Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-21-2011, 09:01 PM
 
1,027 posts, read 1,499,974 times
Reputation: 1080

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattTx View Post
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.
Not even close. It is physical evidence, not testimony. You are not "giving" anything. It is being seized.

How is it different than collecting evidence of a rape?

Woman calls the police and says "I was raped by my mailman" The police investigate and find probable cause that the mailman did rape this woman.

There is also DNA. So, the Judge signs a warrant for the police to seize DNA from the mailman.

The 4th (posted here plenty of times) allows for the seizing of an entire person. (what is often called an arrest) It allows for the seizing of a "thing."

The 5th deals with testimony and REAFFIRMS the 4th...you CAN be deprived of life/liberty/property. There is just a legal way to go about it.

Last edited by Neshomamench; 12-21-2011 at 09:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-21-2011, 09:51 PM
 
15,912 posts, read 20,196,672 times
Reputation: 7693
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeptech210 View Post
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.
Why should we trust you?

People who drink and drive don't care in the least whose lives and property they endanger, there are no laws or appealing to their common sense that seems to stop them so........

I'm sure SAPD will do the normal sobriety test first before they insist on any other tests and if the person refuses the test?

SCREW THEM AND THEIR RIGHTS, THEY GAVE THEM UP WHEN THEY GOT BEHIND THE WHEEL AFTER DRINKING....

As far as the rest of your rant goes take it to the P&OC forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:20 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
2,817 posts, read 3,461,258 times
Reputation: 1252
what i wonder about is how a person who is caught with a DUI actually keep their license and do it again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:32 AM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
8,399 posts, read 22,987,315 times
Reputation: 4435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torpedos View Post
what i wonder about is how a person who is caught with a DUI actually keep their license and do it again.
That has to do with lawyers and the court system here, and nothing to do with the SAPD, which does as much as it can within its authority to catch and arrest those driving drunk...

Any anger over those being allowed to drive again after a DWI/DUI arrest should be directed toward the legal system and not the police.

Speaking of which, anyone heard any updates on the R.C. Buford DWI arrest?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:48 AM
 
545 posts, read 1,061,692 times
Reputation: 464
We turned into a police state as soon they passed the seat belt laws.

Move along, citizen. If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Schertz, TX
418 posts, read 784,495 times
Reputation: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by wehotex View Post
I hardly ever drink alcohol, but I've noticed freeway signage that warn that suspected drivers cannot refuse DWI tests from an arresting officer. Isn't this unconstitutional in any way? Shouldn't "the law" protect drivers from unreasonable tests? Or is it another case of the law trampling over our civil rights and liberties?
I don't have a problem with this.

I'm sure the officers will have some suspicion a driver is intoxicated
before pulling them over for a DWI test.

Better this than being "trampled" by a drunk driver.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 10:24 AM
 
6,707 posts, read 8,776,563 times
Reputation: 4861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neshomamench View Post
Not even close. It is physical evidence, not testimony. You are not "giving" anything. It is being seized.

How is it different than collecting evidence of a rape?

Woman calls the police and says "I was raped by my mailman" The police investigate and find probable cause that the mailman did rape this woman.

There is also DNA. So, the Judge signs a warrant for the police to seize DNA from the mailman.

The 4th (posted here plenty of times) allows for the seizing of an entire person. (what is often called an arrest) It allows for the seizing of a "thing."

The 5th deals with testimony and REAFFIRMS the 4th...you CAN be deprived of life/liberty/property. There is just a legal way to go about it.

You make very good points but I still can't justify a forced blood draw on people that have been pulled over purely on suspection alone. I don't trust cops enough to assume they are going to follow the law when drawing up the paperwork for the warrant every single time. That is my opinion.

DWI offenders should be dealt with harshly the FIRST TIME without innocent bystanders at risk of being harrassed. If we can just throw them all into jail and fine them $100,000 for the first offense, then we wouldn't have to be discussing forced blood draws. Of course, that is just wishful thinking on my behalf.

I have nothing more to say about this issue but I do want to thank you for making the good points without acting arrogant as some others here do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 10:59 AM
 
554 posts, read 1,067,421 times
Reputation: 638
I don't understand the whole no refusal thing. What happened before "no refusal" was put into place? If the cops see you driving erractically and stop you, suspect you have been drinking, give you a FST, you fail and they take you in for a breathalyzer, and you fail, they then ask to take a blood sample, and you refuse, then what? I am sure it wasn't that easy to get out of a DWI just because you refused the blood test, or was it? What if you also refused to do the FST and breathalyzer? I guess I just don't understand the whole process and how "no refusal"was changed things in a manner that allows a higher prosecution rate for DWI.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 02:48 PM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
8,399 posts, read 22,987,315 times
Reputation: 4435
It's obviously tougher to convict someone without knowing their blood alcohol level at the time of their arrest. It was a loophole in the law that was closed by state and local lawmakers, and rightfully so.

It is idiotic to even suggest that there is some infringement on someone's "rights" because they are suspected of committing a crime that regularly injures and kills people in this city. I am sure their attitude would change quickly the second a friend or relative is hurt or killed by a drunk driver; but for now their "arrogance" comes from their ignorance.

But the biggest laugh in this thread is the comment by someone who doesn't trust the police, but would be the first and loudest to complain if they didn't trust him!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 02:59 PM
 
6,707 posts, read 8,776,563 times
Reputation: 4861
Quote:
Originally Posted by majormadmax View Post
It's obviously tougher to convict someone without knowing their blood alcohol level at the time of their arrest. It was a loophole in the law that was closed by state and local lawmakers, and rightfully so.

It is idiotic to even suggest that there is some infringement on someone's "rights" because they are suspected of committing a crime that regularly injures and kills people in this city. I am sure their attitude would change quickly the second a friend or relative is hurt or killed by a drunk driver; but for now their "arrogance" comes from their ignorance.

But the biggest laugh in this thread is the comment by someone who doesn't trust the police, but would be the first and loudest to complain if they didn't trust him!
Didn't you make a poll on here about San Antonians trusting SAPD? What was the result of that poll again? That was actually the biggest laugh, at least to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top