you have to be s#iting me

[jk750]

me too!

[750rider]

Originally Posted by jk750

The breathalyzer test administered roadside is just a tool to help determine sobriety. It is not the final evidentiary device. Many states, including the jurisdiction where I work, have what is known as 'implied consent' statutes in place. Under an implied consent law, any person who operates a motor vehicle in the state or district is deemed to have consented to a DUI chemical test as a condition of legal vehicle operation. As soon as you got your drivers license, you gave consent in advance to do this. If you are unlicensed, shame on you, but you still have given implied consent when driving on public roads. Drink and drive on your own private property all you want.

If you are stopped for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, the officer should read you an Implied Consent Notice. At the end of this notice you will be asked to take a test of blood, urine or breath or any combination of these three. If you refuse you can lose your license for up to 12 months in most cases due to this refusal. Given that, you still end up with a DUI conviction and the 12 months for refusing to take the tests will be in addition to what will result from your conviction. Most lawyers advise their clients to take the tests, and rightly so.

There has been much controversy over implied consent. Some disagree on the grounds that it is against their constitutional rights to be forced to take a blood test or any test when stopped by law enforcement. They base their argument on the first amendment, which states “ no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. Whether you agree or disagree, these are the rules we currently operate within. Remeber, driving a vehicle on public roads is not a right.

if you signed your licence u gave consent..
just cause some1 makes a law that crush's your freedom's doesn't make it 'right'
and as you say 'much controversy over implied consent'

it appears from what i've read here most would not consent to a leo taking thier blood on a roadside..

and would most lawyers tell you to take the test?
refuse-cooperate-field-sobriety-tests-thats-what-judges-do

[Cawood]

wow man thats ridiculous, i know the LEO's here can ask to draw blood roadside but they dont press it, they will just administer the breathalyzer test, i have never driven under influence of anything except nagging girlfriends in the passenger seat *makes choking motions* but ya cops here dont bother motorcyclists mainly cuz theres no squids here and motorcyclists here respect the law to some degree, but if a cop tries to forceably(sp?) take my blood he can expect to have to put me in cuffs and take me in and while im in cuffs if he still tries to take my blood im kneeing him in the balls man my blood stays where it was meant to stay! in MY veins! i dont agree with drawing blood from someone on the side of the road by untrained leo's i do agree there should be more accurate, more inexpensive, less violation of civil rights, ways to properly check for alcohol or whatever else, ya thats my opinion on the subject

[Woozy]

Next week you have to pull down your pants and hold your own balls and cough!

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by jk750

The breathalyzer test administered roadside is just a tool to help determine sobriety. It is not the final evidentiary device. Many states, including the jurisdiction where I work, have what is known as 'implied consent' statutes in place. Under an implied consent law, any person who operates a motor vehicle in the state or district is deemed to have consented to a DUI chemical test as a condition of legal vehicle operation. As soon as you got your drivers license, you gave consent in advance to do this. If you are unlicensed, shame on you, but you still have given implied consent when driving on public roads. Drink and drive on your own private property all you want.

If you are stopped for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, the officer should read you an Implied Consent Notice. At the end of this notice you will be asked to take a test of blood, urine or breath or any combination of these three. If you refuse you can lose your license for up to 12 months in most cases due to this refusal. Given that, you still end up with a DUI conviction and the 12 months for refusing to take the tests will be in addition to what will result from your conviction. Most lawyers advise their clients to take the tests, and rightly so.

There has been much controversy over implied consent. Some disagree on the grounds that it is against their constitutional rights to be forced to take a blood test or any test when stopped by law enforcement. They base their argument on the first amendment, which states “ no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. Whether you agree or disagree, these are the rules we currently operate within. Remeber, driving a vehicle on public roads is not a right.

Yeah, more "driving a vehicle on public roads is not a right", this time combined with "implied consent" and penalties for not cooperating in your own prosecution. More evidence of how far in the wrong direction this country has gone.

PhilB

[jk750]

Do you think that driving on public roads is an inherent right? I'm a libertarian, but there's no way I can draw that conclusion.

[Cawood]

Originally Posted by Woozy

Next week you have to pull down your pants and hold your own balls and cough!

was that directed at me? haha i dont think ill be in prison if he cuffed me and then tried to take my blood by force, i have my rights, im already under arrest, that basically like tieing someone up and beating them, its not right, if anything ill just get a lesser charge, but the cop will be the one who will be in trouble.

[750rider]

Originally Posted by jk750

Do you think that driving on public roads is an inherent right? I'm a libertarian, but there's no way I can draw that conclusion.

I think in this day & age it should be...
cause not being able to freely mobilitate yourself on your own conditions/timframe
is a burden or hardship and can be a loss of liberty and the pursuit of..

setting up laws & conditions and penalties that punish you for not cooperating in your own prosecution are wrong..
--

i mean you pull up to zee road block get asked for ur papenzee's
(roadblocks: how reminicent of communism & fascism..err wait a sec)

then cause some 1st year rooky pyschic friends network power trip just knows your 'up to no good'
cause you're a 'no good scum bag'
(they train them to be able to make these 'gut' felt snap character judgements. always 100% accurate!)
decides to inform u he don't like the look of you & he Vants to suck ur vlood

ur like 'huh' & the next thing you know your tazered out of your car to the ground then with a knee in your chest
some vampire fuck sucks your blood out..again cause he knows ur a loser deep down inside where it counts, to him

but in that panic he uses the same needle he used on a the hep-c infected loser right before u.. ooops//

wow what a fk'n 'privalege'

[750rider]

-

Oh and again this is what JUDGES have done when faced with a DUI investigation

refused to cooperate with field sobriety tests -thats what judges-do





-this story is about how breathalyzers are 23% off

It’s Just A Decimal Point: The Dirty Secret Behind Breathalyzers


-

[Parabellum]

Do you think that driving on public roads is an inherent right? I'm a libertarian, but there's no way I can draw that conclusion.

Since my tax dollars go to maintain that road, yes, any tax paying citizen has a right to be on the roads as long as they are not a DEMONSTRATABLE threat to others.

If the government wants to say that THE PEOPLE have no right to be on the roads that THEY PAY FOR AND OWN (collectively)....then maybe the government should start paying for the roads out of some mystery budget that doesn't come from the people.

Oh wait...it all comes FROM THE PEOPLE in the first place....

[jk750]

You have a right to be on public property - a park, a sidewalk, a shopping mall. You do not have a right to operate a vehicle on a public street just because you pay taxes. You can have the privilege, ie - the just claim to do so. Meaning you are free to move about at your will.

We collectively share the roads. Not individually.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by jk750

Do you think that driving on public roads is an inherent right? I'm a libertarian, but there's no way I can draw that conclusion.

Doing what you want to do with your own life is an inherent right, provided only that you respect the equal rights of others to do the same. So yeah, it is.

Originally Posted by jk750

You have a right to be on public property - a park, a sidewalk, a shopping mall. You do not have a right to operate a vehicle on a public street just because you pay taxes. You can have the privilege, ie - the just claim to do so. Meaning you are free to move about at your will.

We collectively share the roads. Not individually.

1) If it's a "privilege" that is pre-restricted and only granted under certain circumstances, then it's no longer a freedom being exercised. Rights are not subject to licensing.
2) Shopping malls aren't public property.
3) The right to travel (like any other right) becomes pretty meaningless if you aren't allowed the tools to do so.
4) You said above that you're a libertarian, then here you say "collectively ... not individually"?!?!? Yes, comrade libertarian. We are all individuals; we each act as such. A "collective right" is meaningless if it doesn't apply to actual individuals. And if it does, then it is an individual right (meaning, there is no such thing as a "collective right").

If this is what you call libertarianism, it's time to do a bit more reading.

PhilB

[jk750]

I will concede the shopping mall point, that was in error. Everything else, I stand by. There's the way it is and the way it ought to be. This is the way it is.

You cannot just drive on public roads anyway you feel like. You must obey the laws of the road. If you could drive at any speed anywhere with total disregard for any traffic signals or speed limits or other laws, that would be a liberty, indicating a personal 'right' to drive on public roads. As it is, you have the 'freedom' to drive on public roads in accordance with the laws in place - a privilege.

You have the right to move about freely in this country. You have the right to buy a bus ticket and go anywhere. You have the right to Forrest Gump it across the country and back, if you want. You are 'free' to exercise your privilege to drive your personally owned vehicle on public roads within the confines of the rules and regulations set forth.

You have the right to drive your vehicle anyway you want on your own personal property.


This is one reason I started the Freedom or Liberty thread. Yes, I know the difference.

[Greg in H-Town]

Originally Posted by jk750

There has been much controversy over implied consent. Some disagree on the grounds that it is against their constitutional rights to be forced to take a blood test or any test when stopped by law enforcement. They base their argument on the first amendment, which states “ no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”.

Umm ... You're probably thinking about the 5th Amendment. I'm sure you know the Bill of Rights better than that and it was just a 'typing in a hurry' sort of mistake.

[jk750]

Damn! Busted again! Yes I did, and good catch.