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

[Kirk Freeman]

So if I'm reading the above IC correctly, if the suspect refuses, it means the suspect goes to jail, his/her vehicle gets impounded & the suspects DL is suspended for DUI.

Maybe it stops there, if the police get a warrant for a blood draw, off to the hospital one goes (warrant=another series of events).

 

[Razorback]

This doesn't make any sense. According to IC:


Refusal to submit to chemical tests or test results in prima facie evidence of intoxication; duties of arresting officer
Sec. 7. (a) If a person refuses to submit to a chemical test, the arresting officer shall inform the person that refusal will result in the suspension of the person's driving privileges.


So if I'm reading the above IC correctly, if the suspect refuses, it means the suspect goes to jail, his/her vehicle gets impounded & the suspects DL is suspended for DUI.

So why the escalation to the headlocks, beatings, etc., for a BD when
it's already a done deal once the suspect refuses?????

Because if you are offered a chemical test, that means the officer already has probable cause to arrest you for OVWI. The blood draw is for physical evidence to support the officer's observations. It's not a "done deal" once you refuse to submit to a chemical test. The investigation is over once all evidence has been collected and analyzed. The initial incarceration and vehicle tow are procedural steps in the investigation, not sanctions for conviction of the offense. The driver license suspension is for refusal to submit to a test, NOT for actual OVWI.

 

[9lock]

Dems love hacking at 2A and Reps love killing 4A

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What did the Republicans do?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What did the Republicans do?

to

Please read the FAQ's...

 

[MikeDVB]

to

Please read the FAQ's...

Somebody is on a roll tonight.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Somebody is on a roll tonight.

Vacation starts today...need I explain?

 

[Survivalcookie]

You do not have to go to Georgia. Hendricks county is a no refusal county and has been for about 3 years now. That means that if there is probable cause to believe you were operating while intoxicated and you refuse to submit a search warrant for your blood will be submitted. If it is signed off on you are going to the ER for a blood draw. Some people want to fight, resist and attempt to keep it from happening. It that case they are held down by however many people it takes to get the job done. It happens fairly often (everyone knows how drunks are). No straps are used or anything like that. It is done in a room with video and audio FWIW.

I have mixed feelings on the subject. But after all everyone does agree to take a test when they sign for their DL. It has taken the fun out of the intoxicated drivers that likes to play the refusal game. BTW this county averages a 99% conviction rate on ALL OWI arrests and many months have a 100 % conviction rate. This county prosecutes OWI's vigorously. I guess the moral to this story is do not drink and drive or do not take dope and drive. And if you do you might not want to do it in Hendricks County. If you decide to do so and you get caught there will be a chemical test done on the driver no matter if you agree to it or not.

Most drivers go with the plan once confronted with and read a search warrant. But there always seems to be a few each month that attempts to resist physically. Of course minimal force is used to restrain the person enough that the ER staff can safely conduct a draw. I don't care much for it but working in the town where the hospital is we seem to get caught up in it a lot. It is just a matter of time before the ISC makes a ruling on it. Their opinion will be interesting to read. BTW...persons that do resist get additional charges. Not sure what they are as I have never done one (it is not my thing) but I think it is whatever charge there is for refusing a court order.

I would rather have a blood draw, I have diabetics and this can cause a false positive. Also I have equilibrium issues and sometimes can not walk a straight line or put my finger to my nose.

 

[Meezer]

Because if you are offered a chemical test, that means the officer already has probable cause to arrest you for OVWI. The blood draw is for physical evidence to support the officer's observations. It's not a "done deal" once you refuse to submit to a chemical test. The investigation is over once all evidence has been collected and analyzed. The initial incarceration and vehicle tow are procedural steps in the investigation, not sanctions for conviction of the offense. The driver license suspension is for refusal to submit to a test, NOT for actual OVWI.

Sounds like a racket that wastes a lot of time & money.

Refusal to submit should automatically lead to a default judgement for DUI.

The penalties for refusal should be double the sentence of what they would get had they submitted to tests & were convicted.

 

[MikeDVB]

The penalties for refusal should be double the sentence of what they would get had they submitted to tests & were convicted.

Guilty until proven innocent?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I would rather have a blood draw, I have diabetics and this can cause a false positive. Also I have equilibrium issues and sometimes can not walk a straight line or put my finger to my nose.

You can pass SFSTs (the roadside portion of the test) even if you can't walk a straight line and the finger to the nose isn't a standardized test. The tests aren't about balance, they are about the ability to divide your attention between a few tasks simultaneously.

If you ever find yourself in that position, let the officer know of your diabetes. However also understand that its the officer's choice what test he offers you. The statements in this thread that you can demand a blood draw aren't true. Well, you can demand it, but the officer is under no obligation to provide it and can offer you a breath test instead and it will be a refusal if you don't take the breath test. Urine testing is on the books, too, but I don't know of any department that actually uses it.

IC 9-30-6-2

(d) A person must submit to each chemical test offered by a law enforcement officer in order to comply with the implied consent provisions of this chapter.

 

[Bunnykid68]

No one is talking about unreasonable search and seizure.

You have a right to not be subjected to UNREASONABLE search and seizure.

You have NO protection from REASONABLE search and seizure.

If a LEO has reasonable cause to believe that you are DUI and you refuse to comply with the agreement you made with the state to submit to a breath test, the officer will get a search warrant and you will be compelled to provide blood.

This is a REASONABLE search and seizure made in compliance with the Fourth Amendment and is a textbook case of the government doing things the proper way.

The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it unreasonable.

So, if an officer believes that I may at some point in time harm someone they have RS to do anything to me? The State should not be prosecuting people for something that could happen to someone else. Better come get my guns, I could shoot someone with them

 

[Meezer]

Guilty until proven innocent?

If the person wanted to prove their innocence they had the opportunity for a BD which they declined to do.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

Your right to not incriminate yourself stems from the 5th amendment, " nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," and has consistently been understood to be testimonial in nature since its inception.

Physical evidence, such as your appearance in a lineup, fingerprints, DNA, etc. has never been part of your 5th amendment rights. 4th amendment, yes, which is where warrant requirements come in.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Does the Constitution say anything about violating ones 4th Amendment rights when there is no injured party?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Right, in effect the judge is enforcing a contract. Now, if these are simply BDs based on a person who simply won't comply with a checkpoint, then that's an issue.

A contract that is forced, yes?

 

[j706]

I would rather have a blood draw, I have diabetics and this can cause a false positive. Also I have equilibrium issues and sometimes can not walk a straight line or put my finger to my nose.

I know diabetic's can be mistaken for being intoxicated. However when all the SFST's are done and interpreted correctly I would say you have nothing to worry about. I have never knowingly done SFST's on someone having a diabetic episode but things like HGN should not be effected...as far as I know. Also you have no worry's about a Datamaster false reading either.

 

[j706]

Sounds like a racket that wastes a lot of time & money.

Refusal to submit should automatically lead to a default judgement for DUI.

The penalties for refusal should be double the sentence of what they would get had they submitted to tests & were convicted.

In theory a refusal has a more severe punishment than a OWI. Refusal is supposed to be a 1 year DL suspension where a OWI is usually a 90 day. But in reality you just never know what they get because judges routinely throw out the suspension for refusal's.

 

[Meezer]

A contract that is forced, yes?

Unless someone puts a gun to someones head & makes them sign up for a DL, it is a voluntary contract. As is the case with any type of contract, if you don't like the terms, DON"T sign it.

The DL contract states that you agree to submit to these tests. Refusal to submit will lead to your DL being suspended or revoked.

The state, like any state, doesn't operate on the KISS system. More often than not, they love to initiate the violence.

 

[VUPDblue]

y'all who are so militantly prepared to defend yourself during a bogus OVWI investigation would be better served preparing yourself some protection from a lightning strike.