How does SA Police Dept get away with FORCED DWI tests? (Houston: unemployment rate, safety)

[The Black Irish]

Well Moderator cut: see comment since we are talking about San Antonio I do not really care about "other parts" as you put it. Moderator cut: see comment. This thread is fully loaded of I am right and you are wrong type mentality. As for me....well I am just loaded.

[The Black Irish]

It boils down to personal responsibility and people in THESE PARTS seem to lack it Moderator cut: see comment. Watch the news on the weekends and that will prove my point. San Antonio is pretty lax on DWI penalties.

[sleeptech210]

See Irish said it...just don't get the charge and you got nothing to worry about. The whole system is a money scam from the cops all the way up to the lawmakers!

[majormadmax]

Originally Posted by sleeptech210

See Irish said it...just don't get the charge and you got nothing to worry about. The whole system is a money scam from the cops all the way up to the lawmakers!

Yeah, because innocent citizens and police officers are not being injured and killed by drunk drivers in this city on a regular basis!

How anyone can say that anti-DWI enforcement is a revenue generator is beyond me, but it is always claimed that there is a fair number of uneducated people in this city. Comments such as those only lead credence to such claims...

Cops don't get any more money for arresting people who are driving drunk then they do people who are shoplifting at Ingram Park Mall. As a matter of fact, having seen both types of arrests, the former is much more of an administrative nightmare for the officer!

But such ignorance is also propagated by the fact that in this day and age we still have 15 people a day on average being arrested for drunk driving. God only knows how many are getting away with it! The penalties should be strict and unwavering, no allowances or excuses accepted for anyone caught above the minimum BAC level behind the wheel and no measures should be excepted from proving their guilt. As far as I am concerned, a person's rights go out the window the minute they get behind the wheel of a car after drinking too much alcohol; and I don't give a rat's ass how "infringed" they feel because of the tactics used to prove it.

Grow up and find a responsible way to act, or be treated like a spoiled child...

[GWhopper]

I don't drink anymore, so I usually just kind of chuckle when I see those "No refusal" messages on the highway. However, this thread got me to thinking.

Years ago I bought a fairly nice German sports car. I went out on a Sunday night to see a movie with a friend. On the way back, I got stopped by a police officer. Wasn't speeding, wasn't weaving, nothing. I looked a little young to be driving such a nice car, and was dressed in what would best be described as "comfort clothes",most likely what most would wear to do yard work. The police officer gave me a sobriety test, which I passed (hadn't been drinking) but clearly was reluctant to let me go. he then told me my eyes were red and asked if I had been smoking pot. I thought he was joking, I had never done pot in my life and didn't even smoke except for a nice cigar once or twice a year. The officer seemed like he was reaching, and asked if he could search my car for "paraphernalia". I told him sure, I had nothing to hide. He made me stand with my hands on the hood of his car while he searched my car and found....nothing. He let me go without even an apology.

I guess my point is under this new "no refusal" law, he could have forced me to take a blood test, yet he had no probable cause to stop me. I was always convinced he just didn't think someone who looked like me at the time had a reason to be driving a car like that. While most police officers are honest, hard working guys, there will always be a few who will for reason of personal prejudice or something else, abuse their authority. It bothers me that a law like this can and does empower these types of guys.

[Soviet]

Originally Posted by GWhopper

I don't drink anymore, so I usually just kind of chuckle when I see those "No refusal" messages on the highway. However, this thread got me to thinking.

Years ago I bought a fairly nice German sports car. I went out on a Sunday night to see a movie with a friend. On the way back, I got stopped by a police officer. Wasn't speeding, wasn't weaving, nothing. I looked a little young to be driving such a nice car, and was dressed in what would best be described as "comfort clothes",most likely what most would wear to do yard work. The police officer gave me a sobriety test, which I passed (hadn't been drinking) but clearly was reluctant to let me go. he then told me my eyes were red and asked if I had been smoking pot. I thought he was joking, I had never done pot in my life and didn't even smoke except for a nice cigar once or twice a year. The officer seemed like he was reaching, and asked if he could search my car for "paraphernalia". I told him sure, I had nothing to hide. He made me stand with my hands on the hood of his car while he searched my car and found....nothing. He let me go without even an apology.

I guess my point is under this new "no refusal" law, he could have forced me to take a blood test, yet he had no probable cause to stop me. I was always convinced he just didn't think someone who looked like me at the time had a reason to be driving a car like that. While most police officers are honest, hard working guys, there will always be a few who will for reason of personal prejudice or something else, abuse their authority. It bothers me that a law like this can and does empower these types of guys.

Out of curiosity, which German sports car was it? I love German cars! Also, you know that you can say "I do not consent to a search of the vehicle." when they ask you if they can search it. They have to ask your permission if they do not have probable cause. I would NEVER consent. What if they plant a baggie of weed they got from the last guy? No way am I letting them anywhere near my car.

[GWhopper]

Originally Posted by Soviet

Out of curiosity, which German sports car was it? I love German cars! Also, you know that you can say "I do not consent to a search of the vehicle." when they ask you if they can search it. They have to ask your permission if they do not have probable cause. I would NEVER consent. What if they plant a baggie of weed they got from the last guy? No way am I letting them anywhere near my car.

Good point. I was just a little shaken up. Other then some tickets for speeding, I had never really been stopped by a cop and asked to leave the vehicle before.

It was an Audi TT roadster. The first year they introduced the convertible. Worst car I ever owned.

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by majormadmax

As far as I am concerned, a person's rights go out the window the minute they get behind the wheel of a car after drinking too much alcohol; and I don't give a rat's ass how "infringed" they feel because of the tactics used to prove it.

Grow up and find a responsible way to act, or be treated like a spoiled child...

I truly understand your feeling that way, and in my heart I want to agree. The problem is, and it's a big problem, is that this tactic can, and will be, abused. I don't drink or use drugs, but I object to unconstitutional search and seizure. If a policeman thinks my eyes are red, he doesn't have the right to demand a blood sample. I will refuse to give a blood sample because I am concerned about DNA coding of the population. We don't know what that data may be used for in the future. This means I may well be arrested, have my car impounded, have to pay a lawyer lots of money to clear myself of standing up for my constitutional rights. We have to take a stand somewhere if we are to keep what's left of our freedom.

[majormadmax]

While I can't provide statistics because any search for information on DWIs in SA results in a huge list of lawyers who defend against the charge, I can say from experience that the vast majority of DWI arrests do result in convictions and those that don't aren't always an indication that the accused was innocent but instead was acquitted on some technicality.

The changes of a truly innocent person being arrested for DWI without any other issues be present (such as being on prescription medication or suffering from some ailment, both of which still can result in impaired driving charges) are extremely rare, despite what the tin hat crowd would lead you to believe. While we have dropped from 11th to 16th spot in the Top 20 cities for the percentage of drunk drivers (source), an achievement that can be attributed to this new 'no refusal' rule and the SAPD doing a better job of tracking down drunks and arresting them; it remains an indication that driving while intoxicated is still an issue here.

The Express News had a good editorial on this a year ago, and the harrowing fact include was that at that time, approximately 78,000 Texas motorists have three or more DWI convictions according to the DPS!

And here in San Antonio, a person loses their life to drunk driving every week!

DWI woes need smart solutions - San Antonio Express-News

And as for claims of 'revenue generation,' that same article notes that "over the last 10 years, 1.2 million motorists have been fined to the tune of $1.7 billion, but the state has only been able to collect $672 million. It’s hardly the revenue generator it was made out to be with $1.1 billion in uncollected surcharges!" So much for that argument!

The bottom line, as noted in that editorial and which has been stated numerous times in this thread, is that the state does not need any more new DWI laws. Stricter enforcement of the existing laws and modification of the surcharges so prosecution of the cases can get moving again would suffice in getting this stain on society removed.

Cheers! M2

[HillCountryHotRodMan]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

I truly understand your feeling that way, and in my heart I want to agree. The problem is, and it's a big problem, is that this tactic can, and will be, abused. I don't drink or use drugs, but I object to unconstitutional search and seizure.

You can't have it both ways. If you don't drug or drink, you probably have a good idea about the damaging effects it has to society. Illegal drugs are illegal. If a person gets arrested for having/using/possessing/selling illegal drugs, it's not unconstitutional.... they broke the law so tough luck.

San Antonio is a drug haven, and it needs to be cleaned up. Maybe then half of the idiots will either move or get locked away. Personally, I don't want to see them get locked up.... just move away... far away. People who use drugs act like total idiots.