How does SA Police Dept get away with FORCED DWI tests? (Anton: crime, law)

[sleeptech210]

Nothing in the bill of rights states we have to give the government our blood

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by MattTx

The big question is not the right to refuse a DWI test but it is the right to refuse a blood test. I am all for getting drunks off the road but not when someone is forced to submit to a blood test which is unconstitutional. If you accept this as the price to stop DWI then you have no right to complain if the government slowly strips away other consitutuinal rights.

Being suspected is not the same as breaking the law. That is for the judge to decide, not citizens or cops.

I ask, how is it unconstitutional?

Lets work our way up the ladder a little.

If an officer comes to your house, lets say for a noise compaint. He knocks on the door. You step out of the house and while doing so, the officer sees you toss what appears to be a bag full of a green leafy subtance back in the house. You close the door behind you.

There you are, outside the house. I can see through the window items commonly associated with drug use. You, yourself smell like an odor strongly associated with pot and are exhibiting common signs of being high.

You are not guilty of anything at this point. What you do give is probable cause. (there are a number of ways to approach this) one is, I seize your house. I simply deny you entrance back into it. I call up the judge and, under oath, swear to the facts at hand. I am going to get a warrant to get into that house.

Now, even if it turns out the bag was yard clippings and you wear pot smelling perfume....it doesnt change the fact that the Officer had probable cause. Again, probable cause doesnt mean right. The police dont have to be right. They have to be able to articulate the facts at hand that would lead a reasonable person to believe "probably"

Lets take it another step.

An officer pulls you over, as they walk up to the car they see you swallowing ballons. Skip ahead, the officer finds items commonly assiciated with heroin use in the car and you have needle marks up and down both arms.

The officer calls up the judge and, under oath, swears to the facts at hand. The Officer is going to get a warrant to force you to have a medical procedure to get the balloons.

It doesnt matter if the balloons turn out to be full of sugar and you are a diabetic. There was real probable cause. Again, the Officer doesnt have to be right...just that a reasonable person....

So, the final step.

You get pulled over with every appearance and symptom of a person intoxicated with alcohol.

The officer calls up the judge and, under oath, swears to the facts at hand. The Officer is going to get a warrant to force you to have a medical procedure to collect evidence of the crime. Keep in mind that DWI is unique in the fact that the evidence will be destroyed in a short amount of time.

Once again, it doesnt matter if the officer is right...

The ultimate point is, in each of these cases, no ones rights were violated, as a matter of fact, the COTUS was followed to the letter of the law. This is a perfect example of how the system works.

I understand some people dont like it...but that doesnt mean it is a violation of rights. It isnt.

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by sleeptech210

Forcing you to do anything against your will is against your rights. Its all bs cops can pull anyone over now for any reason. Appearanty none of you have been profiled and harrased before...our rights are being stripped away little by little everyday and we as Americans are letting it happen because we buy into the "it makes us safer" bs. Trust me drunks will not stop and think oh wait let's not drive cause they will take my blood..haha right..this does nothing to keep drunks off the road. We as Americans have a right to say no. Your views will change once the gov you backed turns on you or your family.

Nope, that is not how it works at all...that is how you think it should work.

Again...


FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution]

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'


What part of "seized" do you think is something you WANT to happen?

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by sleeptech210

Nothing in the bill of rights states we have to give the government our blood

Actually, it is very clear.

If, under oath, it can be shown that probable cause exists that your blood contains evidence of a crime, COTUS says it can be searched and/or seized.



FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution]

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

[Azure110]

Originally Posted by Neshomamench

I ask, how is it unconstitutional?

Lets work our way up the ladder a little.

If an officer comes to your house, lets say for a noise compaint. He knocks on the door. You step out of the house and while doing so, the officer sees you toss what appears to be a bag full of a grean leafy subtance back in the house. You close the door behind you.

There you are, outside the house. I can see through the window items commonly associated with drug use. You, yourself smell like an odor strongly addociated with pot and are exhibiting common signs of being high.

You are not guilty of anything at this point. What you do give is probable cause. (there are a number of ways to approach this) one is, I seize your house. I simply deny you entrance back into it. I call up the judge and, under oath, swear as to the facts at hand. I am going to get a warrant to get into that house.

Now, even if it turns out the bag was yard clippings and you wear pot smelling perfume....it doesnt change the fact that the Officer had probable cause. Again, probable cause doesnt mean right. The police dont have to be right. They have to be able to articulate the facts at hand that would lead a reasonable person to believe "probably"

Lets take it another step.

An officer pulls you over, as they walk up to the car they see you swallowing ballons. Skip ahead, the officer finds items commonly assiciated with heroin use in the car and you have needle marks up and down both arms.

The officer calsl up the judge and, under oath, swear as to the facts at hand. I am going to get a warrant to force you to have a medical proceedure to get the balloons.

It doesnt matter if the ballons turn out to be full of sugar and you are a diabetic. There was real probably cause. Again, the Officer doesnt have to be right...just that a reasonable person....

So, the final step.

You get pulled over with every appearance and symptom of a person intoxicated with alcohol.

The officer calls up the judge and, under oath, swear as to the facts at hand. I am going to get a warrant to force you to have a medical proceedure to collect evidence of the crime. Keep in mind that DWI is unique in the fact that the evidence will be destroyed in a short amount of time.

Once again, it doesnt matter if the officer is right...

The ultimate point is, in each of these cases, no ones rights were violated, as a matter of fact, the COTUS was followed to the letter of the law. This is a perfect example of how the system works.

I understand some people dont like it...but that doesnt mean it is a violation of rights. It isnt.

I just don't like forced blood draws. You can say all the legal mumbo-jumbo you want but you missed the main point of my post. I am not against DWI testing, I am against being forced to stick a needle in my body.

I don't even drink so I am not worried about this from a personal standpoint but I am concerned just how far our government can go.

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by MattTx

I just don't like forced blood draws. You can say all the legal mumbo-jumbo you want but you missed the main point of my post. I am not against DWI testing, I am against being forced to stick a needle in my body.

I don't even drink so I am not worried about this from a personal standpoint but I am concerned just how far our government can go.

Ok, you dont like them. I can understand that. You may not even be "wrong"...but that doesnt make them "unconstitutional" as you said.

[HillCountryHotRodMan]

"How does SA Police Dept get away with FORCED DWI tests? "

When you drink and drive, you put the lives of my family members at risk because you are selfish. If you choose to do that, you should pay the consequence. What part of that is so difficult to understand? If you want freedom from what you deem to be "Unconstitutional" laws then pull your head out of your butt and quit being an idiot on the road. This statement is only intended for those of you who choose to drive while intoxicated. See how simple it is? Nothing to read into or interpret.

[schmidty223]

Well, don't drink and drive, then you won't worry. Besides, DWI is one of the dumbest things someone could do.

[Azure110]

Originally Posted by Neshomamench

Ok, you dont like them. I can understand that. You may not even be "wrong"...but that doesnt make them "unconstitutional" as you said.

Being held down and forced to put yourself in a position of "giving evidence" is most likely a violation of the 5th amendment more so than the 4th amendment.

For those of you that support this just because you hate drunk driving, remember that this may happen to you one night when you are tired and accidently passed over the line. If you are too tired and may be scared that you can't pass the field sobriety test and get forced to give up blood. How would you feel? It is not against the law to drive home feeling sleepy and tired but all of us have done that at one time or another.

Before you attack me, I am not defending drunk driving..I am defending our right to avoid being harassed when while innocent.

[majormadmax]

What "right" do you have to drive on public roads? As previously stated, there isn't one, it is a privilege and to ensure everyone's safety there has to be rules and regulations concerning it. One of those rules is that it is illegal to drive after consuming a certain amount of alcohol. If the police suspects someone as having done so, they have probable cause to pull them over to check. If there is sufficient evidence that they are over the legal limit, they will be arrested; at which point they are brought downtown and booked. As part of the determining if they have drank enough alcohol to be over the legal limit, their blood is checked for the alcohol content; it can prove them innocent just as much as it proves them guilty.

The Constitution only protects citizens against "unreasonable searches and seizures" to which the courts of this land have upheld that drawing blood on a suspected DWI individual is not one. While certain people may not agree with that, that's their opinion and certainly not the law, so there really isn't much left to discuss.