How does SA Police Dept get away with FORCED DWI tests? (Howe: school, to live)

[kevcrawford]

Originally Posted by HillCountryHotRodMan

Or at least drink at home if planning on getting drunk.

Ahhh where's the fun in that... you don't get to have a babbling conversation about pointless drivel with strangers you just met... or take that person home for drunken sex that you won't remember the next day... or get stabbed or shot or run over outside of the sports bar...

Guess it's more fun to get drunk away from home and figure out the rest on the fly!

Exactly. Back in my partying days there were a ton of concerts and great times that I had, but often didn't remember because I drank too much. Realized that I had MUCH more fun when I remembered things.

[huckster]

You are writing off the entire population a of S.A. as stupid with one post.
The citizen-taxpayer, urban planners, the bus transit system, tavern placement, the unwashed rabble,(as if only one income bracket drives d.u.i.-
particularly good point), the cabbie industry, and write as if this-
all was unapparent to anyone. Most of all of those of us, whom have posted here with the exception of one ,cannot see this, you, can make it plain for us.
This general condemnation and finger pointing at the entire population of a town for a group of irresponsible drunk drivers is good and amusing stuff.
I for one, would like nothing better than to see a poor drunk wobbling down a new concrete sidewalk, knowing that thus the life of at least one citizen is safer. I know this deep down inside.
It is a great thing to exchange ideas, counterpoints, and information here, and so , I remain enthusiastic of the strain of the naivete that runs through this one. Keep posting these cerebral gold nuggets I would enjoy another view from the top.
Later bus routes may be a good idea but I cannot imagine the public abuse
of this service that would occur- assaults , robbery, public illness and unconciousness etc .
Kudos to the officers of San Antonio for their noble efforts and sacrifices
and to their courage in stopping these suspects,and any tool that is available
to them must be utilized, bar none.

Originally Posted by ohmanthatsneato

Most of the people who posted in this topic are the very thing that is wrong with the world today. Quick to judge others and refuse to listen to opposing view points.

Let's take a deeper look into why drunk driving in San Antonio and Texas is more of a problem than other places.

First off, you need to look at the facts and realize that San Antonio is not a wealthy city. Simple as that. Now, add in the fact that most of the area is not "walkable". You know damn well that outside of downtown/south town and parts of the Med Center, you need a vehicle to travel. Next, let us think about the public transit in this city. It is little to non existent. And even when the buses do run, they stop well before 2am when bars close and drunks are getting on the road.

So take a look at the formula YOU the citizens and tax payers have created.

No viable walking communities + Poor public transit = more people drunk driving.

So unless someone can get a designated driver or a buddy to come pick them up at 2am, then a person can either drive home or call a taxi.

Have you seen the prices for a taxi lately? They are outrageous. San Antonio residents can not afford that..especially after spending money at a bar earlier that night.

Now, I fully understand and expect that some Moderator cut: see comment will reply to this Moderator cut: see comment with "Why in the hell do I gotta pay for a damn bus for a drunk?" or some wanna be will claim that San Antonio is extremely wealthy and will bring up cost of living numbers to prove their point that dollar for dollar San Antonio is with the cool kids. But the truth of the matter is that when you drive around this city you know deep down inside that it is a poor city with poor residents and a culture that not only accepts but promotes an unhealthy lifestyle including drinking in excess.

So unless they start building bars inside your neighborhoods rather than 5 miles down the road at the strip mall or taxi's lower their fares or public transit improves there will continue to be drunk driving and there is little to nothing you personally can do about it.

[huckster]

I also, have noticed that the conversations of Tavern patrons is almost always
just babble. What is the point , if one will drive away drunk ?

It may be fun to get drunk away from home as you say, however the rest of the evening of fun may not be figured out not from "on the fly" but from the back seat of a cop car or much, much worse figured.

Originally Posted by HillCountryHotRodMan

Or at least drink at home if planning on getting drunk.

Ahhh where's the fun in that... you don't get to have a babbling conversation about pointless drivel with strangers you just met... or take that person home for drunken sex that you won't remember the next day... or get stabbed or shot or run over outside of the sports bar...

Guess it's more fun to get drunk away from home and figure out the rest on the fly!

[Azure110]

Originally Posted by kevcrawford

You DO have the right to not get your blood drawn. You do this by taking the breathalyzer. If you refuse the breathalyzer, THEN you get blood drawn. It's your right to take the breathalyzer or not. You know the consequences if you don't.

If you haven't been drinking, you've got nothing to worry about.

I, too, am troubled by government overreach in MANY if not MOST areas of our lives, but this isn't a case of that. This is a case of trying to protect the folks on the road that AREN'T drinking and driving.

I see your point that this may not be government overreach but simply a matter of protecting folks on the road. I just have a hard time accepting it.

It is kinda like opportunity cost, you have to give up something (freedom from harassment) in order to gain something (safety). At least that is how I feel, I know many here don't.

I am all for giving the LE the tools and resources they need to fight drunk driving, I just wish it didn't involve forcing a needle in someone against their will.

A lot of us are angry and I totally understand (lost my father to a drunk driver) that but some people here are being a bit rabid and foaming at the mouth about this issue to the point where they accept just about any measure to fight this even if it can possibly threaten our right from being harrased.

[kevcrawford]

Originally Posted by MattTx

I see your point that this may not be government overreach but simply a matter of protecting folks on the road. I just have a hard time accepting it.

It is kinda like opportunity cost, you have to give up something (freedom from harassment) in order to gain something (safety). At least that is how I feel, I know many here don't.

You can give up freedom from harassment by not driving drunk. I'm fairly certain that there's nobody on this board that is consistently pulled over for suspicion of being drunk only to be stone sober every time.

Being pulled over once does not mean you're being harassed. If you're consistently being pulled over, I'm pretty sure there's a reason.

Nobody's forcing a needle in your arm. If you take a breathalyzer you don't get stuck.

[TexasRedneck]

I have to say that I have mixed feelings on this....but if you were pulled over because of PC for a DUI, then a blood draw makes sense. If you're pulled over because of some other issue (license check, tail light burned out, etc), then I'm less inclined to agree with it.

I suppose part of my overall distaste for this type of thing is that there CAN be abuses - but more importantly, the sad fact that the legal system in Bexar County seems all too eager to just give 'em slaps on the wrist. WHY is it that we have to keep reading about tragic DUI incidents where the offending driver has 3, 4 or MORE priors?!?? I'm as forgiving as anyone I think - and on the first one I'd be inclined to be lenient to a degree (unless a 3rd party is killed/injured), but after that, IMO there should be MANDATORY jail time.

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

I have to say that I have mixed feelings on this....but if you were pulled over because of PC for a DUI, then a blood draw makes sense. If you're pulled over because of some other issue (license check, tail light burned out, etc), then I'm less inclined to agree with it.
.

That is not how it works. It cant work that way.

You can NOT pull someone over "because of PC for DUI"...how would you do that? (you cant) You can not establish PC for intoxication by observing a car. All you an do is establish that the car is being operating in a particular manner. You dont know the driver is intoxicated (again, you cant) they could be falling asleep, texting, whatever...

IF that manner of operation OR other violations gives you reasonable suspicion (or in the case of an actual violation of the law, PC) THEN you begin an investigation. (you stop the car...) THEN you can establish PC for another crime.

If an officer pulls someone over for a headlight that is out...what do you think the Officer should do if he sees a dead body in the back seat? The officer had no idea the man had a dead body in the car, all he knows is the guy was driving with a headlight that was out. Which invites the Officer into the drivers life.

[TexasRedneck]

If I have to spell things out to a person that says he's a long-term LEO, I ain't gonna bother.

You observe certain driving habits which give rise to concern as to their ability to operate said MV in a safe manner.....you pull 'em over, and see what you can find out about the root issue, then proceed from there. Pulling someone over on a headlight issue is a "fair game" stop in my book. But using "sobriety check-points" and such, IMO, ARE over-reaching and interfere with my right to live life without undue police presence.

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

If I have to spell things out to a person that says he's a long-term LEO, I ain't gonna bother.

You observe certain driving habits which give rise to concern as to their ability to operate said MV in a safe manner.....you pull 'em over, and see what you can find out about the root issue, then proceed from there. Pulling someone over on a headlight issue is a "fair game" stop in my book. But using "sobriety check-points" and such, IMO, ARE over-reaching and interfere with my right to live life without undue police presence.

Spell things out? Your own word are the evidence that you either dont know what you are talking about or you are just not explaining yourself very well. That isnt my fault. If we are going to talk about these things, we have to at least be correct about the simple facts.

Second, now you are changing your position. You say a headlight makes it ok, but before you say a "tail light burned out" isnt.

[TexasRedneck]

Fortunately, the many LEO's I know aren't the arrogant types that others are.