Every driver who refuses to blow strapped to table, put in headlock, blood drawn

[Kirk Freeman]

The 4th doesn't apply on someone else's property.

Incorrect.

4th Amendment always applies against the government, unless waived as condition of probation or parole.

Even if 4th Amendment inapplicable still have Georgia unreasonable search and seizure provision to contest.

You do not have the right to drive drunk on someone else's property, Kirk.

Depending on where one is, you just might.

 

[Razorback]

Incorrect.

4th Amendment always applies against the government, unless waived as condition of probation or parole.

Even if 4th Amendment inapplicable still have Georgia unreasonable search and seizure provision to contest.

If a warrant has been issued, based on probable cause, I would think that reasonable force would be permitted to obtain the evidence through a blood draw. The only argument would be the definition of "reasonable." I think it's reasonable to use an amount of force necessary to obtain the evidence and prevent injury to the accused. Can't have drunks thrashing around with needles in close proximity.

 

[lucky4034]

@ thread.... WHOA THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE

Question:

If you get pulled over and pass all field sobriety tests and blow under the legal limit and the cop isn't satisfied, so he decides to take you to the station to blow again. (and impounds your car in the process).... then you blow clean again. Still not satisfied, he takes you to the hospital suspecting you are under the influence of drugs... and the blood test comes back clean.

They pre-maturely charged you for driving under the influence of a controlled substance before the toxicology test proved you were clean and you lost your license in the process (and won't have it back until this case gets dismissed in court which will result in about 6months without a license)

What are your rights? They stole your car... they wasted hours of your time even though you proved multiple times to not be under any influence....


(the reason I ask is because I have a buddy who had this happen to him by a young cop who is openly trying to make a name on the backs of drunk drivers)

 

[Liberty Sanders]

For the sake of clarity let me say that my remarks here are addressing the legality of the issue.

Does a LEO have the right to obtain a search warrant for an arrestee's blood when he has reasonable cause to believe that the arrestee is DUI?

Absolutely...there is no legal issue here whatsoever.

However, in my LEO days I always went as far as possible to obtain cooperation from people I arrested. That way if I did have to become the heavy in a situation I did so with the knowledge that I gave the subject every opportunity, and that any escalation was on his head and not mine.

Were I in charge of this operation in Georgia, strapping people down would not be the default choice. Nor would refusing to give the blood be an option.

I would simply tell the arrestee that I have a search warrant for his blood, that the blood IS going to be taken, and that if he wants to sit calmly for the procedure that's fine, and if he DOESN'T want to do that we can deal with it. I would then serve the search warrant using the minimal amount of force that the ARRESTEE has chosen.

 

[steveh_131]

Incorrect.

4th Amendment always applies against the government, unless waived as condition of probation or parole.

Except you said:

It's not weird, it is how the Fourth Amendment works.

What is reasonable depends on where you are.

and

You have no right to a beautiful Blackhawks riot.

What's the problem? Respect their property rights and don't go.

This is about property rights.

So respect the government's property rights and don't drive. Right?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Except you said:



and



So respect the government's property rights and don't drive. Right?

Damnit, now the stinkin gubermint has rights along with it's all encompassing authority?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

@ thread.... WHOA THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE

Question:

If you get pulled over and pass all field sobriety tests and blow under the legal limit and the cop isn't satisfied, so he decides to take you to the station to blow again. (and impounds your car in the process).... then you blow clean again. Still not satisfied, he takes you to the hospital suspecting you are under the influence of drugs... and the blood test comes back clean.

They pre-maturely charged you for driving under the influence of a controlled substance before the toxicology test proved you were clean and you lost your license in the process (and won't have it back until this case gets dismissed in court which will result in about 6months without a license)

What are your rights? They stole your car... they wasted hours of your time even though you proved multiple times to not be under any influence....


(the reason I ask is because I have a buddy who had this happen to him by a young cop who is openly trying to make a name on the backs of drunk drivers)

Lucky, what you have here is an untrained officer that is going to get his department in the jackpot.

The most commonly misunderstood fact about DUI is the belief that the breath (or blood or urine) test is what convicts the person arrested.

This is NOT the case. Conviction is based upon the officer's observations of the subject's impairment. The test merely verifies that alcohol caused the impairment. Although it doesn't happen frequently, an officer can charge a person with DUI even if they blow less than the legally mandated limit if their impairment is pronounced. I charged people under such circumstances (rarely) and I won my cases

A properly trained officer does not give a person a breath test to determine whether or not he is DUI. A properly trained officer gives a breath test because he ALREADY KNOWS the subject is DUI and the breath test verifies the presence of alcohol. This is why refusal to submit to testing is a fool's choice. It WON'T save you.

One of my responsibilities as a police supervisor was to review DUI paperwork to assure that I had no young officers who were consistently bringing people in for DUI only to have them blow less than the legal limit. This was an indication that the officer was FISHING for DUI's rather than employing the proper techniques for detecting them. This meant retraining.

Any officer who insists on taking a person in for breath or blood tests AFTER that person has passed all physical tests has no evidence of impairment and therefore has no reasonable cause to believe that the subject is DUI.

Your friend needs to consult a lawyer.

 

[lucky4034]

Lucky, what you have here is an untrained officer that is going to get his department in the jackpot.

The most commonly misunderstood fact about DUI is the belief that the breath (or blood or urine) test is what convicts the person arrested.

This is NOT the case. Conviction is based upon the officer's observations of the subject's impairment. The test merely verifies that alcohol caused the impairment. Although it doesn't happen frequently, an officer can charge a person with DUI even if they blow less than the legally mandated limit if their impairment is pronounced. I charged people under such circumstances (rarely) and I won my cases

A properly trained officer does not give a person a breath test to determine whether or not he is DUI. A properly trained officer gives a breath test because he ALREADY KNOWS the subject is DUI and the breath test verifies the presence of alcohol. This is why refusal to submit to testing is a fool's choice. It WON'T save you.

One of my responsibilities as a police supervisor was to review DUI paperwork to assure that I had no young officers who were consistently bringing people in for DUI only to have them blow less than the legal limit. This was an indication that the officer was FISHING for DUI's rather than employing the proper techniques for detecting them. This meant retraining.

Any officer who insists on taking a person in for breath or blood tests AFTER that person has passed all physical tests has no evidence of impairment and therefore has no reasonable cause to believe that the subject is DUI.

Your friend needs to consult a lawyer.

Thank you sir... I've advised him of the same. He has a lawyer to handle the dismissal... but the guy is worthless. I believe this kids family is going to get him a lawyer to handle civil claims.

6 months without a license, $1k in lawyer fees (so far) and $250 to get his car out of impound and one traumatic night.... I hope he at least gets his money back.

 

[sgtonory]

I'm a liberty loving American and this video doesn't disturb me at all.

There is nothing to indicate that this is happening at checkpoints, nor would it be legal if they were. LEO's may not demand a DUI test of everyone they stop at a checkpoint. Signs of impairment must be detected, just the same as when an officer stops an individual.

The blood is being taken under authority of a search warrant. Blood is physical evidence and a search warrant can be obtained to secure it just the same as any other tangible item.

I fail to see the problem here.

Maybe you don't understand what LIBERTY stands for? At what point would you have a issue with something like this. Lets say there is some made up code etc that says you cant eat something and they want to pump your stomach to see what you have eaten? I find this very very disturbing. You have the right to be secure in your person. If there is not enough PC for a conviction then maybe you are not DUI. Would it be ok to force someone to talk if they choose to remain silent if they had a warrant because they needed evidence? I know there is no such thing but who would have guessed people that are innocent until proven guilty are being forced to have part of there bodies be stolen from them. Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So respect the government's property rights and don't drive. Right?

That is implied consent, not excessive force.

Government agents are not allowed to use excessive force in order to enforce a search or seizure. E.g. the Conwell case where the officer choked the defendant to prevent him from swallowing drugs. Choking someone to recover drugs is an unreasonable method to seizure contraband.

As well, I believe it will be argued here that strapping someone to a table, especially those that consent (!!!), is an unreasonable search and seizure.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It's not weird, it is how the Fourth Amendment works.

What is reasonable depends on where you are.

This is correct. This is how both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, §11 work.

 

[lucky4034]

To me refusing the forcible act of withdrawing blood should be no different than having the right to remain silent.

Why should you incriminate yourself? To me this is akin to torturing someone to make them verbally incriminate themselves.

This is a loophole in "innocent until proven guilty".... Don't submit incriminating evidence against yourself and you become guilty by default. There is a major problem with the way authority has designed rules to get around your rights.

In this scenario, you are given 2 options... Incriminate yourself or guilty by default. That isn't the way our justice system is supposed to work.

 

[rambone]

I guess the moral to this story is do not drink and drive or do not take dope and drive.

If you don't drink and drive you have nothing to worry about as there will be no probable cause.

The trouble is that when someone is falsely accused, or mistaken, they have no way to leave that scenario without being subjected to searches. Some people decline breathalyzers simply out of principle. Many defense lawyers and legal experts recommend it.

Its perfectly possible to get a DUI and not be drunk at all. And these innocent people are going to be put in a humiliating position no matter what they do.

Take a look at this guy's case. I saw this story a few days ago. Man charged with DUI despite documents showing blood alcohol content of 0.000

Jesse Thornton is a 64-year-old retiree. He stays up all night and sleeps during the day, to match his wife's schedule, an ER nurse. He regularly drives at night, going to the gym and running his errands. Driving at night gets him constant harassment.

"I've been stopped 10 times in Surprise and given four tickets, it's amazing," said Thornton.

He made the news after being given a DUI while blowing 0.00 BAC. He was innocent. Playing their game still got him a DUI.

​

This could be any of us. An innocent person has no right to be left alone, unsearched. If he doesn't want to blow in their stupid little machine on the way home from the gym they are going to treat him like an animal, strapped to a table. That bothers me a lot.

There is nothing to indicate that this is happening at checkpoints, nor would it be legal if they were.

In some places they set up checkpoints and have a judge on site to sign warrants for every person who refuses to blow. "No Refusals." Making the disgusting checkpoints even more disgusting.

"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa | wtsp.com

I fail to see the problem here.

Looking past the issue of drawing blood, it seems to me that strapping every subject down to a table and putting them in a choke-hold was a bit over the top. All of them, whether they were resisting or not.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This could be any of us. An innocent person has no right to be left alone, unsearched.

Yes, you do. Tell them that you do not consent. If they have a warrant they are going to come on in. Sue them.

Rights are not given. You have to fight for them.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Maybe you don't understand what LIBERTY stands for? At what point would you have a issue with something like this. Lets say there is some made up code etc that says you cant eat something and they want to pump your stomach to see what you have eaten? I find this very very disturbing. You have the right to be secure in your person. If there is not enough PC for a conviction then maybe you are not DUI. Would it be ok to force someone to talk if they choose to remain silent if they had a warrant because they needed evidence? I know there is no such thing but who would have guessed people that are innocent until proven guilty are being forced to have part of there bodies be stolen from them. Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Your right to be secure in your person is not absolute. It is trumped by a search warrant.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Yes, you do. Tell them that you do not consent. If they have a warrant they are going to come on in. Sue them.

Rights are not given. You have to fight for them.

I guess in this case one would have to "fight" in court. So if one cannot afford a decent attorney they shouldnt have rights?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

That is why Indiana law allows individuals to ask for court appointed attorneys.

 

[sgtonory]

Your right to be secure in your person is not absolute. It is trumped by a search warrant.

Oh i forgot a piece of paper signed by a stranger gives someone magic powers. You either have rights or you don't there is no grey area. Be like saying you have the right to breath but that can be trumped by this piece of paper. So im just gonna have to do my job and force you not to breath because this magic piece of paper gives me the "power" to do so and its "legal" under bla bla code.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Oh i forgot a piece of paper signed by a stranger gives someone magic powers.

Not magic powers but due process of law.

The Constitution, which recognizes our rights, makes direct reference to a magic piece of paper, a warrant.

Be like saying you have the right to breath but that can be trumped by this piece of paper.

Yes, your right to breath can be trumped by a piece of paper. Texas just showed us this week.

Piece of paper that takes away a right to breath: Execution warrant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Texas demonstrating how it is done: Texas execution No. 500: 'This is not a loss,' says woman (+video) - CSMonitor.com

 

[Razorback]

Oh i forgot a piece of paper signed by a stranger gives someone magic powers. You either have rights or you don't there is no grey area. Be like saying you have the right to breath but that can be trumped by this piece of paper. So im just gonna have to do my job and force you not to breath because this magic piece of paper gives me the "power" to do so and its "legal" under bla bla code.

There is a huge gray area. The 4th Amendment itself prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure. Rights are not absolute, and they come with responsibility. If someone insists on driving while impaired, thus placing his or her fellow citizens at risk of serious injury or death, then the government has a legitimate interest in detecting that crime, stopping it, and prosecuting the offender. This includes the gathering of evidence, of course.

Officers lying or stretching the truth to get probable cause to obtain a warrant is a separate issue, and an officer doing such a thing should be fired and charged criminally.