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.
Right, and I asked the question earlier and I still don't know. Since a refusal to take a breathalizer is basically a default guilty plea, why is there a need to draw blood?
The penalty in a simple DUI case is the same either way.
the refusal to take breathalyzer test is not a default guilty plea, and as such they still need evidence for the court. the only punishment for refusing a breathalyzer test is that you lose your license for 6 months to a year depending on jurisdiction. if the state wants a conviction in court on DUI charges, a field sobriety test isnt enough, they need either the breath test or a blood test indicating just how much alcohol was in the persons system at the time of arrest. and the blood test needs to be administered in a timely manner otherwise the body divests itself of the alcohol and then the blood test is useless.
Same thing in Arizona except here the cops don't bother with breath tests much anymore - its straight to the needle. If you refuse; they get a warrant (mobile app) and force you.
the refusal to take breathalyzer test is not a default guilty plea, and as such they still need evidence for the court. the only punishment for refusing a breathalyzer test is that you lose your license for 6 months to a year depending on jurisdiction.
Which is what happens if you are found guilty of DUI.
Quote:
if the state wants a conviction in court on DUI charges, a field sobriety test isnt enough, they need either the breath test or a blood test indicating just how much alcohol was in the persons system at the time of arrest. and the blood test needs to be administered in a timely manner otherwise the body divests itself of the alcohol and then the blood test is useless.
But the penalties are already enforced without it.
there is NO right to drive. driving is a privilege, however there is a right to travel freely. but traveling freely doesnt driving or flying, or riding a horse, or in a stagecoach, taxi, bus, train, etc. the right to travel freely is limited to not having to stop at check points all the time and showing your papers. and you do have the right to walk everywhere you go.
The courts disagree with you just as I do. The big clue was the determination that yes ... Americans have the right to travel on the nation's highways. I think it's safe to assume the court wasn't just referring to the right to walk along the highway.
In Texas (and many other states I believe) there is no legal requirement for a citizen to obtain a "Driver License" in order to operate a motor vehicle for personal use. The "Driver" license applies to commercial drivers operating commercial vehicles in the conduct of commerce. Of course, enough people have been slowly conditioned over the past several decades to reject their own rights, with others being kept in the dark about their rights ... as you demonstrate so clearly ... that this right has been effectively lost under the color of law, just like many others have been. That conditioning doesn't just apply to the citizen either ... from police to politicians to many attorneys have been similarly conditioned, with most (but not all) completely unaware of this fact. And on a daily basis, citizen's rights are routinely violated by mandating the application for and securing a permit to drive, which provides the the police and courts the jurisdiction for enforcement of the driving laws which in reality only apply to commercial drivers. Nevertheless, the courts know this is true, yet they deliberately violate the law routinely in every traffic court in the state, every day. But they can be beaten under the law, but only by those willing to endure the painful process of forcing them to abide by the law. This involves the almost certain process of going to jail ... being convicted of a crime in court ... and then taking the case to an appellant court to obtain justice .... painful and costly. That's why the lower traffic courts continue with this fraud, because the overwhelming majority do not know their rights, and for those that do, cannot afford the $$ and time in jail to force the court to respect the law and the citizens rights. The fact that there is no downside or sanction or penalty for the lower court or the judge for doing this, ensures that it will continue so long as the vast majority remain ignorant of their rights ... which people like you help ensure that they do remain that way. You see, even for the few rare incidents in which a few Texas citizens have challenged this fraud and won on appeal with the convictions is overturned, there is no repercussions to the lower court ... none .... so they have and continue to violate Texas law with literal impunity.
Of course, part of the problem includes people like you.
Simple.... if you refuse a breathalizer, you lose your license, which I believe is already the law to begin with.
That IS the law - but law enforcement in Georgia have decided that's not good enough. You can no longer refuse - instead - you'll be put in a headlock, strapped to a table,and blood will be forcibly taken.
Eww. The visual is pretty bad.
My concern is . . . where does all this lead? Sounds to me like nowhere good.
In Texas (and many other states I believe) there is no legal requirement for a citizen to obtain a "Driver License" in order to operate a motor vehicle for personal use.
TRANSPORTATION CODE**CHAPTER 521. DRIVER'S LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES
TRANSPORTATION CODE
TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
SUBTITLE B. DRIVER'S LICENSES AND PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION CARDS
CHAPTER 521. DRIVER'S LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES
SUBCHAPTER B. GENERAL LICENSE REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 521.021. LICENSE REQUIRED. A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license issued under this chapter.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Quote:
The "Driver" license applies to commercial drivers operating commercial vehicles in the conduct of commerce. Of course, enough people have been slowly conditioned over the past several decades to reject their own rights, with others being kept in the dark about their rights ... as you demonstrate so clearly ... that this right has been effectively lost under the color of law, just like many others have been. That conditioning doesn't just apply to the citizen either ... from police to politicians to many attorneys have been similarly conditioned, with most (but not all) completely unaware of this fact. And on a daily basis, citizen's rights are routinely violated by mandating the application for and securing a permit to drive, which provides the the police and courts the jurisdiction for enforcement of the driving laws which in reality only apply to commercial drivers. Nevertheless, the courts know this is true, yet they deliberately violate the law routinely in every traffic court in the state, every day. But they can be beaten under the law, but only by those willing to endure the painful process of forcing them to abide by the law. This involves the almost certain process of going to jail ... being convicted of a crime in court ... and then taking the case to an appellant court to obtain justice .... painful and costly. That's why the lower traffic courts continue with this fraud, because the overwhelming majority do not know their rights, and for those that do, cannot afford the $$ and time in jail to force the court to respect the law and the citizens rights. The fact that there is no downside or sanction or penalty for the lower court or the judge for doing this, ensures that it will continue so long as the vast majority remain ignorant of their rights ... which people like you help ensure that they do remain that way. You see, even for the few rare incidents in which a few Texas citizens have challenged this fraud and won on appeal with the convictions is overturned, there is no repercussions to the lower court ... none .... so they have and continue to violate Texas law with literal impunity.
Oh dear, another sheep with backward logic. This is not about supporting drunk driving, but about forced extraction of blood against one's will, which if is universally accepted as legitimate, means you have no rights of any type or form. If authorities can strap you down and take your blood against your will ... they can do anything to you .... strap you down and inject you with something .... strap you down and perform a cavity search on you .... nothing is off the table, when authorities can forcibly extract body fluids from you.
Americans 2013 .... the most depraved, sycophantic, spineless and brainless group in history.
Driving is a privilege. If you choose to participate in that activity, which is regulated by state and local law, then you have agreed to the conditions placed on that participation, in the form of you applying for and the state issuing a driver license.
Yes, it's Constitutional. Why wouldn't it be? You have no right to a driver license or to drive on public roads. If you don't want to be subject to the laws and conditions of doing that, don't get a driver license and don't drive. Simple.
Do they use this procedure for illegals? If they don't even know who the person is?
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.
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.
