Arrested for DWI-Unwarranted Blood Tests-M.A.D.

just the point is is laws are subjective based on political correctness and not actually based on which is safer or not.

 

.The fact is that States were told to either pass the .08 B.A.C. law or lose Federal Funding. The law as passed did nothing to change the availability/service of alcohol at bars and restaurants meaning they were not legally required to change the number of alcoholic beverages their patrons could be served within 1 hours time. Even if the patron isn't the driver, they can and have many times been arrested after leaving the premise for being intoxicated in public or assault, etc. The law should limit service of Alcohol. The law should apply only when the individual shows signs of intoxicated driving or behavior not because they committed a minor traffic offense unrelated to the alcohol. The smell of alcohol on ones breath should not be probable cause for being subjected to criminal treatment unless the cause for the stop was speeding, driving erradically, failure to stop when signaled to. Not having a light out or an expired sticker. And, Police Officers need more legal guidelines. Simply failing to stop immediately when signaled should not be considered "evading arrest" when the driver is not speeding, has slowed down and stops at the first "safe" place to do so. Yet millions are arrested and charged with evading arrest while millions of others doing the same thing are not. A clear unfair application of the law due to the whim of law enforcement Sorry, but the .08 B.A.C. in my opinion is simply the wrong way to deal with the problem as the true drunk driver that causes the accidents and deaths has a B.A.C. 2X+ .08. Look it up

 

legal and probably safe. safe and legal don't always overlap. safe depends on personal tolerance, driving experience (there's plenty of stone cold sober drivers that have no business behind the wheel), and traffic.

 

Yeah, because there is NO chance that getting stuck with a needle on a car hood by a half-trained cop will expose you to something! Someone WILL end up with TB, hepatitis, or AIDS from this. When (not if) it happens, I hope he hunts down the cop and tortures him to death.

 

They should both have gotten 20 years, lifetime licence revocation, and your uncle should have gotten charged as an accessory. Second DUI should be punished with mandatory LWOP. BAC for being drunk should be .02%.

 

kinda harsh for misdemeanors, eh?

 

yeah... that's a bit rediculous.... for a.09

it still cost my cousin/uncle upwards of $15k so it's not like he got off scott free.


But reactions like yours proves how stupid and reactionary DUI laws are. How is getting in a wreck with a .09 BAC and killing someone worth 20 years while doing the same with .07 BAC worth nothing? it's an arbitrary number set up by politicians to appease the masses like you that think a DUI is a liefetime in prison punishment, even without death involved

 

Here in Texas they have periods of No Refusal, don;t blow then they already have a court order to take blood, with or without your ok, has already been tested in the courts and won. Under normal conditions your above statement is correct and if you were drinking and get pulled over never blow for the officer and your lawyer will love ya. So there ya have it.

 

Not harsh enough. Honestly...I would be fine with a firing squad for the second DUI, or LWOP for the first.

 

God help you if you ever drive tired, or even after dark after using mouthwash.

 

no it wont

 

or mess with his radio, or drive with 3 bratty kids in the back seat.

 

The simple fact that people are saying to refuse makes them look guilty. Police are out to catch people breaking laws. If you are breaking a law or not just take the test. If you are over the limit that is your fault. All you are doing is creating more problems for yourself by not taking the test.

 

no, you don't create more problems by not taking the test as a DUI follows you for LIFE. Can get you fired from your current job, can prevent you from gettting future jobs and will haunt you.

by not taking the field sobriety tests, you can get the charge reduced to Wreckless Driving. Still a problem, but at least that stigma doesn't follow you around for life.

I don't care if I'm Stone Cold Sober, I'm not taking a breath test on the side of a road and without my attorney present.

 

I'd guess the only people who'd refuse tests are the drunks who deserve whatever comes their way.
A drunk driver should be a man, stand up and admit he was an idiot instead of wimping on about rights of the individual.

 

refusal only helps when you're 'slightly' drunk. Where you need time to drop your BAC from a .08 to a .07...... a difference that will make a HUGE difference in your life.

This will not help when you are twice the legal limit, you are screwed and get what you deserve. But I do not think a .08 should ruin your life like a .16 should.

 

that's the same line of thinking as "if you got nothing to hide, you won't mind if we search your vehicle, can I have permission to search"

the answer is ALWAYS "not without a warrant".


"I guess the only people who'd refuse to let search are the people who have something to hide and deserve whatever comes their way" doesn't apply to to vehicle searches no more than it applies to body fluid searches.

 

I've had that on one occasion.
I said, "course you can but you're wasting your time".
They realised I wasn't up to anything and buggered off without bothering.
A refusal would have been a real pain in the bum with absolutely no advantage to anyone so why bother?

 

That depends on your ability to drive.
IMHO, no alcohol should be imbibed before driving. If I had a drink now, I may well be under the legal limit but I would be in no fit state to drive as I no longer have any tolerance to alcohol.
Yes, a conviction makes a big difference in your life so don't be an idiot and drink before you drive.

 

one beer and a faulty DUI machine on the road is not worth ruining my career/life over.

 

Can a DUI/DWI conviction be secured on only a single roadside machine reading alone anywhere in the US? I know that in the UK, there has to be two subsiquent tests on a more accurate machine at the police station and I believe you can also demand an evidentary blood test too.

 

that sounds better with that.

 

Yes, because many drivers don't understand the law, they aren't legally required to take the Roadside tests, but then they will be arrested and will be taken to the police station and asked to take the test on an approved Breathalyzer. The problem is that the Police ask them to sign a form while on the roadside stating if they will submit to a test and I am not totally sure, but I believe if they reject taking the PBT(preliminary breath test), they automatically lose their license even if they agree to take the test at the Station.

As far as being prosecuted, whether or not they refuse the PBT and then fail the Breathalyzer at the Station they can still be prosecuted and if found guilty incarcerated, fined and put on probation. And, if they refuse ALL tests, they lose their license, can still be prosecuted(but the prosecutor will have no evidence other than the officers testimony. To get around that, Texas has allowed the Officers to force the driver to take a blood test, now without even obtain a warrant as was required in the past. I believe the law should be amended to allow forced blood tests but only when their was an accident or bodily injury to a passenger/ Otherwise, I don't think a person should have their body invaded without due process, a warrant and the chance for the driver to be part of the process by being in the presence of the Judge granting the warrant.

.08 is to low IMO, because the majority of adult drivers are not impaired after 1-2 drinks in 1 hour. I believe the limit should be no less than .10.

And if it is going to be .08 then restaurants and bars should only be allowed a patron 1 drink in a 1 hour period. Naturally that means less revenue to the City, State and businesses that pay taxes and keep local governments afloat, so probably won't be happening.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, because many drivers don't understand the law, they aren't legally required to take the Roadside tests, but then they will be arrested and will be taken to the police station and asked to take the test on an approved Breathalyzer. The problem is that the Police ask them to sign a form while on the roadside stating if they will submit to a test and I am not totally sure, but I believe if they reject taking the PBT(preliminary breath test), they automatically lose their license even if they agree to take the test at the Station.

As far as being prosecuted, whether or not they refuse the PBT and then fail the Breathalyzer at the Station they can still be prosecuted and if found guilty incarcerated, fined and put on probation. And, if they refuse ALL tests, they lose their license, can still be prosecuted(but the prosecutor will have no evidence other than the officers testimony. To get around that, Texas has allowed the Officers to force the driver to take a blood test, now without even obtain a warrant as was required in the past. I believe the law should be amended to allow forced blood tests but only when their was an accident or bodily injury to a passenger/ Otherwise, I don't think a person should have their body invaded without due process, a warrant and the chance for the driver to be part of the process by being in the presence of the Judge granting the warrant.

.08 is to low IMO, because the majority of adult drivers are not impaired after 1-2 drinks in 1 hour. I believe the limit should be no less than .10.

And if it is going to be .08 then restaurants and bars should only be allowed a patron 1 drink in a 1 hour period. Naturally that means less revenue to the City, State and businesses that pay taxes and keep local governments afloat, so probably won't be happening.

 

sorry about double post, not sure how it happened but laptop dragging tonight

 

Ignorance of the law is never a defence. It'd be a good thing if more drivers gains an understanding of these laws, including the reasons for them.

I can see arguments both ways on that one. As long as they get the test at the station as well and that takes precedence if the results are different, there should be no legitimate reason to refuse the road-side test.

On that I agree, though I think refusing all the tests should be a criminal offence and punished in line with actual drink-driving. Otherwise, dishonest drink-drivers (or ones with dishonest lawyers) could get away with their offence.

That's factually wrong. Pretty much everyone will be affected at .08. The scale of the effect will vary and may not be huge but, significantly, it's also likely to be not immediately apparent to the driver themselves or others around them. The basic principle here should be simply don't drink and drive. The limit is a measure of legality.

We've been over this rubbish before. Most people drinking in restaurants and bars aren't going to be driving afterwards so there is no rational reason to impose such an extreme restriction on everyone.

Drinking is voluntary, driving is voluntary. Drink driving remains 100% the responsibility of the person doing it.

FYI, it's not you, it seems to do it to lots of people. I've been able to edit and remove the duplicate previously.