Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: "No Refusal" DUI Checkpoints -- Tampa

  1. #1
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543

    Exclamation "No Refusal" DUI Checkpoints -- Tampa

    See http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/...5079&catid=250

    The article details the plan to stage No Refusal DUI Checkpoints in Tampa over the New Year's holiday. A Judge will be on-scene to order a forced blood draw and test for anyone who refuses a breathalyzer test.
    Last edited by JamesCanby; 12-30-2010 at 09:26 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    "We don't want to violate people's civil rights. That's the last thing we want to do, but we're here to save lives," [Linda Unfried, from Mother's Against Drunk Driving in Hillsborough County] said.

    No, Linda, stop . . . don't put it to your lips! Noooo!

    Da**it, too late! She drank the whole cup of nanny-state kool-aid.

    I'm all for preventing and punishing drunk driving, but this raises serious constitutional concerns and "we're here to save lives" doesn't cut it as the answer to those concerns.
    Last edited by DanM; 12-30-2010 at 10:57 AM.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  3. #3
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Idiots.

    Didn't they ever hear of the 4th and 5th amendments?
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  4. #4
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Haven't you heard, those don't apply during certain periods of national unrest.



    Like... Memorial Day, July 4th, Super Bowl weekend, New Years ...... basically any day that's not exactly like every other day of the year.
    (by the way, I agree with your statement 100%)
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 12-30-2010 at 11:31 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    "We don't want to violate people's civil rights. That's the last thing we want to do, but we're here to save lives," Unfried said.

    Now close your eyes and stop struggling against the straps sir. It will only make this worse {inserts needle}.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  6. #6

  7. #7
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    See http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/...5079&catid=250

    The article details the plan to stage No Refusal DUI Checkpoints in Tampa over the New Year's holiday. A Judge will be on-scene to order a forced blood draw and test for anyone who refuses a breathalyzer test.
    The woman from MADD really doesn't care about our constitutional rights. What do you expect from someone who is Unfried?

    MADD is probably just another organization that started off doing "some" good but found out that they can destroy our constitutional rights through scare tactics. I personally believe they are run by anti-Constitutionalists.
    Last edited by CenTex; 12-30-2010 at 02:03 PM.
    The words of a tyrant: “I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.”

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    68

    Damm

    Bumper Sticker..
    DAMM.. Drunks Against Mad Mothers
    I hate DUIs and havo they visit upon innocents. But I also believe roadblocks to be unconstitutional. This is the craziest thing I've ever heard of! How about this, we issue a drinking lisc. Right now, no matter how many times you've been DUI you can still get all the alcohol you want as long as you're over twenty one. Everyone pays for your stupidity. This way only the drunk gets punished. And not just DUI but public drunk could have your drinking lisc taken away. We suspend the drivers lisc for DUI, does anyone believe the person is going to quit work quit going places? Of course not! We will pull him over again and again, towing his car each time, and now he can't even get ins. His driving is not the problem it's drinking while doing it. This way he can't buy alcohol or enter a bar without the lisc. Sure he can still get it brought to his house by friends or family but at least he's home and off the road. It's driving and acting like an ass while drunk that's the problem. This won't stop all of it but should reduce it by about 80% and will allow us to make the argument to leave the responsible people alone!

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    It might be a little premature to get too worked up over this just yet.

    We need a little more info, I think.

    Refusing a breathylizer is only one step in the process as I understand and estimate the state of the law. My understandings and guesses:

    First the cop needs some level of suspicion of DUI--I don't know which: probable cause or RAS--before requesting the breathylizer.

    Then, I wouldn't think mere refusal of a blow creates probable cause in and of itself. I would think the judge or magistrate would need to hear the (PC or RAS).

    Basically, I'm thinking the only change is having the judge on-site to issue the warrant, rather than the cops having to drive to get in front of him and give an affidavit.

    However, all my analysis falls apart if in fact a refusal means an automatic warrant. So, what we really need is to find out the actual state of the law in Florida.

    For example, in VA, as I understand it, if the cop has PC and the driver refuses, "implied consent" means a blood sample is next. If that is refused, then the driver automatically loses his operator permit for a period. But, it sounds like Florida might not have that. Otherwise, why need a warrant?

    If the news story implications are true, essentially the cops and judge are re-writing law that should be handled by the state legislature. The cops and judge are moving the line by changing process.

    But, I don't quite trust the news story that any refusal automatically translates into a blood sample. I'm thinking it would be smart to find out a little more.

    Of course, it never hurts to howl and let government know some people still "snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze."

    PS: I would like to see legislation giving the driver recourse for a blood sample that comes back negative. I beleive triple damages was the rule in some localities back in colonial days for a trespass arising from a warrant that lacked sufficient probable cause. Even the magistrate who issued the warrant was liable:

    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-30-2010 at 05:06 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Follow the Money...

    In 2009 MADD took in $41,006,038 and paid salaries of $20,537,936, over half of their income.
    http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocument...05bbb9af-9.pdf



    MADD, like ALL "philanthropic organizations" is more about lining the pockets of it's executives than it is about actually making any sort of positive change in society.

    It has transformed from a well-intentioned anti-drunk-driving org started by the mother of a teenage girl who was killed by a drunk hit-and-run, into a "mega-philanthropy" receiving millions of dollars annually from the Federal Government (over $9 million from 2001-2006), and bilking well-intentioned do-gooders out of literally TENS of MILLIONS of dollars a year--more than half of which go to pay salaries...

    The shift in focus of MADD was considered to have become so off-point that the founder, Candice Lightner, left the organization 5 years after founding it.

    'nuff sed...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 12-30-2010 at 06:08 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    Idiots.

    Didn't they ever hear of the 4th and 5th amendments?

    And it was raised in the case of Michigan v. Sitz, in which the Michigan Supreme Court striking down DUI roadblocks as unconstitutional. In a 6-3 decision, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court, holding that they were constitutionally permissible.

    Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, yes, it appears to be a blatant violation of the Constitution. However, he continued, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the means.

    The dissenting justices pointed out that the Constitution doesn't make exceptions: The sole question is whether the police had probable cause to stop the individual driver. As Justice Brennan wrote, "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion... The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless investigatory seizures."

    Rehnquist's justification for ignoring the Constitution rested on the assumption that DUI roadblocks were "necessary" and "effective." Are they? As Justice Stevens wrote in another dissenting opinion, the Michigan court had already reviewed the statistics on DUI sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks: "The findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals," he wrote, "indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."

    The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the Michigan Supreme Court, expecting the roadblocks to be allowed. In a brilliant move, Michigan avoided defeat by ruling that DUI checkpoints violated the state constitution.

    Texas is the only state to outlaw DUI roadblocks based on its interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

    To me the more I see these check points and the Insurance and drivers ld check points here in Youngstown the more and more it proves we live in a police state.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    News articles have mentioned the equivalent program in Texas. I don't know the specifics of the Florida proposal, but in Texas it is not used against "anyone who refuses a breath test". By law and court ruling, there has to be probable cause for the breath test first. The cop then presents his probable cause to the magistrate, who will issue a warrant and order for the blood test.

    It's all pro forma, of course: boilerplate PC and a rubber stamp warrant.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    68
    It has been my personal and professional observation that even with a warrant, no hospital will draw the blood without your consent and you have the right to refuse any medical procedure, which this is. They certainly will not tke blood by force, if anyone has heard of this ever happening, please cite! Doctors are certainly more litigation sensitive than we cops.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    In a 1962 speech at UC Berkeley, Aldous Huxley said:

    "...we are in the process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy, who have always existed and presumably always will exist, to get people to actually love their servitude."
    I think Huxley's future is here...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 12-31-2010 at 03:25 AM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  15. #15
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by shotcop View Post
    It has been my personal and professional observation that even with a warrant, no hospital will draw the blood without your consent and you have the right to refuse any medical procedure, which this is. They certainly will not tke blood by force, if anyone has heard of this ever happening, please cite! Doctors are certainly more litigation sensitive than we cops.
    Who said anything about doctors???

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...with-syringes/

    If the results seem promising after a year or two, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will encourage police nationwide to undergo similar training.

    Once they're back on patrol, the officers can draw blood from any suspected drunken driver who refuses a breath test. They can use force if they need to; for instance, another officer can help pin down or even strap down a suspect, Miss Watson said.
    FUBAR
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,096
    I believe the same thing in Idaho. I don't think there are many checkpoints, but, officers can draw blood. I personally feel this is the ultimate invasion of my rights to unreasonable search and seisure. The government should have no authority to seize any part of my body.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Just a reminder that seizures are not unconstitutional. Only "unreasonable" seizures violate the 4A. If you use the argument that courts must outlaw any seizure as unconstitutional, then your argument is fundamentally flawed.

    That being said, IMO, DUI checkpoints are unreasonable seizures. However, that is JMO.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by carracer View Post
    I believe the same thing in Idaho. I don't think there are many checkpoints, but, officers can draw blood. I personally feel this is the ultimate invasion of my rights to unreasonable search and seisure. The government should have no authority to seize any part of my body.
    An arrest is a seizure of the body. Using deadly force is a seizure of someone's body. The government must be able to seize a person if legal grounds exist. The issue is an unreasonable and unlawful seizure of said body.

    Taking blood by force for a DUI is over the top, in my opinion.

  19. #19
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Just a reminder that seizures are not unconstitutional. Only "unreasonable" seizures violate the 4A. If you use the argument that courts must outlaw any seizure as unconstitutional, then your argument is fundamentally flawed.

    That being said, IMO, DUI checkpoints are unreasonable seizures. However, that is JMO.
    The policeman pulled out the needle: "then the fight started". (the punch line from a bunch of old jokes}

    I would be highly incensed. I would find a way to nail the LEO, the Judge and the Legislature if they passed such an unconstitutional law.
    Last edited by OldCurlyWolf; 12-31-2010 at 09:11 PM.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    The policeman pulled out the needle: "then the fight started". (the punch line from a bunch of old jokes}

    I would be highly incensed. I would find a way to nail the LEO, the Judge and the Legislature if they passed such an unconstitutional law.
    Nail them? Oh, no. You would just need a tack-driver.

    Or, maybe a three-twine sisal suspension system.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-31-2010 at 09:46 PM.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Medevil Arsefardels Damaging Democracy.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  22. #22
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by CenTex View Post
    The woman from MADD really doesn't care about our constitutional rights. What do you expect from someone who is Unfried?

    MADD is probably just another organization that started off doing "some" good but found out that they can destroy our constitutional rights through scare tactics. I personally believe they are run by anti-Constitutionalists.
    This may be very true, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY RECOGNIZE IT, YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  23. #23
    Regular Member Mas49.56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    309
    I wonder if someone drove through the checkpoint ten times in an hour or so, and was stopped every time, would that be "unreasonable"? Harassment? If not I feel for the pizza delivery guy.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Mas49.56 View Post
    I wonder if someone drove through the checkpoint ten times in an hour or so, and was stopped every time, would that be "unreasonable"? Harassment? If not I feel for the pizza delivery guy.
    Actually, that might (if lawful) be a good way to protest these checkpoints. Get about a hundred folks to drive in circles, repeatedly going through the checkpoints sober.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396
    I wonder if the police can keep the blood sample analyze the DNA and put it in a database though you've committed no crime but had your blood taken under suspicion of DUI.

    I would hope that blood sample would be considered your lawful property.

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
  •