UnderGround Forums
 

LegalGround >> Cops can draw blood from drunk driving suspects


9/14/09 11:45 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
disbeliever
334 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/27/03
Posts: 4268
Lurken - Then she shouldn't be driving, simple. OR heres an idea you jackass, instead of drinking that one cocktail and driving home right away, she drink a cocktail, and hang out for an hour or 2 with her friends, while it wears off?


Simple for you assmunch. maybe she does not have an hour or two to fuckin sit around. You know shit like familial obligations. Child care. Work!! Its called happy hour. Not happy three to four hours.

How about a beer or cocktail with super. Are they supposed to sit after dinner for two hours before they go home?


I dont care what they do retard. If the law sets a limit that is considered drunk or impared, and you could endanger others, then either wait, or dont drink. I must have missed the law that requires you to drink a beer at dinner, or attend a happy hour?

You can argue with me all you want, but when you get your DL you agree to follow the laws and rules. Its not a right to drive, and if you cannot abide by the laws, then dont drive. Simple. How many horror stories do you read about people being killed in drunk driving accidents? And it is usually the innocent people who end up dying, while the idiot who thought he could "handle" it walks away with just a scratch.

If she has family obligations, then dont drink, extend the time at the bar, or just go and hang out and get some food.
9/14/09 11:46 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
pfsjkd
70 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18699
Simple for you assmunch. maybe she does not have an hour or two to fuckin sit around. You know shit like familial obligations. Child care. Work!! Its called happy hour. Not happy three to four hours.

OK, you got me.  LOL!! Good trolling.
9/14/09 11:46 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
disbeliever
334 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/27/03
Posts: 4269
And for the record, I attend "happy hour" for work with friends every tuesday night. I drink several beers and stay and eat dinner after and tlak and hang out while the beer leaves my system. You can have fun without drinking all night retard.
9/14/09 11:56 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Thor
6 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 2170
Everyone should realize that they do not have a "right" to drive. When you apply for a drivers license you agree to let the police take blood from you if you are suspected of D.U.I. and most states only say they need "reasonable suspicion" not probable cause to do this.
9/14/09 12:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lurken
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/2/04
Posts: 7503
And for the record, I attend "happy hour" for work with friends every tuesday night. I drink several beers and stay and eat dinner after and tlak and hang out while the beer leaves my system. You can have fun without drinking all night retard.

^^^ Several beers? SINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! j/k.

Let me clarify my point here. just because someone would hit a point .08 does mean that they are drunk/impaired or anything. they may walk, talk and drive just fine. As well as someone who has smoked cigarettes all day.
Are they DWI? technically yes. Maybe not though. Drinking is socially acceptable and it will continue to be regardless of MADD and all the other fun nazi's.

Where do we go after sticking needles in peoples arms to obtain evidence to prosecute them. We could also just draw blood randomly at checkpoints. hell we can have a judge on every corner printing search warrants out of there car. What if we find evidence of drugs in their blood, should we charge them with possession?
9/14/09 12:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
disbeliever
334 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/27/03
Posts: 4277
Lurken - And for the record, I attend "happy hour" for work with friends every tuesday night. I drink several beers and stay and eat dinner after and tlak and hang out while the beer leaves my system. You can have fun without drinking all night retard.

^^^ Several beers? SINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! j/k.

Let me clarify my point here. just because someone would hit a point .08 does mean that they are drunk/impaired or anything. they may walk, talk and drive just fine. As well as someone who has smoked cigarettes all day.
Are they DWI? technically yes. Maybe not though. Drinking is socially acceptable and it will continue to be regardless of MADD and all the other fun nazi's.

Where do we go after sticking needles in peoples arms to obtain evidence to prosecute them. We could also just draw blood randomly at checkpoints. hell we can have a judge on every corner printing search warrants out of there car. What if we find evidence of drugs in their blood, should we charge them with possession?


My question is this. The police will still have to go through the motions of the field sobriety tests right? Its not like they are going to just say DL and registration and GTFO of the car for blood work!

At some point common sense really needs to kick in. If your a 90lb woman and you have a strong drink at happy hour, leaving right away is probabaly a bad idea, and if someone sees you and pulls you over you will probabaly test positive and go to jail. If your life is so hectic that you literally need to drink and run, you made the wrong choice in going to happy hour and having a drink that night.

Nothing is wrong with drinking socially, I do it too. However I always leave room at the end to allow it to wear off. If you cannot do that, then maybe your not old enough to be out drinking anyway? You agree to follow the laws when you get your DL. I am so sick of people bitching and whining about their rights when they get pulled over for a DUI. DONT FUCKING DRINK AND DRINK MORON! Had a cop not stopped you you could have very well killed an entire family on your way home. Nevermind the innocents rights though, because damnit you dont want people tested properly for drinking?
9/14/09 12:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BarkLikeADog
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/11/05
Posts: 11888
"Nevermind the innocents rights though, "

Here is the problem with your argument in a nutshell. Coming from a complete teetotaller.
9/14/09 12:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
AlliancePA
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/17/08
Posts: 1956
I think it all comes down to where you are and how the cops there are. I was stopped at a DUI check point a few weeks ago (after leaving a friends bachelor party). I was drinking but was still fine to drive. I have no idea what my BAC would have been at the time because I have a really high tolerance so it is hard for me to tell until it gets really high, but I would think that I was under the limit. I pulled up and put down my window, the cop said that they were looking for impaired drivers, I told him good luck and be safe, he told me I seemed fine to have a good night, I went on my way and it was not a big deal. I'm sure that he knew I was drinking and in some areas I would have been asked to get out of the car, take a breathalizer, etc. (which I would have done without argument). Some cops use their judgement based on what they observe and others are looking to give everyone a hard time. Either way, I always try to be polite and respectful other the cops and let the situation work itself out. Most cops aren't out just to fuck with people but there certainly are some that are.

I don't agree with allowing them to draw blood without consent though. It is dangerous for the person having their blood drawn, it exposes the cops to diseases and other things, and it opens up the department to endless court battles and/or settlements when something inevitably goes wrong. In cases where someone is injured or there are other circumstances that warrent doing it then I feel that it should only be done by trained medical professionals and only in a secure and sanitary environment (hospital, ambulance, etc.).
9/14/09 1:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
alvo69
11 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/5/08
Posts: 1241
balloon knotter - 
Elite Hunting - Don't drive drunk and you don't have any problems.

that's not true. this will end up being another thing for power tripping cops to do if they want to teach someone a lesson or try to find a reason to bust someone.

 As well as there is this little thing called "CHAIN OF CUSTODY"....... how many hands does it go through before it hits the lab... a 'good' (like there is such a thing LOL)j lawyers field day. That said, if you get popped being shitfaced behind the wheel....you're gonna pay one way or the other.    (my father was saved by one of the very first cars with airbags, when a 'person of Spanish descent'  was HAMMERED at 10:30 AM  , and decided to drive UP the off ramp my father was exiting the highway on.... 3 weeks in intensive care, busted up all over, and the car looked like he drove into a bulldozer blade a t 75 mph....  (the other guy 'lost his head' over the incident.... )  
9/14/09 1:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
disbeliever
334 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/27/03
Posts: 4281
BarkLikeADog - "Nevermind the innocents rights though, "

Here is the problem with your argument in a nutshell. Coming from a complete teetotaller.



Yes?
9/15/09 12:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jaseprobst
20 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/6/03
Posts: 19507
My aunt was killed by a dude of marginal citizenship who ran a red light and ended her life while she was waiting to make a left turn. She was running an errand to deposit a six-figure check at the bank (a relative had just died) and the money was going to help her a lot.

She left three kids behind and my uncle.

i don't know if he was intoxicated but he had a suspended license and should NOT have been driving (maybe not even in this country).

I'm all for the cops doing whatever they need to do to get scumbags off the streets (within reason). If cops had more tools and the ACLU weren't basically communists, things like this would happen a lot less. Remember that the next time you hear about people being released from jail due to overcrowding, or lowlifes out on parole.
9/15/09 5:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BarkLikeADog
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09/15/09 5:33 PM
Member Since: 10/11/05
Posts: 11891
I feel for you & am sorry for your loss. My dad worked in transportation logistics so obviously the problem of drunk driving affected us on a regular basis. His 92 year old grandmother was taken out by a drunk driver on her way to her weekly volunteer shift at the local hospital, so I totally understand your POV. And so I understand that this is a preachy message that someone who has experienced loss generally doesn't want to hear.

BUT:

Civil rights are paid for in blood, & often that blood is innocent.

Either you are on board with that concept, or you are not. If you are not, you are not on board with the intentions of our founding fathers & the US Constitution. I'm not saying that in a judgemental way; I'm just hoping you can reevaluate the issue without the shroud of emotional appeal clouding your vision.

Surrendering rights to government in exchange for potentially increasing safety is a mistake. By that logic, you should get rid of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Obviously it's much safer to keep potential criminals off the street, right?
9/15/09 5:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lurken
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/2/04
Posts: 7509
i don't know if he was intoxicated but he had a suspended license and should NOT have been driving (maybe not even in this country).


^^^ SORRY FOR YOUR LOSS, BUT IT DOES NOT HAVE SHIT TO DO WITH THIS NEW LAW THAT SEZ COPS CAN STICK A FUCKING NEEDLE IN YOUR ARM.
9/15/09 8:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
asdf
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 16367
balloon knotter - totally unneccesary and opening up PD's to huge liability.

In NJ if you refuse the breathalyzer its the same as if you were DWI. there's no incentive to refuse it you are fucked either way.


it seems this would be the best option.
9/15/09 10:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
worldfightfan
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/4/06
Posts: 3330
asdf - 
balloon knotter - totally unneccesary and opening up PD's to huge liability.

In NJ if you refuse the breathalyzer its the same as if you were DWI. there's no incentive to refuse it you are fucked either way.


it seems this would be the best option.



exactly. The morons responding to this thread seem to think that if you refuse a breathalyzer you are off the hook! The laws in any state I know of clearly have penalties for refusing the breathalyzer and usually loss of license.

Maybe someone defending blood draws can explain why the blood is needed if the penalty is the same.
9/15/09 10:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ajl416az
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/11/07
Posts: 2319
ArthurFonzerill - 
angryinch -  unless the drunk driver in question happens to be a cop....then other cops will show up, tell bystanders that the driver isn't drunk, then they'll give the driver something to eat and wait about 6 or 7 hours before administering a blood test or breathalyzer. 



wrong as usual....

Its like in bev hills cop 1, when he goes to CA and sees how uptight everything is. Thats how things are nowadays for the most part. In fact, being a cop makes you more likely to get a dui.

1) many cities make you call out a supervisor if you pull over a cop for dui, the concern is that you will let him off. And when that happends, its pretty much a sure thing. Takes away any discretion the cop might use.

2) along those line, many cops are uptight dick heads, that will f over another cop just as easily as a citizen, in fact many look to do it just so they can be mr. 'by the book'...

Gilbert AZ is known for giving dui's to cops from other cities, and when the blood comes back, it is often under the limit and the case is thrown out

 that sounds just like Gilbert PD.  those cocksuckers
9/15/09 11:09 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
gregbrady
29 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/9/02
Posts: 6640
Thor - Everyone should realize that they do not have a "right" to drive. When you apply for a drivers license you agree to let the police take blood from you if you are suspected of D.U.I. and most states only say they need "reasonable suspicion" not probable cause to do this.


What about riding a bike? You surely have a "right" to ride a bike. No license is required. What are the penalties for refusing a DUI test on a bike?
9/16/09 12:11 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
IDXtreme
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/27/02
Posts: 3427
Guilty till proven innocent
9/25/09 2:08 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Shaz
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 1417
 The ignorance is strong in this thread...

First of all, this is not a "new" law, in terms of the rest of the country, as mentioned in the article, it's already been upheld by the Supreme Court back in 1966, and has been used all over the country ever since.

Second, as someone else correctly mentioned, when you operate a motor vehicle, you are giving implied consent to a chemical test to determine your level of intoxication, be that by some form of breath testing instrument, or urine, or by blood draw (voluntary or otherwise).  

Depending on the state, different criteria apply.  I can only speak for New York - in this state, if a police officer has reasonable cause to believe that (1) you were operating a motor vehicle; (2) your ability to operate that motor vehicle is impaired by the use of alcohol or a drug; (3) you refused to submit to a chemical test of your blood (usually via intoxilyzer or breathalyzer); and (4) you were involved in a motor vehicle collision in which at least one other person was seriously injured or killed, the officer will call an ADA who will then call a judge to get a warrant to draw your blood.  

While NY required serious injury or death, not every state does.  By the way, in New York, there was a recent decision which is pretty nice - if you're DWI and injured in an accident, you go to the hospital for treatment and the nurses draw your blood, right?  Now we can get a search warrant and take that too.  I've had cases where someone refused to give blood to the police, so we get a warrant for a forcible blood draw, and then a search warrant to get the blood the nurse took.  AND we get what's called a "refusal inference" charge to the jury, which is that the jury may infer that the reason the defendant refused to submit to a chemical test is because he believed that it would incriminate him.

Bottom line, call a fucking cab.

-Shaz!
9/25/09 10:36 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
gregbrady
29 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/9/02
Posts: 6772
Shaz -  The ignorance is strong in this thread...

First of all, this is not a "new" law, in terms of the rest of the country, as mentioned in the article, it's already been upheld by the Supreme Court back in 1966, and has been used all over the country ever since.

Second, as someone else correctly mentioned, when you operate a motor vehicle, you are giving implied consent to a chemical test to determine your level of intoxication, be that by some form of breath testing instrument, or urine, or by blood draw (voluntary or otherwise).  

Depending on the state, different criteria apply.  I can only speak for New York - in this state, if a police officer has reasonable cause to believe that (1) you were operating a motor vehicle; (2) your ability to operate that motor vehicle is impaired by the use of alcohol or a drug; (3) you refused to submit to a chemical test of your blood (usually via intoxilyzer or breathalyzer); and (4) you were involved in a motor vehicle collision in which at least one other person was seriously injured or killed, the officer will call an ADA who will then call a judge to get a warrant to draw your blood.  

While NY required serious injury or death, not every state does.  By the way, in New York, there was a recent decision which is pretty nice - if you're DWI and injured in an accident, you go to the hospital for treatment and the nurses draw your blood, right?  Now we can get a search warrant and take that too.  I've had cases where someone refused to give blood to the police, so we get a warrant for a forcible blood draw, and then a search warrant to get the blood the nurse took.  AND we get what's called a "refusal inference" charge to the jury, which is that the jury may infer that the reason the defendant refused to submit to a chemical test is because he believed that it would incriminate him.

Bottom line, call a fucking cab.

-Shaz!


How do they deal with drunken bike riding? Riding a bike is a right not a privilege like a car because no license is required. It would seem you wouldn't have to submit to any tests no?
9/25/09 5:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lurken
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/2/04
Posts: 7560
which is that the jury may infer that the reason the defendant refused to submit to a chemical test is because he believed that it would incriminate him.

^^infer. fuuck that. how about some proof. OH HEAR WE GO. WE ARE NOW REQUIRED TO INCRIMINATE OURSELVES . OKAY. LOL LOL LOL.

YOU GUYS NOW ARE ABLE TO KNOW WHAT PEOPLE THINK? THATS KOOL. MADD LAWS ARE GETTING OUT OF HAND. THEY GO UNCHALLENGED BECAUSE NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE ON MADD. I MEAN WHO WANTS TO TELL SOME OLD LADY WHOSE KID GOT KILLED BY A DRUNK DRIVER THAT TOUGHER DWI LAWS ARE NOT NEEDED.

AND AS FAR AS TAKING A CAB. THAT WILL NOT BE ENOUGH FOR MADD. THEY HAVE BECOME ANTI ALCOHOL. THEY ARE ANTI BOOZE PERIOD. THEY DONT GIVE A FUCK IF YOU ARE DRIVING OR NOT. YOU ARE DRINKING AND THEY WANT YOUR ASS NAILED.
9/25/09 11:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
gregbrady
29 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/9/02
Posts: 6786
Lurken - which is that the jury may infer that the reason the defendant refused to submit to a chemical test is because he believed that it would incriminate him.

^^infer. fuuck that. how about some proof. OH HEAR WE GO. WE ARE NOW REQUIRED TO INCRIMINATE OURSELVES . OKAY. LOL LOL LOL.

YOU GUYS NOW ARE ABLE TO KNOW WHAT PEOPLE THINK? THATS KOOL. MADD LAWS ARE GETTING OUT OF HAND. THEY GO UNCHALLENGED BECAUSE NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE ON MADD. I MEAN WHO WANTS TO TELL SOME OLD LADY WHOSE KID GOT KILLED BY A DRUNK DRIVER THAT TOUGHER DWI LAWS ARE NOT NEEDED.

AND AS FAR AS TAKING A CAB. THAT WILL NOT BE ENOUGH FOR MADD. THEY HAVE BECOME ANTI ALCOHOL. THEY ARE ANTI BOOZE PERIOD. THEY DONT GIVE A FUCK IF YOU ARE DRIVING OR NOT. YOU ARE DRINKING AND THEY WANT YOUR ASS NAILED.


MADD is the modern version of the women's temperence movement that brought us the joys of prohibition. I'm sorry your husband comes home drunk and beats your ass but I like beer.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.