• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

"No Refusal" DUI Checkpoints -- Tampa

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA

"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:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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:

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
"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}.
 

CenTex

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
276
Location
,,
See http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=165079&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:

shotcop

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
67
Location
Colorado
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!
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
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/FinDocuments//2009/942/707/2009-942707273-05bbb9af-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:

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
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.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
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.
 

shotcop

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
67
Location
Colorado
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.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
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:

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
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/2009/sep/14/armed-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
 

carracer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
1,108
Location
Nampa, Idaho, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
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.
 

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
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:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:
Top