs and failed sobriety tests.

Haha just think of it as their speedy trial.

Speedy trial without due process?

I Wear Pants;630647 wrote:But it isn't a trial.

Trial=attorney and the ability to defend yourself. Not "we're going to forsably shove a needle in your arm".

Just do what they do now if they think there is a OVI and they won't blow. Arrest them, charge them and let the courts figure it out.

The needle is only gathering evidence that could be lost if not done within a period of time. they still get a chance to get a day in court and attorney and defend themselves. the judge on scene is only signing a warrant correct? you know how many judges approve warrants while they are laying in bed at home over the phone?

This happens all the time, whether its mouth swabs, hair samples, fingernail scrapings, fingerprints, or blood. An attorney doesn’t need to be present in any of those cases.

The sobriety tests are designed to fail people so that the officer can ask them to take the breathalyzer.

designed to fail people? how so? i've never seen a healthy, sober individual fail one.

Are you kidding me?

Go find an attorney who specializes in this sort of thing and have him make you do the sobriety tests. I guarantee he will be able to find something you do in them that will let him fail you so that if he were an officer giving you a real test he's be allowed to try to get you to take the breathalyzer.

By fail I mean if they are looking for something to give them probably cause to make an arrest or give them the right to ask you to take the breathalyzer then it's pretty easy to find it. I understand the FSTs aren't a pass/fail endeavor but a series of indicators but it's pretty easy for a cop to find something wrong with your one leg stand or your walk and turn. The Nystigmus (sp?) is probably the one that is least biased by an officer looking for something wrong. I mean, your eyes are pretty much jerky or not.

And the police do not have any sort of right to evidence simply because it could be lost. How is this any more effective then doing the sobriety tests, asking them to take the breathalyzer and then arresting and charging people who either fail or refuse the breathalyzer?

It's not like people are refusing the breathalyzer and then hopping back in their cars.

I've had a buddy who was pulled over and given a sobriety test and failed, yet he was sober. When they make people stand on one foot, raise the other and count from 1001, 1002, etc...even some sober people can't do that. They are subjective tests and sober people can fail them as well. I've even spoke to a cop I know and he said he COULD make a sobriety test that sober people couldn't pass, not that he would though. But I am sure there is some bad apple cops that would do such a thing just to fulfill their big ego.

I Wear Pants;631590 wrote:Are you kidding me?

Go find an attorney who specializes in this sort of thing and have him make you do the sobriety tests. I guarantee he will be able to find something you do in them that will let him fail you so that if he were an officer giving you a real test he's be allowed to try to get you to take the breathalyzer.

By fail I mean if they are looking for something to give them probably cause to make an arrest or give them the right to ask you to take the breathalyzer then it's pretty easy to find it. I understand the FSTs aren't a pass/fail endeavor but a series of indicators but it's pretty easy for a cop to find something wrong with your one leg stand or your walk and turn. The Nystigmus (sp?) is probably the one that is least biased by an officer looking for something wrong. I mean, your eyes are pretty much jerky or not.

And the police do not have any sort of right to evidence simply because it could be lost. How is this any more effective then doing the sobriety tests, asking them to take the breathalyzer and then arresting and charging people who either fail or refuse the breathalyzer?

It's not like people are refusing the breathalyzer and then hopping back in their cars.

That's just being a shady cop then. And on the evidence thing, i'd have to double check but there is a 2 hour limit on the blood test I believe.

dwccrew;631615 wrote:I've had a buddy who was pulled over and given a sobriety test and failed, yet he was sober. When they make people stand on one foot, raise the other and count from 1001, 1002, etc...even some sober people can't do that. They are subjective tests and sober people can fail them as well. I've even spoke to a cop I know and he said he COULD make a sobriety test that sober people couldn't pass, not that he would though. But I am sure there is some bad apple cops that would do such a thing just to fulfill their big ego.

Just asking, why was you buddy given a sobriety test? Had he been drinking and the cop smelled some on him? I don't know any who would go through all that without any justification. What did he blow?

And just because a person fails parts of the one leg stand, doesn't mean they will fail the walk and turn or the nystagmus tests. There is a reason the tests are standardized.

But they don't have to fail parts of all of them for the officer to give the breathalyzer correct?

I mean, the officer can give the breathalyzer at any point but it will only be allowed if they followed the procedure. Is there a certain amount of SFST that you must fail to allow them to administer a breathalyzer?

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/10/california-supreme-court-says-warrantless-searches-of-suspects/#comments

Warrantless searches of text messages are now allowed.

Have the police or the California Supreme Court never read:

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 Wear Pants;632470 wrote:http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/10/california-supreme-court-says-warrantless-searches-of-suspects/#comments

Warrantless searches of text messages are now allowed.

Have the police or the California Supreme Court never read:

Apparently not. The 4th Amendment no longer applies at the airports, within 100 miles of the borders, for cell phones, while in your car, etc. etc. And people still don't believe that the government is taking away their freedoms.