Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: No Refusal Weekend: Illinois Cops Will Forcibly Take Blood

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Stevens, Washington, USA
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    Sometime soon, drunken driving suspects in Kane County will have a new choice: Get your blood-alcohol level measured in a breath, blood or urine test, or have your blood drawn involuntarily.

    On No Refusal Weekend the option of refusing to take a test will not be available. At least not to drivers arrested by St. Charles, Batavia and Geneva police and Kane County sheriff’s deputies.

    Kane County State’s Attorney John Barsanti announced the proposal Wednesday. He refused to say what weekend the program will be instituted. The idea was brought to his attention by First Assistant State’s Attorney Clint Hull, who read about its use in other states.

    Read entire article

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Well, it's for "safety".

    Granted, the "give us your blood or be found automatically guilty" kind of goes against "innocent until proven guilty", even though that's a now-defunct concept in today's society of nanny-statists and theocratic statists. If it's not "for your own good", it's because you shouldn't be doing it anyway, so they say.

    I believe we have some members on here who rabidly oppose "drunk" driving, by whatever arbitrary standard is being used that day. But who then turn around and oppose background checks and other so-called "preventative" measures for gun control. Go figure.

    Anyhow, this shouldn't really be much of a surprise in Illinois... as we all know of their opinion on relying on personal responsibility for gun ownership.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Well, it's for "safety".
    ... and tyranny.

    It does put an interesting spin on South Carolina's issue of the definition of a 'medical facility', where legal carry is prohibited. Some have argued that unsupervised phlebotomy is a medical practice - now unlicensed phlebotomists will be drawing blood.

    I wonder whence the empirical opinions on this? I have the scars to document my extensive experience.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed whre they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran Nelson_Muntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    "give us your blood or be found automatically guilty"
    Hmmm. That raises a question for me. The above statement phrases a provision in the law for the suspect to make a choice. How can the CA arbitrarily and temporarily remove that provision from the law?

    I think if I was a state legislator I would have to take a paddle to the CA for presuming to do my job better than I already do, without authority.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    Another thread that will be locked...

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I agree. It seems that discussion of the limits on State action inevitably are interpreted as limits on the enforcers of State policy and thus 'harsh criticism'.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with sits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hinesville, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    187

    Post imported post


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Nelson_Muntz wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    "give us your blood or be found automatically guilty"
    Hmmm. That raises a question for me. The above statement phrases a provision in the law for the suspect to make a choice. How can the CA arbitrarily and temporarily remove that provision from the law?

    I think if I was a state legislator I would have to take a paddle to the CA for presuming to do my job better than I already do, without authority.
    I don't really even agree with that option.

    As the "drunk" driving regulations are written now, one must prove one's innocence when accused by the government of being guilty. That screams "unconstitutional" to me. Not to mention the pointlessness of the laws to begin with...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    52

    Post imported post

    That's how it works in Virginia, already. If you refuse to give a breathalizer, they take you to the station and draw blood. Implied Consent: one of the restrictions to using public roads is that you consent to DUI tests and can be required to show your license.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    I donot really like the ideaof citizens having to be forced to turn over their blood against their will...

    But drunk drivers injure and kill other innocent people on the roads. This is simply not right!!

    There are people who cause accidents and the police respond to work the wrecks. If theimpaired driverwas high on crack cocaine and refused to take ANY sobrietytests... how do you prove he was impaired when you go to court?

    He gets an attorney and wins and this means he gets to drive and do it all over again. He is charged with a minor violation instead of getting the DWI jail time he deserves. Additional DWI convictions equal MORE jail time to keep him off the roads.

    Keeping in mind... You and your family could fall victim to his driving.

    So if you are driving and suspected of being impaired... I actually like the idea that you must submit to the test.

    Sorry.... nobody has the right to drive impaired and kill people.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    I doreally like the ideaof citizens having to be forced to turn over their blood against their will...
    I Disagree! Forcing someone to turn over thier blood agiasnt there will in my opinion is nothing more than a form of self-incriminating. you are bearing witness agiasnt yourself! but the courts don't see it that way.

    But I agree nobody has the right to drive impaired and put my life or other's at risk.

    A good read on DUI laws and how MADD has helped erode our civil rights.

    http://www.duicenter.com/lectures/exception01.html




  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    563 wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    I doNOT really like the ideaof citizens having to be forced to turn over their blood against their will...
    I Disagree! Forcing someone to turn over thier blood agiasnt there will in my opinion is nothing more than a form of self-incriminating. you are bearing witness agiasnt yourself! but the courts don't see it that way.

    But I agree nobody has the right to drive impaired and put my life or other's at risk.

    A good read on DUI laws and how MADD has helped erode our civil rights.

    http://www.duicenter.com/lectures/exception01.html
    Whoops!! I did not say that correctly!! I was editing and lost the word NOT.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    I donot really like the ideaof citizens having to be forced to turn over their blood against their will...

    But drunk drivers injure and kill other innocent people on the roads. This is simply not right!!

    There are people who cause accidents and the police respond to work the wrecks. If theimpaired driverwas high on crack cocaine and refused to take ANY sobrietytests... how do you prove he was impaired when you go to court?

    He gets an attorney and wins and this means he gets to drive and do it all over again. He is charged with a minor violation instead of getting the DWI jail time he deserves. Additional DWI convictions equal MORE jail time to keep him off the roads.

    Keeping in mind... You and your family could fall victim to his driving.

    So if you are driving and suspected of being impaired... I actually like the idea that you must submit to the test.

    Sorry.... nobody has the right to drive impaired and kill people.
    I do agree with you when you say that nobody has that right to drive impaired,but we are treading on a very slippery slope,when we start to violate peoples constitutional rights.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    benron wrote:
    I do agree with you when you say that nobody has that right to drive impaired,but we are treading on a very slippery slope,when we start to violate peoples constitutional rights.
    Sorry.... after doing the job and seeing so many get to avoid jail and get to go do it again has hardened me in a few ways. I despise those that drive while impaired and if this one thing helps to make sure they go to jail... I am for it.

    In Virginiayou are required to provide a sample or blood or breath if you drive on the roads. Refusal causes you to lose your privilege to drive for a year. But you can STILL be driving drunk on the road instead of jail.

    As I said... I do not care for the idea of forcing someone to give blood... but I would like a mandatory sample for those suspected of drunk driving.

    But..... that will probably never happen here anyway.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:

    As I said... I do not care for the idea of forcing someone to give blood... but I would like a mandatory sample for those suspected of drunk driving.

    But..... that will probably never happen here anyway.
    Well gee anyone coming out of a restaurant could be suspected of drunk driving, where are you drawing the line with that one?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:

    As I said... I do not care for the idea of forcing someone to give blood... but I would like a mandatory sample for those suspected of drunk driving.

    But..... that will probably never happen here anyway.
    Well gee anyone coming out of a restaurant could be suspected of drunk driving, where are you drawing the line with that one?
    Do not get me wrong... I am talking about circumstances that require it as a last resort. The guy that wrecks and hurts people but refuses the sobriety tests. If he had alcohol you would know and could use what you observed. Buta guy that has indicators of being on drugs is far harder to prove level of intoxication.

    But this REALLY is a non-issue because you can just go get a search warrant real quick and return for his blood. Then you get the blood. The bad part is thatthe level decreases while you draft it and getthe warrantsigned.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    384

    Post imported post

    So, this seems like it'd be great for any attorney defending these DUI offenders - Couldn't they get this evidence thrown out as under the 5th amendment? After all you can't be forced to incriminate yourself, right?

    IANAL though, maybe I'm way off

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    thewise1 wrote:
    So, this seems like it'd be great for any attorney defending these DUI offenders - Couldn't they get this evidence thrown out as under the 5th amendment? After all you can't be forced to incriminate yourself, right?

    IANAL though, maybe I'm way off
    You'd think so, But the Courts have once agian butchered the consitution, the 5th only applies to spoken testimony.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Actually, the protection against self-incrimination is a little broader thatn just spoken words.

    As a former police officer and then US Marshal, I can tell you that in most states, if not every state, the officer first must have probable cause to stop you. That is, he must be able to articulate a valid reason, one that any reasonable person would agree with, to stop you. I think most courts would not find simply coming out of a restaurant (as you suggest, LEO 299) would constitute probable cause. I don't say it never happens, but 99% of the time the courts will require something more: a swerving vehicle, staggering walk, slurred speech, the usual stuff.

    The other side of the coin is that while protection against self-incrimination is a constitutional right, operating a motor vehicle is not. So in most, perhaps all,states you have the right to refuse the breathalizer, the right to refuse to provide a blood sample, etc., but the state has the right to prevent you from driving if you don't meet their conditions.

    Just happened here: twenty three convictions for drunk driving, license had been suspended a couple of years ago, but just the other week the man was driving drunk, crossed the center line, killed the mother and one of the children, and put the father in a wheelchair for life.

    What really bothers me is that there have been many, many, many instances of an individual who has a lengthy record of drunk driving convictions like that driver(convictions, not just being stopped by an officer) yet they still keep on driving until they kill someone.

    More than thirty years ago, because as a police officer, I had seen the terrible damage drunk drivers had done to innocent families, the deaths and carnage they had caused,I developed a proposal that US police copy the European system and randomly put up roadblocks and check each car for proper insurance, an equipment/safety check, driver's license, etc. We researched the civil rights aspect and determined that there was no civil right to driving: it was a privilege granted by the state. However, the proposal was shot down because the public would not have stood for it.

    Now, after so many needless deaths, terrible injuries, etc., the public has become much more open to the idea.

    Think of it this way: what if that person who is dearest to you were paralized for life by an impaired, uninsured, unlicensed driver, someone with no assets, so it would be pointless to sue them. What do you do? You can't afford round the clock caregivers. Do you quit your job to take carer of that loved one? And if that driver had a record of repeated drunk driving offenses, you'd be deeply angry that more hadn't been done to get drivers like that off the road, wouldn't you? How much of your "freedom" to drive would you have wished that you had given up to keep that accident from happening?

    I'm all for our constitutional rights, I know acouple dozenways the government (at every level) has violated our rights. I've seen government documents that instructed government agents to ride roughshod over our rights, and I fear for my children and granchildren- but giving a suspected drunk driver a choice between consenting to a test and surrrendering their driver's license doesn't bother me very much.

    Some things to think about....

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    The article about this "no refusal weekend" is a little misleading. The reporter is trying for sensationalism. The first part of the article makes it sound like if you refuse, then, bang, you instantly have your blood drawn.

    Only as you read all the article do you find out that the officer has to fill out on application for a search warrant and then find (and persuade) a judge to sign it. Then, and only then, can they compel you to be tested.

    Of course, it is troubling that the forms are, apparently, already half way filled out. And there are some judges who are so favorable to law enforcement that they'd sign just about anything brought to them; they seem to just assume that if an officer asks, there must be probable cause.

    I've worked for judges who were at either extreme. Some set their requirements so high that they almost never found probable cause, regardless of the evidence. I remember a bank robbery where we had sworn statements fromfour witnesses identifying the robbers. The judge would not let us search their apartment because we didn't have fingerprint evidence. Without fingerprint evidence, no warrant!

    On the other hand, I worked for a judge who was so pro law enforcement that he liked to go along on aprehensions and searches so that he could issue warrants on the spot if needed (sometimes even as the search was being conducted- a little back-dating! Naughty, naughty!).

    Anyway, law enforcementin Kane County better be careful or the ACLU will file a class action, with the claim that the preparation and the statements made prior to the "No Refusal Weekend " show that they deliberately planned to cast an "overly broad" net.

    At least that's how I see it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    384

    Post imported post

    TheOldSarge wrote:
    Actually, the protection against self-incrimination is a little broader thatn just spoken words.

    As a former police officer and then US Marshal, I can tell you that in most states, if not every state, the officer first must have probable cause to stop you. That is, he must be able to articulate a valid reason, one that any reasonable person would agree with, to stop you. I think most courts would not find simply coming out of a restaurant (as you suggest, LEO 299) would constitute probable cause. I don't say it never happens, but 99% of the time the courts will require something more: a swerving vehicle, staggering walk, slurred speech, the usual stuff.

    The other side of the coin is that while protection against self-incrimination is a constitutional right, operating a motor vehicle is not. So in most, perhaps all,states you have the right to refuse the breathalizer, the right to refuse to provide a blood sample, etc., but the state has the right to prevent you from driving if you don't meet their conditions.

    Just happened here: twenty three convictions for drunk driving, license had been suspended a couple of years ago, but just the other week the man was driving drunk, crossed the center line, killed the mother and one of the children, and put the father in a wheelchair for life.

    What really bothers me is that there have been many, many, many instances of an individual who has a lengthy record of drunk driving convictions like that driver (convictions, not just being stopped by an officer) yet they still keep on driving until they kill someone.

    More than thirty years ago, because as a police officer, I had seen the terrible damage drunk drivers had done to innocent families, the deaths and carnage they had caused,I developed a proposal that US police copy the European system and randomly put up roadblocks and check each car for proper insurance, an equipment/safety check, driver's license, etc. We researched the civil rights aspect and determined that there was no civil right to driving: it was a privilege granted by the state. However, the proposal was shot down because the public would not have stood for it.

    Now, after so many needless deaths, terrible injuries, etc., the public has become much more open to the idea.

    Think of it this way: what if that person who is dearest to you were paralized for life by an impaired, uninsured, unlicensed driver, someone with no assets, so it would be pointless to sue them. What do you do? You can't afford round the clock caregivers. Do you quit your job to take carer of that loved one? And if that driver had a record of repeated drunk driving offenses, you'd be deeply angry that more hadn't been done to get drivers like that off the road, wouldn't you? How much of your "freedom" to drive would you have wished that you had given up to keep that accident from happening?

    I'm all for our constitutional rights, I know acouple dozenways the government (at every level) has violated our rights. I've seen government documents that instructed government agents to ride roughshod over our rights, and I fear for my children and granchildren- but giving a suspected drunk driver a choice between consenting to a test and surrrendering their driver's license doesn't bother me very much.

    Some things to think about....
    Yes, I suppose there is always someone out there willing to give up for me a liberty that they don't think I need anymore, in the name of safety. I hope you don't complain when someone works to ban firearms in the name of safety, when you're doing the exact same kind of thing....

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, ,
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    I'm glad LEO posted in this thread. I never paid much attention to drunk driving laws in the state, since I never drive under the influence. So I hadn't realized it had become a crime in Virginia to demand a blood test instead of a breathalizer.

    I never had an issue with the old way of doing things, where refusing to do either method of testing simply was an automatic revocation of your license. Forcing you to accept a method that is more likely to have a false positive, under penalty of jail time, is just wrong. I would probably be inclined to agree with the current law if it only applied if you'd actually injured people, or damaged property, while under the influence. But not the way it is now.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran Nelson_Muntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Post imported post

    I just don't think the CA has the authority to remove the refusal option (and automatically lose your license) and to forcibly mandate that which is not already stated within the law.

    Seems like any evidence he takes forcibly outside the bounds of the DUI law would have to be thrown out. Doesn't it?

  25. #25
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    In Illinois there is implied consent when you get a drivers license you will submit to testing if requested. This “implied consent” is an agreement between the Secretary of state and the driver, and failure to comply will result in revocation of the Drivers license.



    When you are stopped for DUI you have the right to refuse because a DUI arrest is a criminal proceeding and the “implied consent” is a civil contract the penalty for which is sanctions or revocation of your DL. In the criminal proceedings your liberty is at state. The state can not require you to give up your right against self incrimination. As for your breech of contract the penalty spelled out is automatic revocation of your DL. Your DL would be revoked anyway upon conviction of a DUI and probably for a longer period and several thousand dollars later. The only real fall out for refusal is most likely the inability to receive a judicial driving permit in the interim.



    No one has called his bluff.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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