Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Blood draw = warrent required --

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Blood draw = warrent required --

    http://www.statesman.com/news/news/c...rant-un/njGYD/

    The Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, or CLEAT, had no immediate comment on the court’s opinion but a spokesman said, “Any time you take a tool away from law enforcement you give an advantage to those who break the law.

    No, the court just ruled that the cops violated the law...the 4th amendment is not a TOOL. These guys are clear in their intent: they do not honor the constitution.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 11-30-2014 at 02:45 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    My rights give me an advantage? Good, they're supposed to... Not because I break the law, no, they give me advantage as a law abiding citizen. But these sort of people don't believe law abiding citizens should have any advantages or defenses against law enforcement. They believe we should be completely susceptible to being ruled, subdued and coerced. I for one will not fall for that.
    Advocate freedom please

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    My rights give me an advantage? Good, they're supposed to... Not because I break the law, no, they give me advantage as a law abiding citizen. But these sort of people don't believe law abiding citizens should have any advantages or defenses against law enforcement. They believe we should be completely susceptible to being ruled, subdued and coerced. I for one will not fall for that.

    +1

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Any time you take a tool away from law enforcement you give an advantage to those who break the law.
    If this were true, then the Gestapo should be our law enforcement model. (Then again, they basically are, so never mind.)

    The sad part is that many people are not immediately struck by the idiocy of such statements.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    My rights give me an advantage? Good, they're supposed to... Not because I break the law, no, they give me advantage as a law abiding citizen. But these sort of people don't believe law abiding citizens should have any advantages or defenses against law enforcement. They believe we should be completely susceptible to being ruled, subdued and coerced. I for one will not fall for that.
    They believe, basically, that all people are in one of two mutually exclusive groups:

    1. Raging, drug-fueled master criminals who can be stopped by nothing less than 27 major-caliber handgun or rifle rounds fired during the course of at least two mag dumps; or

    2. Cowering, whimpering children who need constant protection and hand-holding provided by the beneficent state and its costumed heroes.

    I say we fire them all without severance or recommendations.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Its such a dishonest statement too.

    Nothing is being taken away. They operate on limited powers granted to them. They don't have any property rights in any actions while engaged in public service.

    They then want to cry about not being allowed to steal more power than what was granted to them constitutionally.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    What sanctions will the signing judge face? "Exigent" circumstance.

    Right up there with "furtive" movement and "I need to check that you ain't no felon."

    Don't forget the "banana looked like a gun" spiel.

    Many cop shops will work overtime to retain their immunity vehicles. Pathetic reprobates, all of them.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    Reprobates, no pathos, bathos[sic erat scriptum].

    ((Used metaphorically from 1638 (Robert Sanderson). First used ironically by Pope (Bathos, 1727), in contrast to ὕψος (húpsos, “sublimity”).)
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Bathetic reprobates, then?

  10. #10
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,004
    Blood draw=rubber stamp by "judge" over radio
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Bathetic reprobates, then?
    Precisely. Utterly banal reprobates
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    And yet: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...cod+18.2-268.2

    Code of Virginia § 18.2-268.2. Implied consent to post-arrest testing to determine drug or alcohol content of blood.

    A. Any person, whether licensed by Virginia or not, who operates a motor vehicle upon a highway, as defined in § 46.2-100, in the Commonwealth shall be deemed thereby, as a condition of such operation, to have consented to have samples of his blood, breath, or both blood and breath taken for a chemical test to determine the alcohol, drug, or both alcohol and drug content of his blood, if he is arrested for violation of § 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, or subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance within three hours of the alleged offense.

    B. Any person so arrested for a violation of clause (i) or (ii) of § 18.2-266 or both, § 18.2-266.1 or subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance shall submit to a breath test. If the breath test is unavailable or the person is physically unable to submit to the breath test, a blood test shall be given. The accused shall, prior to administration of the test, be advised by the person administering the test that he has the right to observe the process of analysis and to see the blood-alcohol reading on the equipment used to perform the breath test. If the equipment automatically produces a written printout of the breath test result, the printout, or a copy, shall be given to the accused.

    C. A person, after having been arrested for a violation of clause (iii), (iv), or (v) of § 18.2-266 or § 18.2-266.1 or subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance, may be required to submit to a blood test to determine the drug or both drug and alcohol content of his blood. When a person, after having been arrested for a violation of § 18.2-266 (i) or (ii) or both, submits to a breath test in accordance with subsection B or refuses to take or is incapable of taking such a breath test, he may be required to submit to tests to determine the drug or both drug and alcohol content of his blood if the law-enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe the person was driving under the influence of any drug or combination of drugs, or the combined influence of alcohol and drugs.

    (1992, c. 830; 1993, c. 746; 1994, cc. 359, 363; 1995, c. 23; 2002, c. 748; 2004, c. 1013; 2005, cc. 616, 757, 840.)

    I would not be surprised to find out that many other states have such laws on their books. The emotional blackmail of MADD/DADD/SADD/BADD/TSADD (Total Strangers ....) foisted these laws on us. It's going to take some expensive trials to get them, one by one, declared unconstitutional.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  13. #13
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    And yet: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...cod+18.2-268.2

    Code of Virginia § 18.2-268.2. Implied consent to post-arrest testing to determine drug or alcohol content of blood.

    A. Any person, whether licensed by Virginia or not, who operates a motor vehicle upon a highway, as defined in § 46.2-100, in the Commonwealth shall be deemed thereby, as a condition of such operation, to have consented to have samples of his blood, breath, or both blood and breath taken for a chemical test to determine the alcohol, drug, or both alcohol and drug content of his blood, if he is arrested for violation of § 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, or subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance within three hours of the alleged offense.

    B. Any person so arrested for a violation of clause (i) or (ii) of § 18.2-266 or both, § 18.2-266.1 or subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance shall submit to a breath test. If the breath test is unavailable or the person is physically unable to submit to the breath test, a blood test shall be given. The accused shall, prior to administration of the test, be advised by the person administering the test that he has the right to observe the process of analysis and to see the blood-alcohol reading on the equipment used to perform the breath test. If the equipment automatically produces a written printout of the breath test result, the printout, or a copy, shall be given to the accused.

    C. A person, after having been arrested for a violation of clause (iii), (iv), or (v) of § 18.2-266 or § 18.2-266.1 or subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance, may be required to submit to a blood test to determine the drug or both drug and alcohol content of his blood. When a person, after having been arrested for a violation of § 18.2-266 (i) or (ii) or both, submits to a breath test in accordance with subsection B or refuses to take or is incapable of taking such a breath test, he may be required to submit to tests to determine the drug or both drug and alcohol content of his blood if the law-enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe the person was driving under the influence of any drug or combination of drugs, or the combined influence of alcohol and drugs.

    (1992, c. 830; 1993, c. 746; 1994, cc. 359, 363; 1995, c. 23; 2002, c. 748; 2004, c. 1013; 2005, cc. 616, 757, 840.)

    I would not be surprised to find out that many other states have such laws on their books. The emotional blackmail of MADD/DADD/SADD/BADD/TSADD (Total Strangers ....) foisted these laws on us. It's going to take some expensive trials to get them, one by one, declared unconstitutional.

    stay safe.
    Wow... That's worse then it is up here in MA. We just subpoena records from hospital if they go. If they don't go to hospital then its breathalyzer. If they choose not to blow then automatic suspension of license. But nothing says they shall submit to blood draw or even breathalyer. That's nuts. No good
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    And yet: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...cod+18.2-268.2

    Code of Virginia § 18.2-268.2. Implied consent to post-arrest testing to determine drug or alcohol content of blood.

    A. Any person, whether licensed by Virginia or not, who operates a motor vehicle upon a highway, as defined in § 46.2-100, in the Commonwealth shall be deemed thereby, as a condition of such operation, to have consented to have samples of his blood, breath, or both blood and breath taken for a chemical test to determine the alcohol, drug, or both alcohol and drug content of his blood, if he is arrested for violation of § 18.2-266, 18.2-266.1, or subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance within three hours of the alleged offense.

    B. Any person so arrested for a violation of clause (i) or (ii) of § 18.2-266 or both, § 18.2-266.1 or subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance shall submit to a breath test. If the breath test is unavailable or the person is physically unable to submit to the breath test, a blood test shall be given. The accused shall, prior to administration of the test, be advised by the person administering the test that he has the right to observe the process of analysis and to see the blood-alcohol reading on the equipment used to perform the breath test. If the equipment automatically produces a written printout of the breath test result, the printout, or a copy, shall be given to the accused.

    C. A person, after having been arrested for a violation of clause (iii), (iv), or (v) of § 18.2-266 or § 18.2-266.1 or subsection B of § 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance, may be required to submit to a blood test to determine the drug or both drug and alcohol content of his blood. When a person, after having been arrested for a violation of § 18.2-266 (i) or (ii) or both, submits to a breath test in accordance with subsection B or refuses to take or is incapable of taking such a breath test, he may be required to submit to tests to determine the drug or both drug and alcohol content of his blood if the law-enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe the person was driving under the influence of any drug or combination of drugs, or the combined influence of alcohol and drugs.

    (1992, c. 830; 1993, c. 746; 1994, cc. 359, 363; 1995, c. 23; 2002, c. 748; 2004, c. 1013; 2005, cc. 616, 757, 840.)

    I would not be surprised to find out that many other states have such laws on their books. The emotional blackmail of MADD/DADD/SADD/BADD/TSADD (Total Strangers ....) foisted these laws on us. It's going to take some expensive trials to get them, one by one, declared unconstitutional.

    stay safe.
    Being from Missouri I would immediately withdraw my consent...what then? Just as my overly dark window tinting, legal in my state, could be PC (RAS to seize me) for the issuance of a citation or arrest in another state/commonwealth that has more of a anti-liberty leaning...such as VA.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Being from Missouri I would immediately withdraw my consent...what then? Just as my overly dark window tinting, legal in my state, could be PC (RAS to seize me) for the issuance of a citation or arrest in another state/commonwealth that has more of a anti-liberty leaning...such as VA.
    Its like saying that you consent to a search just for walking on public land ... goofy.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Being from Missouri I would immediately withdraw my consent...what then? Just as my overly dark window tinting, legal in my state, could be PC (RAS to seize me) for the issuance of a citation or arrest in another state/commonwealth that has more of a anti-liberty leaning...such as VA.
    Doesn't seem to matter where your from or if you consent. Found on a public way suspected of being hammered and they vampire you apparently. That sucks
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Being from Missouri I would immediately withdraw my consent...what then? Just as my overly dark window tinting, legal in my state, could be PC (RAS to seize me) for the issuance of a citation or arrest in another state/commonwealth that has more of a anti-liberty leaning...such as VA.
    You can't withdraw your consent. It was given the moment you drove on the public ways. Says so right there in the law. Go fight it in court after you fight for suppression of the blood test results.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    You can't withdraw your consent. It was given the moment you drove on the public ways. Says so right there in the law. Go fight it in court after you fight for suppression of the blood test results.

    stay safe.
    Sure I can. Then the cops will extract the sample by force. Just as the Illinois Supreme Court stated that a non-IL citizen in Il does not need a FOID, so will a non VA citizen, at some point in the future be able to refuse to provide the sample. As you correctly state a court battle will ensue.

    Though, what if the sample, taken against the citizen's will, returns a finding that the citizen is not in violation of the law? What if it is a OC er in this situation? What if...

    So little interest in this law from those most subject to it.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Implied consent even when written by law is utter shite.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Implied consent even when written by law is utter shite.
    No firearms allowed. Post a sign on your property with the above wording and see what a cop does. If he enters anyway, trespass him.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    No firearms allowed. Post a sign on your property with the above wording and see what a cop does. If he enters anyway, trespass him.
    Or put them/him on trespass notice preemptively.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    You can't withdraw your consent. It was given the moment you drove on the public ways. Says so right there in the law. Go fight it in court after you fight for suppression of the blood test results.

    stay safe.
    I guess you could turn in your DL...hence revoked by you.

    Then you just travel around w/o a license ... I don't see an issue with that ... you have the right to travel.

    Folks in NH appreciate the need not to have a DL to travel.

    Last I looked (2013 time frame), in CT operating a MV w/o a license was only a 50 or 75 dollar infraction and that's it. Pay the $$ (or not) you just hop back into the car and travel away. Each state is different of course.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •