No Refusal Weekend: Illinois Cops Will Forcibly Take Blood

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.

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....

Click to expand...

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....

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.

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?

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.

imported post

Well, these days its not as simple as "accept our rules and submit, or don't drive." In today's world, you almost have to drive to survive. It isn't a matter of whether to drive or not, you have to.

That being said, there has to be some common sense in use when considering these cases. If you don't have to submit to testing when stopped, then what is the point of even stopping anyone? You won't find out that someone was DUI until they kill someone or themselves. I know a lot of you are alarmists when it comes to civil liberties, and I guess that I am too, but there are practical considerations here. Alcohol doesn't take long to process. It is only a matter of a few hours at best, after drinking, that your BAC is down to normal levels.

So, I don't get too upset by this. If you're stopped, take the test, the breathalyzer.

Now, DUI Checkpoints -- THAT is another thing entirely.

imported post

John wrote:

Well, these days its not as simple as "accept our rules and submit, or don't drive." In today's world, you almost have to drive to survive. It isn't a matter of whether to drive or not, you have to.

That being said, there has to be some common sense in use when considering these cases. If you don't have to submit to testing when stopped, then what is the point of even stopping anyone? You won't find out that someone was DUI until they kill someone or themselves. I know a lot of you are alarmists when it comes to civil liberties, and I guess that I am too, but there are practical considerations here. Alcohol doesn't take long to process. It is only a matter of a few hours at best, after drinking, that your BAC is down to normal levels.

So, I don't get too upset by this. If you're stopped, take the test, the breathalyzer.

Now, DUI Checkpoints -- THAT is another thing entirely.

Click to expand...

DUI Checkpoints will take us off topic but I wanted to post that from the stats I have seen....

DUI Checkpoints are worthless!!!

The department can catch more drunk drivers if they sent all the members of the checkpointout to drive up and down the roadway looking for drivers weaving.

Most often all the checkpoints get are suspended and unlicensed drivers.

OK... let's get back on topic..

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

John wrote:

Well, these days its not as simple as "accept our rules and submit, or don't drive." In today's world, you almost have to drive to survive. It isn't a matter of whether to drive or not, you have to.

That being said, there has to be some common sense in use when considering these cases. If you don't have to submit to testing when stopped, then what is the point of even stopping anyone? You won't find out that someone was DUI until they kill someone or themselves. I know a lot of you are alarmists when it comes to civil liberties, and I guess that I am too, but there are practical considerations here. Alcohol doesn't take long to process. It is only a matter of a few hours at best, after drinking, that your BAC is down to normal levels.

So, I don't get too upset by this. If you're stopped, take the test, the breathalyzer.

Now, DUI Checkpoints -- THAT is another thing entirely.

Click to expand...

DUI Checkpoints will take us off topic but I wanted to post that from the stats I have seen....

DUI Checkpoints are worthless!!!

The department can catch more drunk drivers if they sent all the members of the checkpointout to drive up and down the roadway looking for drivers weaving.

Most often all the checkpoints get are suspended and unlicensed drivers.

OK... let's get back on topic..

Click to expand...

+1 Agrees with some research I was involved with in college.

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....

Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights was never a list of the only rights we have. The Constitution along with the Bill of Rights were to place limits on government, not the people. When enough people get sick and tired of government imposing enough restrictions that affect them, you will see a new government formed as is stated in the Declaration of Independence. Far too many people have forgotten that we tell government what to do. When you say operating a motor vehicle is not a constitutional right and is a privilege but the people would not stand for roadblocks shows the power we have when pushed too far. Did you honor your oath when you "seen government documents that instructed government agents to ride roughshod over our rights"?

imported post

Honestly, the idea of a government entity taking my bodily fluids or tissues against my will sends a chill down my spine.

I'm more or less fine with the "refuse a test, go to trial" method, mostly because I can't see a better alternative.

I can't in good faith support (yet another) thing that Illinois has done.

imported post

AbNo wrote:

I'm more or less fine with the "refuse a test, go to trial" method, mostly because I can't see a better alternative.

Click to expand...

Go to trial? With what evidence?

I can only speak for California and Arizona, but I'm sure it applies to most (if not just several) states. Driving on public roads is a privilige, not a right. When you sign for your driver's license, you sign what is called "Implied Consent". What it says is that if you are stopped by a LEO, and he has reason to believe you are driving impaired (DUI), you MUST submit to a blood, breath or urine test (officer's choice). Failure to comply results in an automatic suspension (1 year in AZ, I don't remember CA). that is the civil part.

The criminal part is more complicated. Lets say and officer stops Joe Citizen for driving 10mph below the speed limit, weaving in lanes, and crossing the double yellow line. The LEO contacts the driver, and can smell an alcoholic beverage on his breath/person. Joe Citizen has slurred speech, too. Whether Joe Citizen takes the Field Sobriety Tests or not, lets say he is arrested, based on probable cause that he is driving while impaired (based on driving, officer observations, FST's, etc).

Now, the only way to PROVE Joe is impaired, legally, is to show that his Blood Alcohol Content is above .08 (he may be impaired under .08, but it is presumed by state laws at .08 or over). The only evidence/proof is either the breath test printout or a blood/urine sample, tested at a lab.

Should Joe be allowed to refuse to hand over evidence? If Joe stole something, and it was in his house, should he be allowed to keep it and not turn it over, to avoid conviction?

Here's another thing: Joe's body is automatically destroying the evidence, through metabolizing the alcohol. Now, courts have ruled that officers may sieze evidence to prevent destruction.If Joe was a counterfeiter and not a DUI, and he was shredding his funnymoney and smashing his plates, should the officer just stand by and let him?

In California, courts have ruled that under the 'destruction of evidence' rule, officers may force blood to obtain evidence, if Joe doesn't provide it. In Arizona, a search warrant is obtained to foricbly draw the blood.

So, here's the question to those nay-sayers on this thread:

1. Do you feel that driving impaired on alcohol/drugs should be a crime?

2. Assuming you answered "yes" to #1, how else are officers to enforce DUI laws, if the suspect refuses to provide the only evidence that realistically can convict him. Rember, without physical evidence, it is the officers word against Joe.

2a: I have a feeling that the same people complaining on this thread would still complain if there was no forced blood, but instead the laws read: "if you refuse a test, you get 1 year in jail", complaining that they are being presumed guilty, still.

Unlike carrying a firearm, which is legal most places, DUI is catagorically illegal. You have no right to drive impaired, and endanger everyone around you. That would be the equivalent of saying "I should be allowed to shoot off my gun anywhere I want. Unless it can be proven that I hit a bystander, vehicle or structure, it's not reckless and I shouldn't be stopped.

For those ofyouwho feel that drivingshould be a right, not a priviledge: OK, so then we don'tneed driver's licenses. Anyone (150year old blue-hairs, blindpeople, kids) should be able to drive. What about car insurance?Since you don't have to be quailfied to drive, why should the gov't requre autoinsurance? And since it's a right, it shouldn't be restrictedbylittle things like speed limits, or running stop signs, right?

imported post

what part of the US constitution, or the state constitutions, gave government the authority to restrict or regulate our right to travel by any means?

imported post

Assuming you are conflating 'motoring' with the right to peaceably assemble, the power to license motor travel is historical and due to the hazard presented by unguided vehicles. 'Unguided vehicles' as contrasted with horses, cyclists and pedestrians that have survival instincts/interests and, arguably, an unlicensed right to the roadway.

There is as much testy opinion on cyclists' rights as Second Amendment Rights and they are off topic here.

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

what part of the US constitution, or the state constitutions, gave government the authority to restrict or regulate our right to travel by any means?

Click to expand...

Government builds and maintainsthe roads. I suppose you'd rather live in a world with no roads, no licenses, no infrastructure, no rules and no government.

Move to Afghanistan.

imported post

AZkopper wrote:

DKSuddeth wrote:

what part of the US constitution, or the state constitutions, gave government the authority to restrict or regulate our right to travel by any means?

Click to expand...

Government builds and maintainsthe roads. I suppose you'd rather live in a world with no roads, no licenses, no infrastructure, no rules and no government.

Move to Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

they build and maintain the roads with OUR money. Not theirs. I've seen state constitutions give gov the authority to REGULATE the highways, things like speed limits, stop signs, number of lanes, etc, but no power to regulate which people get to travel on them.

imported post

AZkopper wrote:

AbNo wrote:

I'm more or less fine with the "refuse a test, go to trial" method, mostly because I can't see a better alternative.

Click to expand...

Go to trial? With what evidence?

2. Assuming you answered "yes" to #1, how else are officers to enforce DUI laws, if the suspect refuses to provide the only evidence that realistically can convict him. Rember, without physical evidence, it is the officers word against Joe.

Click to expand...

Fifth Amendment. I don't have to give you anything that may or may not incriminate myself. If you don't REALLY have any Evidence, you can go scratch...

imported post

Nelson_Muntz wrote:

Fifth Amendment. I don't have to give you anything that may or may not incriminate myself. If you don't REALLY have any Evidence, you can go scratch...

Click to expand...

5th A does not protect against physical evidence. You are mixing 4A and 5A. Warrants are for 4A issues.

This thread is starting to go down the Freeman fantasy-land road. I'm done.

imported post

What if........the person was a hemophiliac? Hmmmmmm? FORCEABLE taking of blood?

imported post

The forcible drawing of blood if that it what they are really doing is a bunch of ####. In SC if you refuse to take the Breath test you lose your license for 90 days but are not charged with DUI. So if you are turly drunk then just refuse to be tested. You will lose your license but will not have a DUI on your record. Nothing forced on you just your option.

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....

Click to expand...

How does losing your drivers license stop you from driving??? How does making a law against murder stop murder??? If someone wants to drive drunk they will either with or without a license. The threat of losing your license only stops the law abiding person that gets nabbed once and doesn't do it again. Career drunk drivers can always drive, unless jailed for a long time.