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

[Stickfight]

If what you are saying is true I would not be able to walk, bicycle or moped on these roads that we all pay taxes on.

You can do those things because there are regulations that allow it. I can legally ride my bike down a lane of College Avenue regardless of what idiots in cars seem to think. I can't down I65 because that is stupid. I don't need any sort of license at all.

Natural rights are things you don't need anyone else to exercise. You have the right to free speech and can say anything you want. That doesn't obligate anyone to provide you with a forum to do so. You have the right to keep and bear arms, but no one has to give you arms.

 

[Survivalcookie]

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.

I have never drank and drove in my life...and I drink maybe one a year. But I am out late and it scares me that if I got stop I would fail a test. Actually the few times myself and my husband has been stopped here for a light out...no turn signal, our vet licence plates and our bumper stickers has always been mentioned and just warning tickets...even when my husband did not have his wallet.

 

[j706]

I have never drank and drove in my life...and I drink maybe one a year. But I am out late and it scares me that if I got stop I would fail a test. Actually the few times myself and my husband has been stopped here for a light out...no turn signal, our vet licence plates and our bumper stickers has always been mentioned and just warning tickets...even when my husband did not have his wallet.

You DO NOT fail a OWI certified test if you are not drunk or high. It just don't happen. You are worrying about things that you should not worry with.

 

[public servant]

IYes. With real penalties applied for causing significant damage/injury, it would be effective.

So what you're saying is...if an LEO observes a driver (who for this example is intoxicated) swerving in their lane, crossing the center lane, driving the wrong way down a one-way street and/or running off the road they should do nothing because no injury or property damage has yet occurred?

The police officer should allow the driver, whose driving exhibits signs of being impaired, to continue down the road and do nothing until the driver is involved in an accident causing "significant damage/injury"?

 

[Bunnykid68]

So what you're saying is...if an LEO observes a driver (who for this example is intoxicated) swerving in their lane, crossing the center lane, driving the wrong way down a one-way street and/or running off the road they should do nothing because no injury or property damage has yet occurred?

The police officer should allow the driver, whose driving exhibits signs of being impaired, to continue down the road and do nothing until the driver is involved in an accident causing "significant damage/injury"?

Lock em up for the night like Andy used to do Otis

 

[VUPDblue]

Here is a shining example of why I believe impaired driving should be against the law.
One killed in 5 car accident involving 2 ISP cars - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

 

[88GT]

Really? Then prisoners shouldn't be held in jails? It is, after all, an infringement on their right to travel.

If you want to take it to the level of the absurd, a one way street is an infringement. I have the right of freedom of travel, and restricting me to just one direction is an infringement, no?

Of course there are reasonable infringements. Reasonable minds may differ on where the line is drawn, but to say there's no such thing as a reasonable infringement denies reality.

Prisoners have had their due process and/or day in court. Don't be absurd.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You DO NOT fail a OWI certified test if you are not drunk or high.

I wouldn't be so certain about that.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So what you're saying is...if an LEO observes a driver (who for this example is intoxicated) swerving in their lane, crossing the center lane, driving the wrong way down a one-way street and/or running off the road they should do nothing because no injury or property damage has yet occurred?

The police officer should allow the driver, whose driving exhibits signs of being impaired, to continue down the road and do nothing until the driver is involved in an accident causing "significant damage/injury"?

I can't say that I like the idea of this happening, but on the other hand I don't like allowing people like communists or Satanists having free speech, but disallowing it would be far more dangerous than allowing it.

We live in a society in which enforcement of laws based on affording or not affording others the potential to engage in harmful activity has become accepted far too much. Again, anti-gun laws are based on the same way of thinking with many of the same arguments (i.e., do you really want some moron who is a danger to everyone near him including himself to be allowed to have a gun?) with the only real difference being one's own personal ideas of what is too dangerous to allow others to do.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Here is a shining example of why I believe impaired driving should be against the law.
One killed in 5 car accident involving 2 ISP cars - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

That is an interesting form of turning one's self in! Seriously, those two jokers should be buried under the jail for that both for justice and to serve as examples. The problem with impaired driving being illegal comes down to a question of who gets to define impaired. How much alcohol or other substance is an arbitrary limit. What about being a bit tired? What about being in a bad mood or otherwise distressed (i.e., similar with the state I was in for several weeks after my mom dropped of a heart attack in front of me). What about physical disabilities? What about people we deem to be just plain stupid?

Again, I am not advocating driving under the influence. My problem is with laws that are yet another step toward all-encompassing arbitrary government.

 

[88GT]

If OWI is so bad, then why do officer's have discretion about letting the offending individual continue on their way?

Can you imagine the outrage about letting a murderer walk because someone used his discretion to let him go despite the blood on his hands and the dead body in the back seat.

 

[Denny347]

If OWI is so bad, then why do officer's have discretion about letting the offending individual continue on their way?

They usually don't. If they do, they do so with risk of discipline by the department. But OVWI is bad and extremely dangerous. I've made 150-200 OWI arrests in my career and they had no business behind the wheel. However, in the end it is generally just a Misdemeanor.

 

[VUPDblue]

I make a (relatively) large number of OVWI arrests. I will not risk my job by letting someone who obviously should not be driving continue to do so. I also take a (relatively) large number of OVWI arrests for other officers. Again, if I can get a drunk off the street and keep myself and my brothers and sisters in the right as far as the law goes, then dammit I'm gonna do it.